Demonic possession and sins?

[Tony_Anastasis]

“I guarantee that the Crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ was a much more evil act than being possessed by demons, yet look at the Inifinite Good and Grace that comes from that.”

In my opinion, he suffered in so many ways, in order to carry away our sufferings, not to impose them upon us again as part of our personal redemption. I can quite believe that every demon in hell was snapping at his body, all of that Calvary Road. In fact he had the attention of the Devil himself, as soon as he was baptised.

However if you look at his healing ministry, he did not once say to anybody: be at peace, I will not take away your terrible pain, because it is redemptive. he was looking for faith, mainly in those who ministered or who brought people to him, but sometimes in the afflicted person. I view St Paul’s thorn as the attacks of a human enemy; something we cannot cast out unfortunately.

It happens quite frequently and on a regular basis. They range from What are the signs of possession, or am I possessed, or things of that nature. Invariably sometimes possession is mentioned in a thread and that gets things started again.

In my opnion with the Movie The Rite, that may have helped to generate some of the interest. I have been here for a little less than three monthes and have been surprised to see how frequent it comes up.

Also in the prayer intentions prayers against the attack of evil spirits come up frequently too.

It’s hard to answer this question because you are asking for bible quotations. We Catholics also believe in Sacred Tradition in addition to Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Next time just say my name, it’s okay.

Man I sure do agree with this one. Purgatory now.

This can be argued by making inferred statements from Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, however since you only want Scripture references that makes this a bit harder to answer.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 8:28[/BIBLEDRB]

IN ALL things, and demonic possession would certainly fall into this category.

You see God permits or allows evil things to happen for 2 reasons. 1. Because of free will and 2. to bring a greater good out of it.

I guarantee that the Crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ was a much more evil act than being possessed by demons, yet look at the Inifinite Good and Grace that comes from that.

We cannot see the picture, we are finite creatures. Only God can see eternity and knows all things. We are called to trust in Him at all times and to give thanks in all circumstances. Why? Because God will provide for us and take care of us. It may not be in the way we want it to be, but it will bring us closer to God if we accept the things that come our way.

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

However if you look at his healing ministry, he did not once say to anybody: be at peace, I will not take away your terrible pain, because it is redemptive. he was looking for faith, mainly in those who ministered or who brought people to him, but sometimes in the afflicted person. I view St Paul’s thorn as the attacks of a human enemy; something we cannot cast out unfortunately.

Some interesting points you make here indeed.

But what about the many that he did not heal? I am sure that there were many people in his day that were not healed by him.

Now with St. Paul’s thorn you will probably be able to quote this Scripture, I have to admit I am horrible at quoting them and it takes forever to look them up. [And I converted from a Southern Baptist too,] He said that the thorn in the flesh helped Paul to depend more on Christ, for in his weakness he was made strong. [Now if I totally butchered that I apologize.] Our weakenesses help us to depend on God and less on ourselves. And God permits those things.

God bless.

 

[Tony_Anastasis]

Some interesting points you make here indeed.

But what about the many that he did not heal? I am sure that there were many people in his day that were not healed by him.

Now with St. Paul’s thorn you will probably be able to quote this Scripture, I have to admit I am horrible at quoting them and it takes forever to look them up. [And I converted from a Southern Baptist too,] He said that the thorn in the flesh helped Paul to depend more on Christ, for in his weakness he was made strong. [Now if I totally butchered that I apologize.] Our weakenesses help us to depend on God and less on ourselves. And God permits those things.

God bless.

Well at least you were already into baptismal regeneration with the SBs so no change there
Looking up scriptures is not too difficult. I put into google what i think the verse says and after a few stabs I get a reference and then i post it into Biblegateway or Biblos (both worth bookmarking and have access to many bible versions including Douay-Rheims.

If the thorn was actually from God, then St Paul would not have asked God to take it away. So clearly the grace is not the affliction. Undeniably St Paul was given more grace to cope with it; but that doesn’t imply that weakness equals sickness or demonazation. No doubt persecution cam sometimes be good for us.

