Demonic possession Q's

[Inego_de_Loyola]

boom,boom,boom, I am shooting the messenger… kidding…
You say that it is what the Scripture say. That sounds Protestant…
You say that it is what the Church teaches. Can you quote an “ex-cathedra” dogma saying that there are demon possessions?

Not only can I not, it has been addressed on this thread that I do not need to.

…
Not all Dogma’s are De Fide. ** There are three types of Dogmas.
Please notice that there is no distinction in certainty; there is only a distinction in explication. A catholic is required to believe ALL truths handed down to us in the deposit of faith; these are the revealed truths and are called Fides Divina Dogmas. When people are ignorant of these truths or perhaps have proposed some novel teaching in its stead the church will explicate the divinely revealed truth in it’s ordinary magisterial teachings; these are called Fides Catholica Dogmas. When enough people proceed to obstinately deny the churches teaching on the matter the church will formally define it through the Pope [Ex Cathedra] or by council; these are called De fide Definita Dogmas. All of our faith is in the first type, most of our faith is in the second type and only a few things are in the third. All of these are equally binding on pain of sin by divine law.
…

Please read the above post carefully. We are obligated to believe the entirety of the deposit of faith. Demonic possession is a Fides Catholica Dogma, so it is just as certain as if every Pope in history had declared it Ex Cathedra.

 

[Dominique1234]

boom,boom,boom, I am shooting the messenger… kidding…
You say that it is what the Scripture say. That sounds Protestant…
You say that it is what the Church teaches. Can you quote an “ex-cathedra” dogma saying that there are demon possessions?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1673 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authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism.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.178 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.179

 

[Dominique1234]

Not only can I not, it has been addressed on this thread that I do not need to.

Please read the above post carefully. We are obligated to believe the entirety of the deposit of faith. Demonic possession is a Fides Catholica Dogma, so it is just as certain as if every Pope in history had declared it Ex Cathedra.

Thanks Inego de Loyola! You saved me the trouble of repeating what you said… twice now? Or is it three times?

 

[Dominique1234]

boom,boom,boom, I am shooting the messenger… kidding…
You say that it is what the Scripture say. That sounds Protestant…
You say that it is what the Church teaches. Can you quote an “ex-cathedra” dogma saying that there are demon possessions?

Originally Posted by Inego de Loyola
…
Not all Dogma’s are De Fide. ** There are three types of Dogmas.
Please notice that there is no distinction in certainty; there is only a distinction in explication. A catholic is required to believe ALL truths handed down to us in the deposit of faith; these are the revealed truths and are called Fides Divina Dogmas. When people are ignorant of these truths or perhaps have proposed some novel teaching in its stead the church will explicate the divinely revealed truth in it’s ordinary magisterial teachings; these are called Fides Catholica Dogmas. When enough people proceed to obstinately deny the churches teaching on the matter the church will formally define it through the Pope [Ex Cathedra] or by council; these are called De fide Definita Dogmas. All of our faith is in the first type, most of our faith is in the second type and only a few things are in the third. All of these are equally binding on pain of sin by divine law.

There you go… courtesy of Inego De Loyola.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Not only can I not, it has been addressed on this thread that I do not need to.

Please read the above post carefully. We are obligated to believe the entirety of the deposit of faith. Demonic possession is a Fides Catholica Dogma, so it is just as certain as if every Pope in history had declared it Ex Cathedra.

So, if it is not ex-Cathedra it is open to discussion, OK?
Let’s not make more dogmas than the essential.
Otherwise, everything the Pope says we should follow. If He would say that drinking red wine is good, then we should follow.
Let us open our windows and let fresh air in, said the Pope John XXIII, in a time (are you that old?) where the church had many many many rules that everybody followed though they were not essential.

As for me, I have never seen a demoniac possession. BUT, I have seen thousand of times the devil working to deviate souls.
Why should I make a priority of demoniac possession over the 10 commandments.
OK, I would say. there are some people who say that there is demoniac possession. I accept their opinion as their opinion but I do not care.
I care for the devil tempting to violate the 10 commandments.

 

[Dominique1234]

So, if it is not ex-Cathedra it is open to discussion, OK?
Let’s not make more dogmas than the essential.

