Leading Catholic Exorcist Sees Signs of Demonic Oppression and Possession in Unhinged American Left

[OneSheep]

you are simply misunderstanding what I write.

Well, you are saying this:

I think I have made it clear that what happens is that from time to time, people try to contact dead people and are deceived by demons, under whose influence they then unwittingly fall.

I heard you, and understand you, but what you are saying has no application to this thread unless you are saying that this is occurred based on some specific evidence for some specific behavior.

What is it that you are actually witnessing, and what favorable interpretations can be made about the behavior? If you want to for-sure avoid rash judgment, as CCC2478 guides us to do, then this is what is asked of us. Annie, I know you mean well, and your use of “inadvertent” in your analysis is charitable, but there are even more favorable ways of interpreting actions, depending on what specific action you are addressing.

Are you realizing that saying that people are “deceived by demons” is already an interpretation, and that there are more favorable interpretations available for people’s behaviors?

 

[Cathoholic]

what you are saying has no application to this thread unless you are saying that this is occurred based on some specific evidence for some specific behavior.

There IS “specific evidence”.

They ADMIT it. At least contacting spirits.

There is nothing tough about this behavior OneSheep. It is an easy call.

It is sinful and illicit.

It is not OK to contact the spirit world in that sense.

 

[OneSheep]

They ADMIT it. At least contacting spirits.

Well, it sounds like some of them do. It sounds like they are from some sort of different faith tradition, maybe pagan. Necromancy originates in Shamanism, but is also part of ancient Egyptian and Greek religions.

Sinfulness does not assume demonic influence.

Catholics ask Saints to pray for them. We have some limits on the practice. We generally believe that Saints don’t talk to us, but if a woman is talking to a dead relative, and imagines that the person says something back, I certainly wouldn’t be jumping to call that “demonic”.

Is there something you know that gives evidence that something demonic is influencing?

 

[Cathoholic]

Sinfulness does not assume demonic influence.

Apparently you do not understand an intrinsic evil is evil, regardless of the intentions.

It is not OK to channel spirits OneSheep.

Catholics ask Saints to pray for them.

This is NOT spirit channelling.

OneSheep . . .

Is there something you know that gives evidence that something demonic is influencing?

If you REALLY want to know, I suggest “asking” (listening to) someone like Fr. Ripperger.

If the question is merely rhetorical, that’s your call too. (In which case I still would recomend Fr. Ripperger to you.)

 

[Annie]

I heard you, and understand you, but what you are saying has no application to this thread unless you are saying that this is occurred based on some specific evidence for some specific behavior.

In order to discuss something, the people involved have to understand what the other people think are the definitions of the terms they are using. There can be no discussion of specifics until it is understood what each person means by what they are saying.

This is sort of normal in discussion, because obviously if people are using different definitions or have a different understanding of the topic, then they can’t talk about the topic itself until they get the underlying definitions or understandings straightened out. If I do not understand what you mean by a term you are using in discussing a specific topic, then I can’t understand what you are saying about it.

All along, I have not understood why your first reaction to Fr Ripperger’s statement was to ask if he had read the section on rash judgement in the CCC. This lead me to believe I did not have a good understanding of what you meant by the terms involved.

In order to understand what you meant, I had to ask you questions in general terms. You have never accepted that, and seemed to want to skip over explaining what you meant by certain terms to go directly to connecting what I said in general to the specific topic that we couldn’t get to because I did not understand what you meant.

So we have each posted a lot of posts or more trying to get to a point of understanding what we are saying, and yet we are right where we started, where I say this happens in general and you reply with I can’t say that in the particular.

I can not possibly make myself any clearer than saying in general this sometimes can lead to that. For you to particularize it as you did by saying that I couldn’t say people were in mortal sin and that I had to explain why I thought the particular people were leads me to believe you are just not hearing me.

Which is fine and maybe I should have figured that out about a few dozen posts ago, but I’ve got it now.

 

[Annie]

Really, I can only quote Cathoholic and say Good grief, have you even read the thread? Because it’s clear you didn’t read the articles the OP posted.