As I said, why did Jesus cast out so many demons if they are so useful in refining us?
Don’t forget these are all unclean spirits. We are the temple of God’s Spirit and Jesus cleanses temples; he wants us whole and healthy, so he cleansed lepers. He wanted to create a new evangelist, so he cleansed the Gadarene and sent him away to tell of the wonders of his deliverence. He wanted new handmaidens, so he cleansed Mary of Magdala and other women followers too of demons according to the gospels. Only in phony films like The Exorcist, does the demon get to keep the upper hand.

In Christ, all can be delivered and the priest or minister is able to walk away rejoicing.

2 Corinthians 12 NASB
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

 

[Little_One0307]

Well at least you were already into baptismal regeneration with the SBs so no change there
Looking up scriptures is not too difficult. I put into google what i think the verse says and after a few stabs I get a reference and then i post it into Biblegateway or Biblos (both worth bookmarking and have access to many bible versions including Douay-Rheims.

Ahhh. Is there a concordance that you would recommend, I have found those to be helpful in the past, but there are so many out there, I am not sure what would suit my needs.

If the thorn was actually from God, then St Paul would not have asked God to take it away. So clearly the grace is not the affliction. Undeniably St Paul was given more grace to cope with it; but that doesn’t imply that weakness equals sickness or demonazation. No doubt persecution cam sometimes be good for us.

Nope grace is never an affliction. Does anyone know what the weakness was? I have heard from some that it was he could not see very good because somewhere in his letters he said that he had to write large. [And again this is off what someone else told me lol.] I am not sure what the Church teaches on this, perhaps I should go and look it up to. I wanted to see what the Protestant interpretation on it was.

You statement that persuection can sometimes be good for us. Jesus said somewhere Blessed are you when they persecute for the sake of my name or something along that line.

In Christ, all can be delivered and the priest or minister is able to walk away rejoicing.

In the end this is what finally matters. Jesus can do all things. Glad you posted this, sometimes I forget the obvious when in a discussion.

I like the Scripture you provided at the end of your post. It gives one hope.

Another one for me that might apply here is the passage in Romans 7 where St. Paul is saying who can rescue me from this? Thanks be to God, Jesus Christ can.

God bless.

 

[promethius]

I am interested, as a protestant, to know how long Catholics have been debating the occult on message boards. If only recently, what is spurring it on?

This is not really a discussion on the occult, so much as it is a discussion on demonology. They’re two different subjects. Though activity in the occult can lead to demonic possession, so the two subjects CAN be related.

It is interesting to get a Catholic perspective on the subject. Some things surprise me. I am not aware that any Protestant clergy get tormented by demons much in the same way that wilful sinners do, although I am hearing that Catholic clergy do. Why would that be?

There are protestant clergy who claim to be attacked by demons. Just look at seventh day adventist literature! Of course, they think they can just exercise each other like snap or that a few prayers are enough to cure full possession… so take that with a grain of salt.

Catholic clergy being the subject of demonic opression (not possession, I have no idea why people on this thread started calling obsessions and opressions by the title possession) is actually very rare… but we have SO many clergy that it does happen notably within our lifetimes. Call it what you will, but the demons hate the church and especially the clergy, so they’ll do whatever they can to derail us.

One poster implied that my views on demons, insofar as they disagree with the Magisterium would be incorrect. How do others feel on this question?

Any time anyone disagrees with the magisterial teaching of the church they are incorrect. However, there is very little magisterial teaching on the subject of demonology… precisely because demons are insideous. Where God is order and love, demons are twisted beyond recognition to disorder and chaos. It is nearly impossible to ascertain their exact nature and tactics.

**

Footnote

**

: I just read this: I can agree with this. Perhaps one being possessed is actually lessening their time in purgatory then. I think I would rather do my purgatory time here than later.

I’m going to go back into the vein of pointing out that obsession and opression are not the same as a full possession, and that possession itself is not redemptive but rather is damning because it involves submission of the will in some form (although not completely except in the form of the theoretical “perfect possession”). There is no purgation for possession, only for resistance to it while it is still far from a full possession (ie, while it is still obsession or opression)

I cannot conceive of Jesus wanting any one of us to be possessed by a demon. God gives his children good things, bread not stones, eggs not serpants. Please show me from the Holy Scriptures, where any person was given a demon to make them a better person. If they were, then why did Jesus cast them out and send them into pigs?

