Interview with Fr. Gabriel Amorth, Chief Exorcist of Rome

[I_Believe]

Yes, these last two posts, are very on target.

It is the fruit of secular wisdom, and those with the belief that they can throw away tradition and replace it with their human reason, and not escape error.

It’s the particular spirit and error of these times, throughout.

:yup: I have a term for that…I call it secular intellectualism. The work of Satan, I do believe.

**“The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them.

“The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on.

“We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs …

“With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this crusade, as all the Urban II’s and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom.

“We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge of the supreme Vente some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum …

“Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping him … for this Pope, a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children … You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots.

“This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce.

“In the path that we are laying out for our brethren, there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by clearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. You want to revolutionize Italy, look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon, let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.”7
freemasonrywatch.org/alta_vendita.html**

 

[I_Believe]

**THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. – Ibid.

1. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. – Ibid.

1. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. – Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

1. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. – Ibid.

1. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. – Ibid.

1. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

1. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. – Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854.

1. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. – Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, “Gravissimas inter,” Dec. 11, 1862, and “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

1. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. – Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.

1. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. – Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

1. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. – Ibid.

1. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. – Ibid.

1. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. – Ibid.

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

1. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.**

 

[I_Believe]

**IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, Encyclical “Noscitis et nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.

V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS

1. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. – Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, etc.

1. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. – Allocution “Meminit unusquisque,” Sept. 30, 1861.

1. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. – Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

1. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

1. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. – Ibid.

1. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical “Incredibili,” Sept. 7, 1863.

1. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

1. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government. – Ibid.

1. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

1. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. – Letter to the Bishop of Monreale “Singularis nobisque,” Sept. 29, 1864.

1. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. – Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

1. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

1. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city. – Ibid.

1. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of its acts. – Ibid.

1. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. – Allocution “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860.

1. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.**

 

[I_Believe]

**VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH

1. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.

1. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of “exsequatur,” but also that of appeal, called “appellatio ab abusu.” – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851

1. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. – Ibid.

1. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest. – Allocution “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850.

1. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. – Allocutions “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850, and “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. – Allocutions “Quibus luctuosissimis,” Sept. 5, 1851, and “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850.

1. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

1. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. – Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, “Cum non sine,” July 14, 1864.

1. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. – Ibid.

1. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

1. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

1. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power. – Allocutions “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852; “Probe memineritis,” Jan. 22, 1855; “Cum saepe,” July 26, 1855.

1. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
   **

 

[I_Believe]

**VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

1. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. – Ibid.

1. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure. – Ibid.; Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.

1. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. – Ibid.

1. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right. – Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

1. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. – Allocution “Novos et ante,” Sept. 28, 1860.

1. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution “Quibusque vestrum,” Oct. 4, 1847; “Noscitis et Nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter “Cum Catholica.”

1. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country. – Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.

VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

1. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

1. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. – Ibid.

1. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. – Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

1. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

1. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power. – Ibid.

1. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.

1. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. – Ibid.

1. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. – Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852, “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860.

1. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851, “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF

1. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. – “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

1. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. – Allocutions “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, “Si semper antea,” May 20, 1850.**

 

[I_Believe]

**X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

1. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

1. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

1. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.**

 

[I_Believe]

**THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm**

 

[Shin]

Ah, the Syllabus is so refreshing to read. It’s so beautiful to read clear and true teachings expressed without clouds and obfuscation or generalities, footnotes, fine print and word play.

For those days to come again, I pray.

Bl. Pope Pius IX, St. Pius X, orate pro nobis.

**Prayer in the Form of Offering
**from the Raccolta (favored by Pope Bl. Pius IX)

Eternal Father, we offer Thee the Blood, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ, the Sorrows of the most holy Mary and St. Joseph, in payment of our sins, in suffrage for the holy souls in purgatory, for the wants of our holy Mother the Church, and for the conversion of sinners. Amen.