He’s not making more dogmas. It’s what it is.

Otherwise, everything the Pope says we should follow. If He would say that drinking red wine is good, then we should follow.
Let us open our windows and let fresh air in, said the Pope John XXIII, in a time (are you that old?) where the church had many many many rules that everybody followed though they were not essential.

As for me, I have never seen a demoniac possession.

Have you ever heard of the story of Thomas in the Bible? “Until i see the holes in his hands and feet and put my finger in his side…” I just hope demonic possession doesn’t happen to you.

BUT, I have seen thousand of times the devil working to deviate souls.
Why should I make a priority of demoniac possession over the 10 commandments.
OK, I would say. there are some people who say that there is demoniac possession. I accept their opinion as their opinion but I do not care.
I care for the devil tempting to violate the 10 commandments.

No one is making demonic possession a priority over the 10 commandments. We are simply stating fact that demonic possession exists whether you believe in it or not. The Original Poster wanted FACTS about it. Not someone’s opinionated denial based on personal opinions and not Catholic teachings as what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as all the dogmas which are truths of the Church and what God wants.

These are simply not OUR opinions. They are the Church’s rules and understanding of demonic possession. The Catholic Church believes in demonic possession. If they did not, it would not be written in Bibles or in Catechisms, or even when speaking of doctrine and/or dogma.

 

[Dominique1234]

boom,boom,boom, I am shooting the messenger… kidding…
You say that it is what the Scripture say. That sounds Protestant…
You say that it is what the Church teaches. Can you quote an “ex-cathedra” dogma saying that there are demon possessions?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1673 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.178 (Bible :Mark 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7,13; 16:17) 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.

Do you see what is written in blue and red? Can I make it more obvious? Then here it is. If you read what is bolded in both text that I researched JUST for you!! :thumbsup:

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing* fides divina*, and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church fides catholica. If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith definition of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”

This would fall under fides catholica because of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church, through its teaching, and that Truth is contained in Revelation, etc… etc… The Church STATES that Jesus preformed exorcisms. Do you disagree with our Catholic Church? Re read this before you post to get it really in depth as to what I just said. Thanks.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

So, if it is not ex-Cathedra it is open to discussion, OK?

No, it’s not okay. The deposit of faith is the body of teachings handed down from the apostles, all of which is infallible and divinely revealed. This is Fides Divina.

Just because a bishop or pope says something though doesn’t mean it is Fides Catholica. They must be teaching that it is contained in the deposit of faith for that to be the case. (For instance if the pope says that it is contained in the bible, in Sacred Tradition, or Apostolic teaching.) An example of this would be transubstantiation; which was only made De Fide Definita in the council of Trent, and as far as I know has never been declared Ex Cathedra; but it had always been Fides Divina and had been Fides Catholica since at least the second century.

The same is true with Demonic possession; which has always been in the deposit of faith, and has been Fides Catholica for centuries.

 

[JDaniel]

This is wrong on a number of points.

First nobody in this thread is denying demons generally, merely the idea of demonic possession.

Second, it is fallacious reasoning to conclude that denial of demons denies the work of Christ, as it is entirely possible that the “demons” cast out by Christ were an ancient interpretation of what is now considered mental illness. Thus, it does not follow that denial of demons, even as a general proposition, necessitates the denial of the miracle of Christ.

Stanczyk:

Did Christ not realize that He was only dealing with the insane? Was He that inept?

Let’s all try to apply logic, shall we?

God bless,
jd

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

No, it’s not okay. The deposit of faith is the body of teachings handed down from the apostles, all of which is infallible and divinely revealed. This is Fides Divina.

Just because a bishop or pope says something though doesn’t mean it is Fides Catholica. They must be teaching that it is contained in the deposit of faith for that to be the case. (For instance if the pope says that it is contained in the bible, in Sacred Tradition, or Apostolic teaching.) An example of this would be transubstantiation; which was only made De Fide Definita in the council of Trent, and as far as I know has never been declared Ex Cathedra; but it had always been Fides Divina and had been Fides Catholica since at least the second century.

