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
(05-20-2011, 10:45 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ] 
So I guess you don't have any tangible evidence either.  I'm not surprised. 

I never claimed to. (and I still don't have any clarification from you on what that tangible evidence would consist of. )

This is a matter of faith. 

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don't believe no explanation will suffice. 

(05-20-2011, 09:17 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
Cetil Wrote:You probably need to actually explore the subject and do some reading before posting an opinion. I don't see why "internal stuff" would not be considered miraculous when doctors have certified a miracle  as they do prior to a canonization. Are you an M.D. ?
How many instances of exorcism or alleged exorcism have you ever seen? And have found a natural explanation for ?  How many miracles have you disproved?

C.

I've done enough research to show that you don't have any tangible evidence.  Would you only consult one doctor before undergoing major surgery?  Why are you shifting the burden of proof on me?  I'm not the one making charlatan claims.  Are you a Benny Hinn supporter?
What research have you done? If you wish to challenge the findings of doctors (such as in the miracles found in the process of canonization) or in cases involving demonic possession  then indeed the burden of proof is on you. "Charlatan claims" are not being made.  I think you are not interested in rational discussion but only in making provocative remarks and irrelevant ones (Benny HInn) which aren't worth bothering with. 

C.
Walty Wrote:I'm late to the game, but I tried rereading the last couple pages and I still don't really understand what you're saying.  Are you saying that we shouldn't trust Fr. Martin and Fr. Amorth or that we shouldn't trust any exorcists?  Or are you denying possession all together?

I'm saying there should be tangible evidence in the cases of extraordinary diabolical activity, and that Fr. Martin and Fr. Amorth have not provided them.  Thus people are being superstitious and inadvertently propagating the cult of JP II such as Fr. Amorth.  Superstition is a sign of ordinary diabolical activity by the way. 
(05-20-2011, 12:22 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2011, 10:45 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ] 
So I guess you don't have any tangible evidence either.  I'm not surprised. 

I never claimed to. (and I still don't have any clarification from you on what that tangible evidence would consist of. )

This is a matter of faith. 

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don't believe no explanation will suffice. 

That's a Benny Hinn answer.  Catholics should be smarter than that. 
(05-20-2011, 09:18 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2011, 12:22 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2011, 10:45 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ] 
So I guess you don't have any tangible evidence either.  I'm not surprised. 

I never claimed to. (and I still don't have any clarification from you on what that tangible evidence would consist of. )

This is a matter of faith. 

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don't believe no explanation will suffice. 

That's a Benny Hinn answer.  Catholics should be smarter than that.   

It's Thomas Aquinas.
(05-20-2011, 09:18 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]That's a Benny Hinn answer.  Catholics should be smarter than that.   

Benny Hinn or Benny Hill?

[Image: TheBestofBennyHill.jpg]
(05-19-2011, 08:10 PM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]Vetus,
  Fair enough. Father Amorth describes in his first book how the demons can be brought under obedience during an exorcism and compelled to speak the truth. Now, whether that is reliable 100% of the time I'm not so sure.

As I understand it, it's true that a demon may be forced to speak the truth during an exorcism.  But it's also my understanding that the exorcist is not supposed to turn it into an interrogation or a fact-finding mission, because demons are vastly more intelligent than us and can easily fool us -- especially if the exorcist gets overly confident about it.

So an exorcist might command the demon to tell how it got into the person in the first place, so he can attack in that direction.  But he's not supposed to start asking about things we're not supposed to know, like whether someone's in Heaven or Hell.  If he starts asking for knowledge that's not directly applicable to the exorcism, it's hard to see how it'd be different from any other sort of divination, which is certainly forbidden.
This is the same Fr. Amorth who said that demons had possessed John Paul II's Vatican, so I don't believe he was ever part of a mindless JP2 we love you cult. 

What I take from this thread is that certain people are subjectively certain that John Paul II is in hell, so if Fr. Amorth says that his intercession has been helpful in exorcising demons, they believe a priori that he is either totally fooled, or lying to advance an agenda. 
(05-20-2011, 09:26 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2011, 09:18 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2011, 12:22 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2011, 10:45 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ] 
So I guess you don't have any tangible evidence either.  I'm not surprised. 

I never claimed to. (and I still don't have any clarification from you on what that tangible evidence would consist of. )

This is a matter of faith. 

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don't believe no explanation will suffice. 

That's a Benny Hinn answer.  Catholics should be smarter than that.   

It's Thomas Aquinas.

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. 
(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?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13