 

[I_Believe]

**
In his general audience of Nov. 15, 1972, Paul VI addressed in more detail the reality of the Devil. He stated that one of the greatest needs of the Church today is the defense against that evil we call the Devil. (Insegnamenti [1972], 1168-1173)

" “From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God.” **

 

[I_Believe]

**Fr. Amorth on Satan’s plan: To succeed in making people believe that he doesn’t exist. And in this he has almost succeeded. Even within the Church. We have a clergy and an episcopate who no longer believe in the devil, in exorcisms, in the extraordinary evil that the devil can cause, nor in the power that Jesus has given us to drive out demons. **

 

[I_Believe]

Ah, the Syllabus is so refreshing to read. It’s so beautiful to read clear and true teachings expressed without clouds and obfuscation or generalities, footnotes, fine print and word play.

For those days to come again, I pray.

Bl. Pope Pius IX, St. Pius X, orate pro nobis.

**Prayer in the Form of Offering
**from the Raccolta (favored by Pope Bl. Pius IX)

Eternal Father, we offer Thee the Blood, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ, the Sorrows of the most holy Mary and St. Joseph, in payment of our sins, in suffrage for the holy souls in purgatory, for the wants of our holy Mother the Church, and for the conversion of sinners. Amen.

Yes, and it baffles the mind to think every single member of the Council took the Oath Against Modernism.

Look at where we are today. Fr Amorth is right. Far too many churchmen don’t believe in Satan. There is no possible way they could.

"… let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. "

How can a document like that fall into the hands of the Church and come to be ignored ?

The 8th Dolor of Mary, that’s what it is.

 

[DonLeon]

Yes, and it baffles the mind to think every single member of the Council took the Oath Against Modernism.

Look at where we are today. Fr Amorth is right. Far too many churchmen don’t believe in Satan. There is no possible way they could.

"… let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. "

How can a document like that fall into the hands of the Church and come to be ignored ?

The 8th Dolor of Mary, that’s what it is.

I think that Satan has just about suceeded in convincing people the he doesn’t exist and that hell is just a figment of an overactive imagination and a carryover from the super-
stitious middle ages. Too many people reading Dante’s Inferno.

I also don’t think it’s so much secular intellectualism as it is people just don’t want to hear about those things. It spoils their idea of a ideal life. ( HAH!)

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[VanillaBean]

Does anyone know how to get in touch with Fr.Amorth? Or an exorcist…or someone who is remotely eduated on and, more importantly, believes in Satan?

 

[Shin]

Does anyone know how to get in touch with Fr.Amorth? Or an exorcist…or someone who is remotely eduated on and, more importantly, believes in Satan?

If you want to get in touch with an exorcist, well, they rarely make themselves publicly available or directly contactable. (Fr. Fortea might be a bit of an exception)

What you do is you go to your parish priest (the most Catholic one you can find, I hate to put it that way, nevertheless) and you ask that priest to help you out to get in touch with one through the diocese – or you do it directly through the diocese yourself.

Then someone in charge at the diocese will relate the details of why you want to contact the exorcist, or any questions you have, to that exorcist as an intermediary. Perhaps you’ll get some phone contact, perhaps you’ll actually get to meet one.

If your diocese won’t help, you go to the next diocese, and repeat, until it works.

Alternatively and far more easily, if your questions are general, buy the books, or listen to some of the sermons below in my links – some have to do with exorcism.

St. Mike’s Call has some good resources too.

 

[DonLeon]

Does anyone know how to get in touch with Fr.Amorth? Or an exorcist…or someone who is remotely eduated on and, more importantly, believes in Satan?

You may also contact the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They may be able to help.

www.FSSP.com

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Musicadmirer]

“30 Days: Don’t you ever feel afraid of the demon?”

“Fr. Amorth: Me, for that animal? It is he who should be afraid of me; I act in the name of the Lord of the world. But as for him, he is nothing but God’s monkey.”

I love that last line.

Wow. I love that quote

 

[Biedrik]

Link is broken?

 

[GaryTaylor]

“30 Days: Don’t you ever feel afraid of the demon?”

“Fr. Amorth: Me, for that animal? It is he who should be afraid of me; I act in the name of the Lord of the world. But as for him, he is nothing but God’s monkey.”

I love that last line.

Classic Quote:thumbsup:

 

[snowbee]

New link: old.thecatholiclibrary.org/?q=node/39

 

[snowbee]

I’ve read this before, great article thank for sharing.