Jesus does not desire us to be possessed. Quite the contrary, we are called to be unified with God, not with demons. However, all things work to the glory of God, so God often turns the evil of possession into positive renewal of faith through the rite of exorcism and the return of His children to the sacraments.

As to why opression/obsession might be allowed? 1) Free will, 2) because for some saints it allowed them to greater express and desire God. Padre Pio found his closeness to God in salvation from his afflictions (but he was not possessed, only oppressed/obsessed).

As a side note: it’s become pop-culture lately to “study” demonology, and while possession is sometimes used to describe obsession and opression, it’s important to note that there is a distinct difference between those who are possessed in the sense of padre pio (in the sense of opression/obsession whereby the person is attacked and/or tempted by a demon but does NOT submit with their will) and those who are possessed in the sense of, say, Father Lucas Trevant (who was fully possessed and needed to be assisted to willfully reject the demon who was taking over his will).

The danger with this pop-culture focus on demonology is that it can be misleading for those who only trifle with the subject. Full possession is damning to the soul and is a dangerous, mortally sinful state to be in. What we see in this modern pop-culture outlook on demonology is the dangerous idea that opression and obsession are somehow equivalent to a full possession and the illogical notion that a full possession then shares some of the redemptive traits that resisting obsession and opression does. This is a false and VERY dangerous notion.

 

[Tony_Anastasis]

Promethius or Paul

You mention Padre Pio.

I have read his story. To put it bluntly, how kosher is he with the hierarchy of the church to this day?

I worry about the crossing over of some of these mystics into areas ‘normally’ occupied by shaman/men (plural???). Only God is omnipresent, how could the Padre be in more than one place at one time? How could he fly in the sky? Was he using Astral Travel? It seems to go further than the Bible, unless you consider Elijah’s fiery chariot and Philip’s Holy Spirit airlift from the eunuch’s chariot to somewhere else altogether.

What was so special about him? Was he closer to Jesus than Brother Lawrence? Was he supremely a good man? If we were discussing the so called miracles of a Rasputin, we would know that his powers, if true, could more likely come from another source.

What do you think? Can mysticism ultimately become corrupted like Balaam’s?

Sorry if we are now truly off the subject, but you did mention PP.

 

[pablope]

I am interested, as a protestant, to know how long Catholics have been debating the occult on message boards. If only recently, what is spurring it on?

It is interesting to get a Catholic perspective on the subject. Some things surprise me. I am not aware that any Protestant clergy get tormented by demons much in the same way that wilful sinners do, although I am hearing that Catholic clergy do. Why would that

 

[promethius]

Promethius or Paul

You mention Padre Pio.

I have read his story.

Take some things with a grain of salt. He was involved with some pretty hefty miracles (such as the stigmata), but along with that there are many who would claim to be subject to one of his miracles who might make up a fantastic story to get attention.

To put it bluntly, how kosher is he with the hierarchy of the church to this day?

He’s a saint. I’d say that counts as pretty kosher.

I worry about the crossing over of some of these mystics into areas ‘normally’ occupied by shaman/men (plural???).

This is a gross mispresentation of what a mystic is… A shaman practices the occult. A mystic has no personal power whatsoever.

Only God is omnipresent, how could the Padre be in more than one place at one time?

Wait, you believe that Moses and Elijah could appear with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration while they had already been removed to heaven… but that God couldn’t work the same miracles twice?

Padre Pio could appear to be in two locations at once because God so willed it.

How could he fly in the sky?

Was he actually flying in the sky, or did he appear to be there? Not to say one is less miraculous than the other, just merely pointing out that there is a difference.

Was he using Astral Travel?

Absolutely not. Astral travel is the idea that one can project (of their own volition and/or power) their presence outside of their body through entering a meditative state. It is occult and expressly forbidden by the church.

Padre Pio, by comparison, was conscious and behaving normally during many of the episodes where he was seen in multiple locations. He never claimed that he initiated any such miraculous event in his life, nor ascribed any power to his own authority or nature.

