Demonic Possession, teachings and practices of the RCC.

[Warren Stupidity]

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - In the bright and cheery world of "Christianity Lite," many forget that Satan is real and that his tactics are ancient and tested. While many souls fall to the wayside because of secular influences, the number of people reporting possible demonic possessions to the Church is also increasing.

Church officials say that rediscovered obsessions with the occult, such as with Ouija boards, paganism, and Satanism, are causing people to suffer demonic possessions at an unparalleled rate.

Priests can cast out demons by the rite of exorcism, but it requires special training that few priests have. Several dioceses, particularly in Spain and Italy, are sending priests to train for spiritual warfare unlike that seen in ages - if ever.

http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=53779

Reality of the phenomenon

The infidel policy on the question is to deny the possibility of possession in any circumstances, either on the supposition, that there are no evil spirits in existence, or that they are powerless to influence the human body in the manner described. It was on this principle that, according to Lecky the world came to disbelieve in witchcraft: men did not trouble to analyse the evidence that could be produced in its favour; they simply decided that the testimony must be mistaken because "they came gradually to look upon it as absurd" (op. cit., p. 12). And it is by this same a priori principle, we believe, that Christians who try to explain away the facts of possession are unconsciously influenced. Though put forward once as a commonplace by leaders of materialistic thought, there is a noticeable tendency of late years not to insist upon it so strongly in view of the admission made by competent scientific inquirers that many of the manifestations of Spiritism cannot be explained by human agency (cf. Miller, op. cit., 7-9). But whatever view Rationalists may ultimately adopt, for a sincere believer in the Scriptures there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as possession possible. And if he is optimistic enough to hold that in the present order of things God would not allow the evil spirits to exercise the powers they naturally possess, he might open his eyes to the presence of sin and sorrow in the world, and recognize that God causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust and uses the powers of evil to promote His own wise and mysterious purposes (cf. Job, passim; Mark 5:19).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm


"they came gradually to look upon it as absurd" - well that would be because it is, absurd, delusional, and as demonstrated recently harmful.

[trotsky]

1. Well there you go:

for a sincere believer in the Scriptures there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as possession possible

[hrmjustin]

2. .

[cleanhippie]

4. Are you poking fun at this absurdity?

[hrmjustin]

5. I am just having fun.

[cleanhippie]

6. I get that. You obviously do not believe in demonic possession?

[hrmjustin]

7. If they levitate I will take it seriously.

Until then go see a doctor.

[cleanhippie]

8. At risk of beating a dead horse, how can you believe in resurrection but not possession?

I'm curious as to how you rationalize one but not the other.

[hrmjustin]

9. I believe the God acted in the world at specific times. Jesus life was one of them.

[cleanhippie]

11. And the god you believe in is the only one that can interact in this world?

None of the myriad other supernatural creatures such as demons or angels have that ability?

[hrmjustin]

12. To be honest I really don't believe in demonic possession.

I don't believe in the devil made me do it or that demons make us sick.

[cleanhippie]

13. What if your god is behind "demonic possession" ?

He certainly could do that, right?

Perhaps that's really all demonic possession really is: your god communicating with a human that lacks the capacity to understand and deal with such an intrusion?

[hrmjustin]

14. I don't believe that.

[cleanhippie]

15. I'm sure you don't. It is just as plausible though, right?

[hrmjustin]

16. Anything is possible.

[cleanhippie]

17. I didn't say possible, I said plausible. It's just as plausible, right?

[hrmjustin]

19. I have a hard time believing that but yes it is.

[cleanhippie]

20. You have a hard time believing in possession but not resurrection?

Come on, justin, are you just fucking with me?

[hrmjustin]

21. No I am not. Understand that I believe God made a point of doing the acts of Jesus Christ.

[cleanhippie]

22. I understand that. Do you agree that both are equally plausible?

It really frustrating having to always repeat questions to you over and over just to get simple answers from you.

[hrmjustin]

23. sure why not. it is plausible. But I don't believe that.

[cleanhippie]

24. Like pulling teeth.

Except pulling teeth takes less effort.

[hrmjustin]

25. I you reread post 19 you will see I answered you.

[cleanhippie]

26. Hmm, perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't.

I think we've gotten as much mileage as were gonna get out of this thread.

See ya next time.

[hrmjustin]

27. ok.

[rug]

35. Well, that dialogue was a display of intellectual prowess.

[hrmjustin]

36. Your just evil!

[Warren Stupidity]

38. on par with the definitive test for psychosis being the inability to write a coherent paragraph.

[rug]

39. And the discussion just deepened.

Thank you, Warren. I am humbled.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Francis indulges in superstitious talk of demonic influences when attacking gay people

It is beyond ignorant and yet he is celebrated for saying our families stem from the influence of demons and Satan himself.

