FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Rome’s exorcist finding Bl. John Paul II effective against Satan.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(05-21-2011, 11:10 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-21-2011, 10:08 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I can quote saints out of context too.  Extraordinary diabolical phenomena is observable, and I'm still waiting to see some evidence of it in the modern day. 

No meaning is lost in the Aquinas quote.  It's apt.    Phenomena may be observable but  all that's usually left afterwards is testimony of it. 

I could simply argue that you are wrong in your assertion that extraordinary diabolical phenomena is observable and ask you to prove it with incontrovertible evidence.   Can you personally supply it?

You want incontrovertible evidence of unobservable phenomena?  That doesn't make sense.

The possessed spit up glass, nails, vomit across the room, speak different languages and do other things according to Fr. Amorth.  Proof should be easy to come by in the digital age. 
(05-21-2011, 06:07 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]You want incontrovertible evidence of unobservable phenomena?  That doesn't make sense.

The possessed spit up glass, nails, vomit across the room, speak different languages and do other things according to Fr. Amorth.  Proof should be easy to come by in the digital age. 

I don't "want" anything except for you to be specific about what you want that would convince YOU that your assertions of "nonsense" are untrue. 

Will someone handling you a nail and telling you it was vomited by a possessed person convince you?  I don't think so. 

(05-21-2011, 09:26 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-21-2011, 06:07 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]You want incontrovertible evidence of unobservable phenomena?  That doesn't make sense.

The possessed spit up glass, nails, vomit across the room, speak different languages and do other things according to Fr. Amorth.  Proof should be easy to come by in the digital age. 

I don't "want" anything except for you to be specific about what you want that would convince YOU that your assertions of "nonsense" are untrue.   

Will someone handling you a nail and telling you it was vomited by a possessed person convince you?  I don't think so.   

Of course it wouldn't convince me, nor a court.  All I request is standard third party observation. 
(05-21-2011, 09:35 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]Of course it wouldn't convince me, nor a court.  All I request is standard third party observation. 

What does a court have to do with any of this?  How would a court have competence or authority to rule on a supernatural or preternatural phenomenon.  Why not ask a caveman to repair a learjet while you're at it? 

And why would third party observation make a difference to you especially when it could easily provoke a different behavior if there was a demonic presence.  You really think the demon would not play on the 3rd party or alter its behavior accordingly? 

This is a matter of faith.  If you don't want to believe it, fine.  But don't  pretend that you are making reasonable demands for evidence or that as a Catholic you have the right to call it "nonsense."  You can't even make sense out of your own demands. 

(05-18-2011, 06:55 AM)Mhoram Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to see John Paul II as the character Fr. Martin wrote about in Windswept House.  A very pious man who loved God and cared about people, but who was convinced that the Church's connection to the past was irretrievably broken, so it was necessary to forge ahead and create something new out of the mess.  A man who focused too much on worldly, political solutions to humanity's problems, because political force and diplomacy (seemed to have) defeated the two great evils of his time, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.  A man who just couldn't bring himself to believe how bad things were out in the hinterlands (like with the homosexual abuse problem in the US) or how corrupt many of his personnel were, so he never took the necessary steps to cut them out of the loop and find out what was going on for himself.  A man who was waiting for a sign from heaven to tell him which way to steer the Church, but it never came, so he wound up just trying to maintain the status quo and keep his options open (for example, his episcopal appointments covering the full range from liberal to orthodox).  Most of all, a man who agonized deeply about the decisions of his papacy, fearing that he made the wrong choices and failed in his duty.

Given that characterization, I guess it's not hard for me to believe that, on his deathbed, he could have realized the sign was never coming, and been truly penitent about many things he had agonized about.  At least, I'm not willing to say it's unlikely.

I like your take on this.  After I read "Windswept House" I had a less simplistic view of  JPII too. I certainly do believe he could be in heaven. I don't like what I believe to be a false dicotomy... That if this Pope is in heaven than the Catholic faith is spurious... But boy! Pope John Paul II still is an enigma to me.