It seems to go further than the Bible, unless you consider Elijah’s fiery chariot and Philip’s Holy Spirit airlift from the eunuch’s chariot to somewhere else altogether.

God goes farther than the bible. If God were constrained by the limits of the pages of a book on earth, that would be a pathetic and finite God. I don’t know why you think that this point should make any difference to me.

You know what else isn’t in the bible? Newton’s laws. That doesn’t make them any less true or any less a creation of God.

What was so special about him?

God chose him to act as a means of bringing glory to God.

Was he closer to Jesus than Brother Lawrence?

To be honest, I don’t really pay much mind to Padre Pio. I took an interest in and studied a bit of demonology (scary stuff), but since full possession is far different than the afflictions that affected Padre Pio, I never really delved into much about him. Rather, I spent more time reading transcripts and such from exorcisms or exorcists.

As a result, I’m afraid I must admit to knowing nothing about Brother Lawrence

Was he supremely a good man?

If you’re asking if he never sinned, the answer is no. But he’s a saint, so obviously he did something right.

If we were discussing the so called miracles of a Rasputin, we would know that his powers, if true, could more likely come from another source.

operative word: HIS powers. Padre Pio never had any personal power of his own and never claimed to. Then again, Rasputin’s powers were not of himself either, but he was deceived into thinking so. Padre Pio recognized and made clear that what he did was the acts of God and those acts existed solely to bring glory to God.

What do you think? Can mysticism ultimately become corrupted like Balaam’s

mysticism? Perhaps if one who does not have the grace of BEING a mystic takes an inordinate interest in it and tries to force becoming a mystic by enjoining in occult practices, but charisms themselves are not corrupting.

In other words, Padre Pio was a mystic because he was given certain Charisms by God. It would be a horrendous thing for us to assert that a charism of God (ie, God’s grace) is a corrupting agent.

 

[Tony_Anastasis]

be?

 

[MtnDwellar]

TFull possession is damning to the soul and is a dangerous, mortally sinful state to be in.

Please explain this statement. Does one have full knowledge and consent of the will when becoming possessed? Doesn’t possession sometimes occur in very young children who have neither knowledge nor ability to give consent?

 

[pablope]

With due respect Tony, how do you know what I know about the Bible?

What you were trying to quote was this:
John 9
1And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth:
2And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?

3Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This was not it. I think the passage I am talking about is about a man who had a bent from the hip or so, or some other ailment.

Be that as it may…we can take a look at this verse, in relation to this thread. Those possessed by demons with God’s permission, are possessed/obsessed through no fault of their own, it is for God’s glory and purpose.

And what exorcists have come to discern is exactly in line with what verse 3 says…“but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

Douay-Rheims version.

There is **no curse and no demon **

in there at all. it was sin that was being discussed. But sin wasn’t the reason for the blindness. He was sick until he met Jesus. Once he met Jesus he was healed. see the next verses:

See my explanation above.

I want to say something positive here. If you want to be healed, meet with Jesus. Ask him for a real life-changing experience of himself and of his Holy Spirit too.

See my previous post. Jesus will heal you according to His will and divine providence.

If you think he doesn’t want to heal you, you had better not go to a doctor, as you will be being disobedient (but he does want you to be healed so its fine to go to the doctor). In the same way, Jesus Christ wants everybody to be set free from demons. No demon is given by God, but he will allow demons to attack us.

And we have the free will to resist or give in to the attack.

The great thing is that he will bust that jail open for you if you keep on seeking him and thanking him for his great mercy.

Which we catholics do, in the sacrament of confession and when we do our penances.

He said to Martha and Mary, did you not know that if you would only believe, you would see the salvation of God. Then he raised their brother from the dead. How marvellous is Our Lord.

He also said in Matt 7:21: "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

[promethius]

Please explain this statement. Does one have full knowledge and consent of the will when becoming possessed?

Full knowledge is often misthought to mean that the person absolutely knows that something is wrong or grave. If a person deliberately ignores the calling to form their conscience, they forgo the ability to claim ignorance of the law.

Thus full knowledge is a short-hand term which does create some ambiguity on the area of sin. A person who does an act without knowing whether or not it is grave while deliberately ignoring any information which might inform them that it is so will still incur sin.

