Demonic possession Q's

  • Thread starter Thread starter sorrowfulagony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did not you say it was the Council of Trent?
Trent made it De Fide, but only a papal declaration is Ex Cathedra. There is no difference in authority only in the source of the pronouncement, but I get what your saying.
Possession by demons is not Dogma.
We have already shown that it is.🙂
BTW, if possession by demons is dogma, possession by angels is dogma too?
No, except in the sense that demons are fallen angels. I have never heard so much as speculation on the possibility of possession by the angels of heaven, but demonic possession is in Sacred Scripture and Tradition as well as Sacred Magisterial teaching.
 
‘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.’
:D:clapping: I laughed.
 
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.
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authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism.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 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Then explain why the Catholic Church Teaches this? Also line 178, from the Bible: Mark 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7,13; 16:17

There IS a difference between mental illness and demonic possession. The CCC says so. But thanks again for your opinion. 🙂
 
Trent made it De Fide, but only a papal declaration is Ex Cathedra. There is no difference in authority only in the source of the pronouncement, but I get what your saying.

We have already shown that it is.🙂
No, except in the sense that demons are fallen angels. I have never heard so much as speculation on the possibility of possession by the angels of heaven, but demonic possession is in Sacred Scripture and Tradition as well as Sacred Magisterial teaching.
So the Council of Trent was not Papal? Was he in vacation in the Caraibes? Or the Esc-Cathedra is only AFTER the Pope declared infalibility.

No you have not shown demoniac possession as a Dogma. Why are not anymore pigs throwing themselves from the cliffs after 2000 years? Or cows…or sheeps…whatever…
I have never heard so much as speculation on the possibility of possession by the angels of heaven,
See? If is impossible and angel possession, why is it possible a devil possession, Bad is stronger than evil ?

Forget about that and look where the devil is at. As you worry about devil possession he is doing his job somewhere else and you are entertaining yourself with it. That is what the devil wants, that you do not find where he is.
 
Pfaffenhoffen,

Please bear with me …

Historically within the Church it supported married priesthood. In the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married. In the first century Celibacy only existed among hermits and monks. This was only considered an optional, alternative lifestyle. During the medieval time, affairs of state brought about the regulation of mandatory celibacy for priests.

In the bible Jesus states: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” St. Peter, the pope who was closest to Jesus, was indeed married. There are three references in the Gospel about St. Peter’s wife, his mother-in-law and his family. We can safely assume that all of the Apostles, except for young John, were married with children. Married priests and their spouses were the first priests, the first bishops, the first missionaries. They carried the message of Jesus across cultures and protected it through much adversity. They lead the fragile young Church through its early growth and endured numerous persecutions.

Pope John Paul II recognized this in 1993 when he said publicly that celibacy is not essential to the priesthood.

The early Church was a arrangement of small family-based communities throughout the Mediterranean region. Life was marked by a sense of joyful expectation. Jesus said that he would return and the first Christians believed that it would be soon. Led by married priests, they met at each other’s homes to celebrate the Mass. Strangers were invited to share the bread and wine. No one was excluded from receiving Communion. The strangers soon became friends, joined the young Church, and brought others to hear the good news of Jesus.

Sacred Scripture documents that priests and bishops of the early Church were married. In the New Testament, in his first letter to Timothy, chapter 3, verses 1 through 7, St. Paul discusses the qualities necessary for a bishop. He describes a “kind and peaceable” father, a man with a family. As part of his description, St. Paul even asks the question, “…how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own family have responsibility for the church of God?” St. Paul established many small communities and left them in the hands of married priests and bishops.

The early Church is portrayed as democratic, where leadership listened to the community and responded to its needs.

In AD 313, the Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity within the Roman Empire. This new legislation enabled the early Church to evolve from a persecuted group of small communities to become the official faith of a world power under Emperor Theodosius in AD 380.

Now this is where the truth lies is with Constantine’s real purpose in adopting Christianity and it certainly was not entirely spiritual. Constantine forced other politicians to become Christians was a test of their loyalty to him by using the new religion to weed out his enemies. It reinforced his political power.

Christianity was the key to establishing a new Roman identity in the conquered peoples. On the surface he made them Christians to save their souls, but this new religion was his final act of conquest over them. Now the official religion of the Roman Empire, many things changed very quickly in the Church. Priests from the small communities were given extraordinary social position among their new Roman contacts. They no longer had to hide from Roman soldiers and fear for their lives. Instead, they received pay for their services as priests and enjoyed special privileges in Roman society. Bishops were given civil authority and assigned jurisdiction over the people in their area. Romans, who were members of the local ruling influential, quickly converted to Christianity as ordered by the Emperor. These were men trained in public life and skilled in city politics. Many became priests and rapidly moved into positions of leadership in the Church.