Quote from Windswept House:
"But have we ever really known what drives this man (Pope John Paul II)?  Has he ever really eased our pain? Hasn't he left us in doubt perpetually? Left us so we can't be sure our priestly ordinations are valid; can't be sure you must be a Roman Catholic to be saved? He's left us in severe doubt about so many vital issues; allowed us to be spiked on so many grave doubts."
(05-21-2011, 09:46 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-21-2011, 09:35 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]Of course it wouldn't convince me, nor a court.  All I request is standard third party observation. 

What does a court have to do with any of this?   How would a court have competence or authority to rule on a supernatural or preternatural phenomenon.   Why not ask a caveman to repair a learjet while you're at it? 

And why would third party observation make a difference to you especially when it could easily provoke a different behavior if there was a demonic presence.  You really think the demon would not play on the 3rd party or alter its behavior accordingly? 

This is a matter of faith.   If you don't want to believe it, fine.  But don't  pretend that you are making reasonable demands for evidence or that as a Catholic you have the right to call it "nonsense."  You can't even make sense out of your own demands. 

Why does the Church consult doctors and psychiatrists then before proceeding with major exorcisms?
(05-22-2011, 11:08 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]Why does the Church consult doctors and psychiatrists then before proceeding with major exorcisms?

Because it shows there is no observable evidence to prove a natural cause for the condition of the possessed. 
The exorcism only occurs when the doctors find nothing.  Most (not all) of the extraordinary phenomena occurs when the exorcism has commenced. 


(05-22-2011, 03:15 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-22-2011, 11:08 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]Why does the Church consult doctors and psychiatrists then before proceeding with major exorcisms?

Because it shows there is no observable evidence to prove a natural cause for the condition of the possessed. 
The exorcism only occurs when the doctors find nothing.  Most (not all) of the extraordinary phenomena occurs when the exorcism has commenced. 

And how do we determine that someone is possessed to begin with?
(05-21-2011, 09:46 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]What does a court have to do with any of this?   How would a court have competence or authority to rule on a supernatural or preternatural phenomenon.   Why not ask a caveman to repair a learjet while you're at it? 

And why would third party observation make a difference to you especially when it could easily provoke a different behavior if there was a demonic presence.  You really think the demon would not play on the 3rd party or alter its behavior accordingly? 

This is a matter of faith.   If you don't want to believe it, fine.  But don't  pretend that you are making reasonable demands for evidence or that as a Catholic you have the right to call it "nonsense."  You can't even make sense out of your own demands. 

I was reading the testimony of a famous psychologist (M. Scott Peck, M.D.) who was present during an exorcism and he said that all the people there saw the possessed person transform into a snake like being. But when they later reviewed the tape they were surprised to see that it had not been recorded.   Smart that Devil. Sneaky
(05-22-2011, 03:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]And how do we determine that someone is possessed to begin with?

We don't determine anything.  The Church appoints specialists to investigate these matters. Exorcists.  They determine based on teaching, experience, outside consultation and the authority invested in them whether the person is disturbed, obsessed or possessed.  They not only consult doctors but they also bring in "sensitives" who are believed to have a charism for discerning spirits.

There is no absolute pattern, no way to profile a potential victim of possession.  The Exorcists state that they never know for sure until the demon manifests itself during the conflict stage of the exorcism.  Some are easy, most cases are simple cases of obsession and there are periodically very difficult cases that last over extended periods of time.  Some are quick with wild displays of phenomena, some are slow with no manifestations, some cases are determined to have been distractions for priests in order to keep them away from a dying person in need of last rites.  The variety is extreme according to virtually every known exorcist who has put their experiences down on paper or in interviews it's consistennt among  Fr. Amorth, Fr. Lebar, Fr. Fortea, Fr. Martin, Fr. Bowdern, Fr. Euteneuer. 

You can read this if you're interested:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/BEGONESA.htm
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13