The same is true with Demonic possession; which has always been in the deposit of faith, and has been Fides Catholica for centuries.

Transubstantiation is ex-cathedra.
Demoniac possession no.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

He’s not making more dogmas. It’s what it is.

Have you ever heard of the story of Thomas in the Bible? “Until i see the holes in his hands and feet and put my finger in his side…” I just hope demonic possession doesn’t happen to you.

No one is making demonic possession a priority over the 10 commandments. We are simply stating fact that demonic possession exists whether you believe in it or not. The Original Poster wanted FACTS about it. Not someone’s opinionated denial based on personal opinions and not Catholic teachings as what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as all the dogmas which are truths of the Church and what God wants.

These are simply not OUR opinions. They are the Church’s rules and understanding of demonic possession. The Catholic Church believes in demonic possession. If they did not, it would not be written in Bibles or in Catechisms, or even when speaking of doctrine and/or dogma.

I am not afraid of demoniac possession. What would be doing my Guardian Angel? Would he he be asleep?

I do not need to be possessed by the devil. Unfortunately, he wins sometimes over my will to love God. I sin and I do not want to sin. That’s his victory.

Demon possessions, has anybody seen? It is like Ghosts. They exist, but no one has ever seen them. It is always the others who heard say that someone else said that saw…

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Transubstantiation is ex-cathedra.
Demoniac possession no.

Transubstantiation is certainly De Fide, but for 1500 years it was not. Were people free to reject it then? Did bishops go beyond their lawful authority in excomunicating those who denied it? Of course not, because like possession it was a Fides Catholica Dogma. I know that Possession is niether Ex Cathedra, nor is it De Fide Definita, but it is Dogma, and, as I said, it is as surely true as if every pope in history declared it Ex Cathedra.

BTW which pope has given ex cathedra pronouncement on Transubstantiation? I believe you; I’m just curious to know.

 

[stanczyk]

Stanczyk:

Did Christ not realize that He was only dealing with the insane? Was He that inept?

It is not by any means “inept” to call a thing by the name of the thing that is in use at the time.

By way of analogy, you may have heard of a type of gun called a “revolver.” This type of gun doesn’t actually revolve, it rotates. The name “revolver” is a misnomer; it should be called a “rotator.” I wonder if you consider the multitude of gun experts who use the term “revolver” to describe such a gun to be inept?

Back to Christ’s miracles, casting out insanity or sending an insanity into a herd of swine is no less miraculous than sending out demons into a herd of swine. Why on earth would one assume that literal demons are what is meant, when it is clear from history that what was then called demonic possession is now called mental illness?

I continue to insist that we apply logic and reason to this discussion, as unfashionable as that may be.

 

[eo_chibears]

Why do we need to go to a Bishop? Why just a priest?

Second, if somebody dies while possessed, what will happen to them?

It would be better to seek out a mental health specialist. Demons and devils do not possess people.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

It is not by any means “inept” to call a thing by the name of the thing that is in use at the time.

By way of analogy, you may have heard of a type of gun called a “revolver.” This type of gun doesn’t actually revolve, it rotates. The name “revolver” is a misnomer; it should be called a “rotator.” I wonder if you consider the multitude of gun experts who use the term “revolver” to describe such a gun to be inept?

Back to Christ’s miracles, casting out insanity or sending an insanity into a herd of swine is no less miraculous than sending out demons into a herd of swine. Why on earth would one assume that literal demons are what is meant, when it is clear from history that what was then called demonic possession is now called mental illness?

I continue to insist that we apply logic and reason to this discussion, as unfashionable as that may be.

Hey Stan, Remember the whole Dogma thing? What is unreasonable or illogical about demonic possession? I propose we accept the teachings of the church, and then let faith seek understanding, as unfashionable as that may be.

 

[JDaniel]

Question:

How can a devil possess a human soul? Is there a definition of ‘human possession’ (by a devil)? Or, a detailed description? I wonder why St. Thomas had a problem with “possession?”