 

[CradleRC58]

Do you believe the devil exists ?

 

[OneSheep]

In order to discuss something, the people involved have to understand what the other people think are the definitions of the terms they are using. There can be no discussion of specifics until it is understood what each person means by what they are saying.

It was CCC2478 that provided the general guidelines. They are “to avoid rash judgment, always find a favorable interpretation of people’s thoughts, words and actions”.

I think what you wanted clarifying is whether or not claiming demonic influence is “favorable”.
Once that question was answered, the next step was to do exactly what 2478 says, to look for favorable interpretations of specific words, thoughts, or actions; someone (was it you?) provided from BLM statements. In addition, you provided some statements saying what they wanted, which was excellent witness, because it came from their own statements about their own actions or motives. They certainly did not ascribe their own motives to demonic influence.

Yet, you seemed to remain committed to the “demonic” label, so I asked what more they have said or done that gives evidence of the label, but you were not able to provide anything, only things like this:

I think I have made it clear that what happens is that from time to time, people try to contact dead people and are deceived by demons, under whose influence they then unwittingly fall.

This is not witness of the actions of people of BLM. It is a general statement that is essentially unrelated to the thread. Unless you can provide a specific instance where there is evidence to indicate that the people involved in BLM have been deceived by demons, your statement does not apply here. This OP of this thread is not “can demonic possession or influence happen?” the OP is “Based on these (vague) things, Fr.R. has (associated) these movements with demonic influence.”

So, it sounds like we were having two different discussions.

If you REALLY want to know, I suggest “asking” (listening to) someone like Fr. Ripperger.

I listened to the video you provided, and I can provide a favorable interpretation to what BLM and others are motivated by. I think you would agree that if I said your posting here was influenced by the devil, there would be a more favorable interpretation.

Because it’s clear you didn’t read the articles the OP posted.

Actually, the poster’s question was quite valid. No one here has presented a statement by BLM saying that they admit possession or influence by the devil.

 

[Cathoholic]

I think you would agree that if I said your posting here was influenced by the devil, there would be a more favorable interpretation.

What I agree to is don’t go in the direction of attempting to make this thread about me personally.

Much of everything else you said for your arguments (not you personally) is partial truths or wrong and I do disagree with that.

I agree with almost nothing you have said here.

 

[Annie]

Annie:

In order to discuss something, the people involved have to understand what the other people think are the definitions of the terms they are using. There can be no discussion of specifics until it is understood what each person means by what they are saying.

It was CCC2478 that provided the general guidelines. They are “to avoid rash judgment, always find a favorable interpretation of people’s thoughts, words and actions”.

Can you see how I was saying one thing, and your comment was not responsive to what I said?

I think what you wanted clarifying is whether or not claiming demonic influence is “favorable”. Once that question was answered,

No, I was asking why you said that claiming demonic influence would of itself be unfavorable. You never answered that question.

interpretations of specific words, thoughts, or actions; someone (was it you?) provided from BLM statements.

You and I never got to this point.

In addition, you provided some statements saying what they wanted, which was excellent witness , because it came from their own statements about their own actions or motives.

I did not do that because we had understood each others’ definitions and understandings; I did that solely because you refused to answer my question about why you thought saying someone seemed to be demonically influenced was in and of itself and unfavorable interpretation.

They certainly did not ascribe their own motives to demonic influence.

Of course not. Their motives, as we agreed, were irrelevant.

Yet, you seemed to remain committed to the “demonic” label,

Yes, because were discussing demonic influence, but I not only never said that I thought that the BLM*org leaders were demonically influenced, I said once that although I understood what Fr Ripperger was saying, I was not sure that it was convincing and another time that I didn’t think I had enough background and information to come up with an opinion on the matter.

I cannot understand what more I could have done to make clear that I was speaking generally. I was “committed to the demonic label” because I was trying to find out your understanding of the demonic.

Annie:

I think I have made it clear that what happens is that from time to time, people try to contact dead people and are deceived by demons, under whose influence they then unwittingly fall.