[struggle4progress]

10. New Advent is an online republication of the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia," which was

published by the Robert Appleton Company in New York, formed solely for the purpose of that publication

... The text received a nihil obstat from an official censor, Remy Lafort, on November 1, 1908 and an imprimatur from John Murphy Farley, Archbishop of New York ...

but this does not mean that all views expressed in the "Catholic Encyclopedia" are doctrinal views of the church, which Catholics at the time should have been expected to hold: it only means that the material in the "Catholic Encyclopedia" was not considered by the censor or the archbishop to contain material conflicting substantially with any official Catholic doctrine

The current Catholic doctrine is set forth in texts such as the following:

The Catechism 1237 states: Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate

The Catechism 1673 states: When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness

Baptisms, of course, occur quite regularly. But "major exorcism" is rather rare. Under the Code of Canon Law 1172: No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary -- that is, the act must be authorized by the local bishop

In reality, the Roman Catholic church typically does not encourage "major exorcisms," which seem usually to result from the requests of persons who consider themselves afflicted; the majority of requests are declined, with the person directed to seek some help other than exorcism; congregations and similar groups, which have sometimes wanted to incorporate some "major exorcism" language into their activities, are actually explicitly forbidden to do so; and the general view appears to be that requests, granted or not, are to be handled discreetly without publicity.

The other website you link, Catholic Online, is a for-profit site, privately owned by Michael Galloway of Bakerfield, and like the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia," cannot be regarded as providing authoritative statements of church views:

... Galloway once owned the website, Catholic Financial Services, an online donation processing system. Nonprofit groups across the United States and Canada, such as disabled nuns in Branford, Conn., and the Archdiocese of New Orleans, accused Galloway of withholding their cash and not transferring funds to their bank accounts. Galloway agreed to pay restitution of $210,000. Then, in 2008, the California Labor Board sided with former Galloway employee Mark Lombard for back pay of $41,000 ...

I'm not Catholic myself, and cannot speak authoritatively of the church's doctrines, but it my understanding that the church teaches that, among all church rituals, the grace of the usual sacraments provides the strongest and surest against the human tendency to allow evil a foothold in our lives

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Which is why I included the preceding announcement from this year regarding the alarming increase

in demonic possession and the proposed increase in official exorcists. The doctrine has not changed. They are not speaking metaphorically. There is no equivalence between 'forms of mental illness' and 'demonic possession', they are different things, according to the RCC.

And as I mentioned elsewhere, the RCC is relatively sane on this subject, compared to some other mainstream protestant religions, which are totally fucking nuts.

Claiming that these institutions are not teaching their followers that demons are real and can possess human beings is ridiculous.

[trotsky]

28. It's not about religion so stop saying that!!!

Who knew that good old Bob Boudelang had such a following right here in the Religion group?

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. I haven't received a sacrament in 17 years...

...does that mean I'm gonna start levitating, spewing split pea soup, and engaging in blasphemous public masturbation?

If so, I hope I at least get a demon with a badass name, "like Zephastiel the Defiler". That shit would be fucking metal.

[cbayer]

30. I heard rumor that you already do all those things.

(I kid, I kid).

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. Two outa three.

(hint: I don't like peas.)

[cbayer]

32. Not liking peas does not clarify which of the two.

If someone forces you to eat them, then spewing them would be the logical outcome.

[struggle4progress]

33. I doubt if you'll find anyone here worried about levitation or wondering

whether a tendency towards green projectile vomiting would be anything other than a medical condition

In any case, not being Catholic myself, I'm not much inclined to warm you to attend Mass

But there are plenty of Catholics, and there are plenty of lapsed Catholics, so plenty of Catholics know lapsed Catholics who do not levitate or engage in green projectile vomiting, and therefore I doubt most Catholics would expect you to begin levitating due to non-attendance at Mass

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. But would I get the same answer if I asked a priest?

Hm. A provocative question, no?

[struggle4progress]

43. Depends on who you ask, I suspect, and maybe also on how eager you are to provoke

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. Yeah, that's right. No legitimate concern here.

There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the Vatican's assertion "demonic possession" is a real thing, and that the surest way of avoiding that thing is to supplicate yourself before Mother Church. I'm just trying to provoke people. Alas and alack, I am a' thwart'd once more by thine keen powers of deduction!

[struggle4progress]

45. I assumed, based on your #29, that you were inquiring in #40 how I thought a priest would answer you

if you asked him some question along the lines of

Since I haven't received any sacrament for 17 years, should I worry that I may start levitating, spewing split pea soup, and masturbating in public?

[rug]

34. I didn't know they taught killing your children will rid them of demons!

Someone should notify the authorities.

[hrmjustin]

37. Yeah I missed that as well.

[struggle4progress]

41. It's clearly spelled out in "The Protocols of the Elders of Vatican City"

[rug]

42. Bastards!

[Iggo]

46. I love it when people who believe in exorcism and demonic possession are also against "the occult."