So, no, most cases I’ve read about, the person did not have “full knowledge” that they were opening themselves to possession. Most thought they were making good or sensible choices along the way. However, they had full access to the knowledge that they were embarking down sinful or heretical paths, and full access to the knowledge that these ideas they were embracing were dangerous insofar as opening them to possession.

Doesn’t possession sometimes occur in very young children who have neither knowledge nor ability to give consent?

Define “very young”. Past the age of reason (the age when one can receive the full sacraments of initiation is no longer “very young”. I tried pulling up statistics on the youngest person ever to undergo a major exorcism, but i couldn’t find any. I largely suspect that the youngest such person was still over the age of reason.

A minor exorcism for a minor possession (such as obsession or opression) is quite different and, as I already stated, does not involve the same cooperatation that a major (or full) possession does.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Full knowledge is often misthought to mean that the person absolutely knows that something is wrong or grave. If a person deliberately ignores the calling to form their conscience, they forgo the ability to claim ignorance of the law.

Thus full knowledge is a short-hand term which does create some ambiguity on the area of sin. A person who does an act without knowing whether or not it is grave while deliberately ignoring any information which might inform them that it is so will still incur sin.

So, no, most cases I’ve read about, the person did not have “full knowledge” that they were opening themselves to possession. Most thought they were making good or sensible choices along the way. However, they had full access to the knowledge that they were embarking down sinful or heretical paths, and full access to the knowledge that these ideas they were embracing were dangerous insofar as opening them to possession.

Define “very young”. Past the age of reason (the age when one can receive the full sacraments of initiation is no longer “very young”. I tried pulling up statistics on the youngest person ever to undergo a major exorcism, but i couldn’t find any. I largely suspect that the youngest such person was still over the age of reason.

A minor exorcism for a minor possession (such as obsession or opression) is quite different and, as I already stated, does not involve the same cooperatation that a major (or full) possession does.

I understand about full knowledge and also the sin of negligence. I’m ok with that. So, you are thinking that possession requires an action on the part of the victim. I am not sure about that. Satan is a prowling lion. I know that often times the victim can be assigned fault, but I am not sure that is always the case. I was told that an exorcist recently performed a full exorcism on a two year old child.

 

[promethius]

I understand about full knowledge and also the sin of negligence. I’m ok with that. So, you are thinking that possession requires an action on the part of the victim. I am not sure about that. Satan is a prowling lion. I know that often times the victim can be assigned fault, but I am not sure that is always the case.

All the cases I’ve read where the victim was interviewed afterwards, the victims could point where they went wrong, and some could even p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment they reached a sort of precipice or point of no return… where their will could no longer reject the demon. Example: a case of a priest who became possessed… his precipice was when he tried to rebaptise himself in the name of father earth, mother nature, etc. Then again, this was the culmination of a series of acts and heretical beliefs embraced which led to possession. It was not a one time act that allowed an immediate take-over.

I was told that an exorcist recently performed a full exorcism on a two year old child.

That would be nearly impossible, since a major exorcism requires the will of the person to reject the demon and involves some fairly complex rites.

However, can you quote a source for this? Even the name of the exorcist or the victim might be sufficient.

It is entirely possible that the source is off… that the “exorcist” was a protestant who thinks they have the authority to throw out demons willy nilly. It is also possible that where you heard this from mistook a minor exorcism to be a major exorcism.

 

[MtnDwellar]

All the cases I’ve read where the victim was interviewed afterwards, the victims could point where they went wrong, and some could even p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment they reached a sort of precipice or point of no return… where their will could no longer reject the demon. Example: a case of a priest who became possessed… his precipice was when he tried to rebaptise himself in the name of father earth, mother nature, etc. Then again, this was the culmination of a series of acts and heretical beliefs embraced which led to possession. It was not a one time act that allowed an immediate take-over.

That would be nearly impossible, since a major exorcism requires the will of the person to reject the demon and involves some fairly complex rites.

However, can you quote a source for this? Even the name of the exorcist or the victim might be sufficient.

It is entirely possible that the source is off… that the “exorcist” was a protestant who thinks they have the authority to throw out demons willy nilly. It is also possible that where you heard this from mistook a minor exorcism to be a major exorcism.

