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
(05-18-2011, 05:03 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2011, 11:02 PM)K3vinhood Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-vatican+%28CNA+Daily+News+-+Vatican%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

The Catholic News Agency article says "It is here, though, that Father Gabriele Amorth has carried out most of his 70,000 exorcisms over the past 26 years."

70,000 exorcisms divided by 26 years is over 2,692 exorcisms per year.

2,692 exorcisms divided by 365 days is over 7 exorcisms per day; every day for the last 26 years.   :shrug:   

The translation of Father Amorth's book from the Italian is bad. Others have clarified that he was really giving the numbers of times he had recited a prayer of exorcism.

C.
(05-18-2011, 05:15 AM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-18-2011, 01:29 AM)Dominus est Wrote: [ -> ]Fr Amorth was very outspoken in his displeasure of the new rite of exorcism. He said it was basically useless.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...c=664607.0

How he's worked around it, I dunno. But I find it hard to believe Fr Amorth would say this about JPII  if he didn't truly believe it.  Exorcism is serious stuff.

We can say souls were lost because of some of the things JPII did and said, and all the usual things mentioned upset me as much as anyone. But I feel that God would never damn a soul for being mislead by the Bishop of Rome. Listening to the pope is a traditional thing to do. Just because the average Catholic may not see the contradiction between Doctrine and Assisi, the Catholic who buys it out of ignorance has done nothing wrong. He/she hasn't sinned for believing a pope.

He "has worked around it" because the Church still allows the old rite to be used.
Amorth said in his first book that an exorcist acquires power over the demon and can compel them under obedience to speak the truth.

C.

Ah, didn't know they could use the old Rite. Good deal, thanks.
Father Amorth gives his objections to the new rite in this interview and also explains how the exception to use the old rite was granted:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...c=664607.0

C.
(05-18-2011, 05:20 PM)Dominus est Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-18-2011, 05:15 AM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-18-2011, 01:29 AM)Dominus est Wrote: [ -> ]Fr Amorth was very outspoken in his displeasure of the new rite of exorcism. He said it was basically useless.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...c=664607.0

How he's worked around it, I dunno. But I find it hard to believe Fr Amorth would say this about JPII  if he didn't truly believe it.  Exorcism is serious stuff.

We can say souls were lost because of some of the things JPII did and said, and all the usual things mentioned upset me as much as anyone. But I feel that God would never damn a soul for being mislead by the Bishop of Rome. Listening to the pope is a traditional thing to do. Just because the average Catholic may not see the contradiction between Doctrine and Assisi, the Catholic who buys it out of ignorance has done nothing wrong. He/she hasn't sinned for believing a pope.

He "has worked around it" because the Church still allows the old rite to be used.
Amorth said in his first book that an exorcist acquires power over the demon and can compel them under obedience to speak the truth.

C.

Ah, didn't know they could use the old Rite. Good deal, thanks.

I have read articles by Father Thomas Euteneuer and Father Gary Thomas (the priest The Rite is about) with both of them saying they use the old Rite because they say the new Rite is not sufficient.  Father Amorth has written that an exorcist was not even used to come up with the new Rite of exorcism.    That is what the interview with Father Amorth, that Cetil just posted is all about.     
(05-18-2011, 05:07 PM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-18-2011, 05:03 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2011, 11:02 PM)K3vinhood Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-vatican+%28CNA+Daily+News+-+Vatican%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

The Catholic News Agency article says "It is here, though, that Father Gabriele Amorth has carried out most of his 70,000 exorcisms over the past 26 years."

70,000 exorcisms divided by 26 years is over 2,692 exorcisms per year.

2,692 exorcisms divided by 365 days is over 7 exorcisms per day; every day for the last 26 years.   :shrug:   

The translation of Father Amorth's book from the Italian is bad. Others have clarified that he was really giving the numbers of times he had recited a prayer of exorcism.

C.

Oh, it was Father Amorth himself that said he had done 70,000 exorcisms in 26 years, was it?  It wasn't just what the Catholic News Agency article says? 
Cetil, thank you for the interview with Fr. Amorth. Here is one of many good snippets from said interview:

30 Days: How does the demon set about seducing people?  

Fr. Amorth: His strategy is always along the same lines. I have told him this and he admits it.. He makes people believe that hell does not exist, that sin does not exist, and that he is nothing but one more experience to try out. Concupiscence, success and power are the three great passions on which Satan relies.  