These Roman politicians, with their newly acquired priesthood, brought the impersonal and legalistic attitudes of government to the Church. The celebration of the Eucharist moved from small home gatherings to know what we call mass that involves huge numbers of people in rather large buildings. The celebration of the Eucharist became highly controlled rituals, which imitate the ceremonies of Rome’s imperial court. This Roman influence is the source of our vestments, genuflection, kneeling, which is the strict formality of Mass.

Therefore an institutional Church structure emerged mirroring that of the Roman government. With the assistance of the Roman Empire, Church leadership became a hierarchy that moved away from its family origins and into the Roman mindset of a ruling class that was above the people in the street

Other changes occurred that shifted emphasis away from the people and towards the preferences of the Roman politicians. The Church adopted the Roman practice of men alone holding institutional authority. There is solid historical evidence that women served as priests prior to this time.

Certainly power and legalism and certain medieval popes abused their authority. In 1075, Pope Gregory VII declared that nobody could judge a pope except God. Infallibility is a man-made concept whether in doctrines, scripture, or church authorities.

The public must do the asking, are we still following the legalistic attitudes of the Roman Empire or are we following the bible and Jesus’ teachings?

Whilst we think today that we have greater knowledge than those is Jesus’ time, we can never under estimate the knowledge of our ancestors.

God bless
 
Historically within the Church it supported married priesthood. In the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married. In the first century Celibacy only existed among hermits and monks. This was only considered an optional, alternative lifestyle. During the medieval time, affairs of state brought about the regulation of mandatory celibacy for priests.
That’s not strictly true. Celibacy has, since the time of the Apostles, been considered far superior, it is not simply an “alternative lifestyle” or an “option.” Celibacy is the pinnacle of Christian virtue. See 1 Corinthians 7:1, “…it is good for a man not to marry.”
 
Pfaffenhoffen,

Please bear with me …

[ETC…]
The Early Church fathers disagree. St clement of Rome was clearly authoritative over the church in general, and the closest thing to women priests were deaconesses which were not ordained but were there to assist in baptizing women; this assistance was necessary, because baptism was done in the nude.

But anyhow, this is all beyond doubt a matter for another thread.
 
The Early Church fathers disagree. St clement of Rome was clearly authoritative over the church in general, and the closest thing to women priests were deaconesses which were not ordained but were there to assist in baptizing women; this assistance was necessary, because baptism was done in the nude.
The purpose of my thread is to identify human rules of the Roman Empire and that of what Jesus our Lord taught us.

In regard to your comments, the Gospels do hint that the male followers of Jesus had difficulty in understanding and assimilating Jesus’ concept of women. In Galatians 3,28 “All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ.There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” The exclusion of women which has also be so marked in Hellenistic Jewish religion unfortunately affected Christian patterns decisively. Human beings creating structures and rules.

There is significant evidence that there were churches in the fourth to sixth centuries that remained in communion with Rome and also had women priests. Bishops in southern Italy allowed women priests until Pope Gelasius I placed a stop to it. Underground Church in the1970s indicated that Roman Catholic women and married were ordained as priests in Czechoslovakia by Bishop Felix M. Davidek
 
The purpose of my thread is to identify human rules of the Roman Empire and that of what Jesus our Lord taught us.

In regard to your comments, the Gospels do hint that the male followers of Jesus had difficulty in understanding and assimilating Jesus’ concept of women. In Galatians 3,28 “All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ.There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” The exclusion of women which has also be so marked in Hellenistic Jewish religion unfortunately affected Christian patterns decisively. Human beings creating structures and rules.

There is significant evidence that there were churches in the fourth to sixth centuries that remained in communion with Rome and also had women priests. Bishops in southern Italy allowed women priests until Pope Gelasius I placed a stop to it. Underground Church in the1970s indicated that Roman Catholic women and married were ordained as priests in Czechoslovakia by Bishop Felix M. Davidek
“Fourth through sixth centuries”, notably after the romanization you allege to have corrupted the church, and certainly well after the times of the apostles. The church has no authority under heaven to ordain women, she did not in the times of the apostles and has not done so validly after. (Though I am sure that some women have invalidly undergone the rite of ordination since, there has never been a woman who received the sacramental character of ordination.) Please, I am willing to discuss this, but can you make a thread for it and link to it; this isn’t the place for that discussion.
 
This is incorrect.

The devil can harass (demonic obession) people who are even in the state of grace. He cannot, however, possess an innocent subject without some condescension of their will. Hence the Apostle tells us to resist the devil and he will, with certainty, fly from us.

The example of Job is the one I usually use to demonstrate the difference between demonic obsession (at its worst) as opposed to actual possession.
I’ve read that that actually is correct. A lot of people fool around with the occult and have no clue it’s wrong and some people who are possessed merely because they are cursed. Of course, whatever the case, it won’t happen to anyone that God does not permit it to happen to and His reasons are beyond that of punishing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top