Sorry, I can’t quote the source. He is a member of this forum. I will bring this thread to his attention.

How many cases have you been able to familiarize with? I have found that the circumstances are so varied that conclusions are hard to reach. Some people who have had an experience tend to think that their experience typifies all.

I have heard said that the goal of obsession, oppression, or infestations is ultimately possession. Do you agree? If yes, then is the demon just waiting for the victim to make the wrong decisions and open the door? If no, then what is the goal - particularly for infestation where the activity is not internal, but instead is external or physical?

 

[promethius]

Sorry, I can’t quote the source. He is a member of this forum. I will bring this thread to his attention.

Thanks!

How many cases have you been able to familiarize with?

Familiarize myself with? I’d say there are about 10 cases (9 American and I’ve done a bit of reading on the case of Father Lucas Trevant) I’m familiar with, as well as having read some statistics on a larger number of cases. Five of said cases I’ve read the dialogue from.

Unfortunately, those of us who only speak english are greatly hampered in the field of demonology, since England and America have rather small ministries in this regard. It’s hard to read transcripts in a language you don’t know.

I have found that the circumstances are so varied that conclusions are hard to reach. Some people who have had an experience tend to think that their experience typifies all.

That’s very true. It’s always important to note that demons do not function as human beings do. They are not superhuman, they are twisted supernatural beings whose very nature was perverted during their fall. We cannot predict much of what they will do, but we can only statistically tell some norms.

I have heard said that the goal of obsession, oppression, or infestations is ultimately possession. Do you agree?

I would say not necessarily, although if a demon can possess someone, that would always be a perk. Obsession, oppression, and infestation all work towards the same goal that possession does… indeed towards the same goal that all demons are striving for: the damnation of souls.

I think that’s why it becomes difficult to predict a demons behavior… they don’t necessarily care if you submit to full possession, they only want your soul. If they have it, they don’t need to try. This might explain why those who engage in the occult for decades are spared possession and some who trifle with it for a short time rapidly succomb… no need to capture what you already own. We’ll never know for sure.

If yes, then is the demon just waiting for the victim to make the wrong decisions and open the door? If no, then what is the goal - particularly for infestation where the activity is not internal, but instead is external or physical?

I think I’ve answered the goal question: to damn a soul. It’s the culmination of all demonic activities towards man: God loves us, God is sorrowed to see us lost, therefore demons “strike out” at God by trying to take us away from Him.

Beyond the understanding that demons want your soul, I don’t think it’s particularly a safe question to try to delve into their sick motives or why they select particular means with particular people. Maybe they stay externally to some people only because someone (such as Padre Pio) is so protected by grace that they know that is the only way they can strike such a person? Maybe they stay externally because that person’s will is so strong that the demon can’t ever gain more than an external foothold with which to attack? Again, we’ll never know for sure.

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

As to why oppression/obsession might be allowed? 1) Free will, 2) because for some saints it allowed them to greater express and desire God. Padre Pio found his closeness to God in salvation from his afflictions (but he was not possessed, only oppressed/obsessed).

I have noticed that diabolic infestation has been mentioned by a handful of people in this thread. I personally believe this is the most critical aspect of how people lose their free will. Generally the demon will increase the awareness of the house hold that spirit exists, it will attempt to develop a form of interaction between human and spirit. It could come across as a deceased relative, a positive religious experience or a child’s imaginary friend were it appears to be benign begins to negatively influence the child. These can be interpreted as hauntings etc. Ultimately the demons goal is to gain a psychological foothold in the person’s life they become more demanding and ultimately controlling and threatening. With the aim in instilling of fear, exhaustion, through noises, hearing voices, malodorous smells, visual sightings, pet animals become distressed, movement of personal belongings, some will notice sets of three (mocking of the holy trinity) often leads to the deeper problem of demonic oppression.

If help and education doesn’t occur at this stage of diabolic infestation - there could be many reasons, such as an absence of spiritual grounding, lack of knowledge, length of time can be over many years so that experiences are intermittent and difficult to identify etc - then diabolic oppression/obsession follows.