“Possession” sounds too much like the simultaneous dis-possession of the human body by that spirit we call a devil and its replacement by that spirit-devil. But, the human soul is the quasi-perfect mixture of Form and Matter. In order to dis-possess the human soul, at least prior to our deaths, that quasi-perfect mixture would have to be obliterated. A NEW Form-Matter composition would have to take its place. Otherwise, the entire Thomistic concept of the “soul” would need to be replaced, would it not?

Is it not possible that possessions may have occurred only at the time before the New Covenant, and especially around the time of Christ? Perhaps precisely so that those folks would have been made more aware of spirit insertion into the world? One would have to say that it is very interesting that Christ would have chosen pigs for devil infestation, would it not? As animals, pigs have a lesser soul than that of men, so a replacement of the Form-Matter composition would not be as critical. Furthermore, in the Catholic literature and teachings, the word “possession” is always coupled with the word “obsession.” What might the reason for that be?

Actual possession by a demon may have been an obsession coupled with a body degradation, but not an actual possession.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is not by any means “inept” to call a thing by the name of the thing that is in use at the time.

By way of analogy, you may have heard of a type of gun called a “revolver.” This type of gun doesn’t actually revolve, it rotates. The name “revolver” is a misnomer; it should be called a “rotator.” I wonder if you consider the multitude of gun experts who use the term “revolver” to describe such a gun to be inept?

Back to Christ’s miracles, casting out insanity or sending an insanity into a herd of swine is no less miraculous than sending out demons into a herd of swine. Why on earth would one assume that literal demons are what is meant, when it is clear from history that what was then called demonic possession is now called mental illness?

I continue to insist that we apply logic and reason to this discussion, as unfashionable as that may be.

Stanczyk:

OK. Relax. I merely asked a question. But, Christ would have clearly known the difference between insanity and actual possession. It sounded as though were arguing against that. But, your ideas are quite reasonable (see my post above) I think.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

So this thread has become rather interesting - it has raised some questions as to what is being taught, what is believed etc

In my conclusion, when science and religion get together, the pendulum swings the other way. Unfortunately, it has swung way too far, to the point where people who are under true diabolical forces are being given antipsychotic medication and turned into walking zombies. As the old exorcisms failed to help those with mental illnesses and even made them worse, we now have the reverse. People who are under diabolical forces are rendered helpless because they are being treated for a condition that does not exist.

So a question to those that do not believe that diabolical possession can occur…

** If diabolical possession does not exist within the Roman Catholic Church; why are there many ordained priests working in the vocation of exorcisms/exocist?**

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Transubstantiation is certainly De Fide, but for 1500 years it was not. Were people free to reject it then? Did bishops go beyond their lawful authority in excomunicating those who denied it? Of course not, because like possession it was a Fides Catholica Dogma. I know that Possession is niether Ex Cathedra, nor is it De Fide Definita, but it is Dogma, and, as I said, it is as surely true as if every pope in history declared it Ex Cathedra.

BTW which pope has given ex cathedra pronouncement on Transubstantiation? I believe you; I’m just curious to know.

Did not you say it was the Council of Trent?
Possession by demons is not Dogma.
BTW, if possession by demons is dogma, possession by angels is dogma too?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Not Afraid of the Devil

A few minutes before the church services started, the
congregation was sitting in their pews and talking.
Suddenly, Satan appeared at the front of the church.

Everyone started screaming and running for the back
entrance, trampling each other in a frantic effort to
get away from evil incarnate. Soon the church was
empty except for one elderly gentleman who sat calmly
in his pew without moving, seemingly oblivious to the
fact that God’s ultimate enemy was in his presence.

So Satan walked up to the man and said, ‘Do you know
who I am?’

The man replied, ‘Yep, sure do.’

Aren’t you afraid of me?’ Satan asked.

‘Nope, sure ain’t.’ said the man.

Don’t you realize I can kill you with one word?’ asked
Satan.

Don’t doubt it for a minute, ’ returned the old man,
in an even tone.

‘Did you know that I can cause you profound, horrifying
agony for all eternity?’ persisted Satan.

Yep,’ was the calm reply.

‘And you’re still not afraid?’ asked Satan.

‘Nope,’ said the old man.

More than a little perturbed, Satan asked, ’ Why aren’t
you afraid of me?’

The man calmly replied, ‘Been married to your sister for
48 years.’