Fr. Amorth says many similar things that Fr. Malachi Martin said on a tape in the early 90's. Non-believing, incompetent bishops, etc. Does anyone know if Fr. Amorth is traditional? Does he use other old rites besides the exorcism rite? 
(05-18-2011, 06:05 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-18-2011, 05:07 PM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-18-2011, 05:03 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2011, 11:02 PM)K3vinhood Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-vatican+%28CNA+Daily+News+-+Vatican%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

The Catholic News Agency article says "It is here, though, that Father Gabriele Amorth has carried out most of his 70,000 exorcisms over the past 26 years."

70,000 exorcisms divided by 26 years is over 2,692 exorcisms per year.

2,692 exorcisms divided by 365 days is over 7 exorcisms per day; every day for the last 26 years.   :shrug:   

The translation of Father Amorth's book from the Italian is bad. Others have clarified that he was really giving the numbers of times he had recited a prayer of exorcism.

C.

Oh, it was Father Amorth himself that said he had done 70,000 exorcisms in 26 years, was it?  It wasn't just what the Catholic News Agency article says? 

Father Amorth clarifies with respect to the 70,000 figure:
"“But I was talking about the number of exorcisms, not the number of people exorcised. You often have to exorcise someone dozens, even hundreds, of times, and an exorcism ritual can take anything from a few minutes to several hours.”

This is a great interview with him also: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...060354.ece


C.
(05-17-2011, 11:59 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Let us not forget that even Fr. Malachi Martin stated that John Paul II was not willing to acquiesce to all of the Modernist's wishes.  He stood firm on several moral issues like contraception and abortion.  


And male only clergy.
Okay thanks verenaerin and Cetil.  That explains the 70,000 exorcisms in 26 years.  Personally I think Father Amorth and other exorcists are heroes.  Very brave men.  That's quite the interview with Father Amorth on the Times Online site too Cetil. 
(05-18-2011, 03:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]John Paul II, however, is the antithesis of this traditional Catholicism which we believe to be the truth. He incarnated in very public terms what we can call "liberal Catholicism", a corruption of the faith that excommunicated the Church's past and her hard teachings concerning salvation that had bothered those outside the Church for so long.

OK, let's be careful to keep things distinct here - excommunication is a big word. +Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated were excommunicated automatically and of course this was lifted by JP2's own right-hand man. For all his errors regarding the SSPX, JP2 permitted the FSSP and some diocesan TLM's to exist.

(05-18-2011, 03:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]If an impenitent man like that can be saved, why even bother with traditional Catholicism at all? Certainly, it becomes at least irrelevant, if not spurious. After all, you can lead a regular Novus Ordo Catholic life, indistinguishable from a Protestant, and be on the road to salvation. Heck, even a Muslim or a Jew can!

As far as I can see the thing is: unless he had deathbed conversion, there's no way John Paul II, a man who publicly forfeited Catholic teaching in the name of Ecumenism, be in Heaven.

It's the same thing as saying Luther is in Heaven, and so forth.

Unless, of course, God has changed the rules and faith is no longer a requisite for salvation.

This seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. You're equating JP2 with Luther. Reading Michael Davies' Cranmer's Godly Order makes it abundantly clear that Luther was a heinous heretic who rejected the most basic Catholic teachings on justification, transubstantiation, faith and works, indulgences, the Papacy, the priesthood, the Bible and on and on and on.

I was a Protestant. I came to the Catholic church to join them. Communion was out of the question until my formal conversion. My parish priest was a self-described "Vatican II baby" and yet of course I had to be confirmed with the Catholic profession of faith and everything before being admitted to the church.

So I think you're over-inflating the issue here, sort of making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yes, JP2 was extremely misguided on ecumenism but it's not like he gave the Eucharist to all comers or started ordaining Protestants as Catholic bishops, etc. I mean, if all that was true, there'd be no purpose for an Anglican Ordinariate in the first place.

I see it a bit like limbo... to me it's a lot of theological speculation that's gone haywire. And yeah the Pope can blather and fudge words and lots of people can get confused. But the church is still basically intact. Mortal sin is still what it is: lack of Sunday obligation, artificial birth control, communion without confession, not recognizing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, fornication... these are all still mortal sins that entail eternal hellfire... according to the church.

Devout neo-Catholics are absolutely distinguishable from Protestants. Just look at their attitude towards Our Mother. A typical Protestant believes it's a sin to pray to Mary, that it verges on idolatry, that it is disgusting to their concept of a "Christian conscience". But you don't have to go far to find a neo-Catholic who is dedicated to Our Lady, or one have has given their life over to the Immaculate. That's not what I would describe as indistinguishable.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13