If during a diabolic infestation the innocence of that pretence disappear as the diabolic infestation has moved to diabolic oppression/obsession. The demon will up it’s antic on the victim where they become pressured emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually. “Life” in general starts to becomes an uphill battle. They will still experience more intense experience of diabolic infestation/oppression/obsession that becomes extremely exhausting and tortured causing them eventually to give in or give up, be cause they can no longer have the physical, emotional and spiritual strength to fight - this is the next critical aspect I believe why a person gives their free will up.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Generally the demon will increase the awareness of the house hold that spirit exists, it will attempt to develop a form of interaction between human and spirit.

Your entire post is a very good take on demonic infestation. I would say that parts are enlightening. Thanks for posting.

I think that you are correct in the progression from infestation to oppression/obsession. This progression is hard to pin down. It lacks concreteness. The victim might end up with many different kinds of struggles but cannot assign a diabolic cause.

Often times an infestation pushes a person to a closer relationship with God and the Church. I am wondering why a demon will take a chance at sending someone towards Christ??? He can remain subtle and cause chaos and temptations. Instead, he chooses to manifest in obvious ways.

My current best thoughts are that the demons cannot help themselves. They are egotistical and prideful things. I think that they are having fun. They are sometimes known to demonstrate a sense of humor, albeit sarcastic and blasphemous. It is also an outward way for them to control a person. A simple example is, if they make an object disappear, they cause the person to look for it. They can also promote a sense of wonderment or astonishment in their prey, thereby making themselves seem powerful.

 

[promethius]

Generally the demon will increase the awareness of the house hold that spirit exists, it will attempt to develop a form of interaction between human and spirit. It could come across as a deceased relative, a positive religious experience or a child’s imaginary friend were it appears to be benign begins to negatively influence the child.

That is very true. One point that Tim Staple makes from the writings of St Paul in the epistles is that without particular grace, humans are not able to tell the difference between a demon, an angel, a saint, or Jesus.

That is, we have no way of looking at an apparition and uniquely determining whether or not what we’re seeing is good and true, or false and dazzling.

It is only through the teaching of the church that we can guage what we’re being told and determine if it is true to the doctrines of the Church, hence why any apparitions or such supernatural events should be immediately submitted for church review.

They will still experience more intense experience of diabolic infestation/oppression/obsession that becomes extremely exhausting and tortured causing them eventually to give in or give up, be cause they can no longer have the physical, emotional and spiritual strength to fight - this is the next critical aspect I believe why a person gives their free will up.

It is important to note that while your progression is very true, it is not universally true. A demon does not need to oppress someone in order to gain that foothold. The mere embracement of certain heresies can open that door, even without prior influence from a demon. Hence, again, why we are to cleave both to the sacraments and to the doctrinal authority of the Church. When we follow both closely, it is impossible to be fully possessed and require a major exorcism.

 

[promethius]

Often times an infestation pushes a person to a closer relationship with God and the Church. I am wondering why a demon will take a chance at sending someone towards Christ??? He can remain subtle and cause chaos and temptations. Instead, he chooses to manifest in obvious ways.

My current best thoughts are that the demons cannot help themselves. They are egotistical and prideful things. I think that they are having fun. They are sometimes known to demonstrate a sense of humor, albeit sarcastic and blasphemous. It is also an outward way for them to control a person. A simple example is, if they make an object disappear, they cause the person to look for it. They can also promote a sense of wonderment or astonishment in their prey, thereby making themselves seem powerful.

There’s another theory out there: demons are separated from Grace. They are blind to God, to God’s grace, and to all the actions of God. Many demons, as an exorcism goes on, complain of being blind, or that the exorcist or the victim has become “opaque”. The demon can no longer see their sins or project mental images and messages to them. Thus a lot of researchers feel that demons have no knowledge or ability to see God, and cannot see anything protected by God. The same thing happened in the crucifixion: Satan thought he had the ultimate victory in killing Christ. He could not see God’s plan, God’s work, or God’s grace that would flow from this. Demons are blind to God.

So while they can see that they have the potential to wreak havoc in someone’s life, they cannot see the resulting grace and actions of God which will produce good from their actions… they do not know that their actions will be contrary to their goals.