This is not witness of the actions of people of BLM. It is a general statement that is essentially unrelated to the thread.

Yes, it is a general statement. It is a statement in which I was trying to explain my thinking about the general topic of demonic influence to you. It is clearly related to the thread, which is about claims of demonic influence!

 

[Annie]

Actually, the poster’s question was quite valid. No one here has presented a statement by BLM saying that they admit possession or influence by the devil.

This is a general question about principles, not a question specific to BLM: do you believe that a person must provide a statement admitting possession (which is not an issue on this topic) or demonic influence in order to be possessed or influenced by demons?

Maybe we need to get admissions of guilt from burglars before putting them in jail; surely we can think of more favorable interpretations than burglary upon finding someone departing someone else’s house with a sackful of valuable objects belonging to the owner of the house?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OneSheep:

Actually, the poster’s question was quite valid. No one here has presented a statement by BLM saying that they admit possession or influence by the devil.

This is a general question about principles, not a question specific to BLM: do you believe that a person must provide a statement admitting possession (which is not an issue on this topic) or demonic influence in order to be possessed or influenced by demons?

Either that, or have direct evidence of demonic possession. But admission of possession was the very thing given earlier as the evidence of possession. So if there was no admission, where is the evidence?

 

[Mr_Richie]

Its not just in the US. Pretty intense in Canada also.

 

[silentwitness]

When it comes to people of color, one can observe that in many venues their group does not experience the “favor” that whites do. While I truly believe that this is much less the case now than 10 years ago, we still have a long way to go. We have the simple fact, for example, that bosses hire workers that look like, and have other similar characteristics, as themselves.

I think the concept of ‘people of colour’ is racist. It basically means everyone except those whose ethnic origins hail from what is roughly called Europe.

Leftism does this in a way to assert blame across generations by identity so that government can ‘fix’ the problem by controlling its citizens. This approach is a bigger problem in my mind than any assumed disadvantage.

I would look at the favoring in this case to be with ‘the people of colour’ as it is described because Leftism sets itself up in government with certain powers to redress assumed disfavours of the past by favouring one group over another.

There are so many problems with this from clearly incorrect assumptions; to problems and ethics in categorising; to negative outcomes for society.

The problem i think with people who grow up on the Left (and that included me) is that we are taught that either you support Leftist ways of solving problems or you are against solving the problem itself. This is the moral dimension that is introduced under the new religion.

So above you mentioned that white people owned most of the businesses and this would disproportionately advantage white people. I am not so sure about that but anyways you can have nationalistic, Christian and capitalist solutions which address any issues.

I know in the last 4 years business ownership has increased markedly and i believe the black business owners grew at the fastest rate. This is a capitialistic answer which has none of the negatives of Leftism.

Also in the last 4 years we saw the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in recorded history. No doubt the above reason helped to improve employment as did lower tax rates and the encouragement to bring US money back to the country. Both of these measures are likewise capitalistic measures.

Enforcing immigration control is likewise a nationalistic measure that also would have helped.

Yet there was a complete and utter rejection (on a religious level) by the Left of those measures even though they were measurably successful.

Likewise there is the Christian teaching of treating everyone as a child of God with innate respect and care which i think is aimed at the personal level.

There are many ways to make society better.

Back tomorrow.

 

[Cathoholic]

Terri and Jesse (excellent well-informed Catholics) on this topic. . . .

#CatholicsREACT to Exorcist on Communism: Fr. Ripperger’s Spiritual Warfare and Communist​

[(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Virgin Most Powerful Radio​

Published on Nov 20, 2020

Terry and Jesse go through Father Chad Ripperger’s video where he compares the behavior of demons to the behavior of the communist revolution. Fr Chad Ripperger is a Catholic Exorcist who has been featured plenty of times on Virgin Most Powerful Radio.

 

[Annie]

I really like this video; it is very short and replays the salient parts of what Fr Ripperger was saying.

What Fr R was saying starting at about 2 minutes (in your video) reminds me of what the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen said about the difference between Communism and Christianity: in the one, people follow and idea, in the other people follow a Person.

And that Person is Love Incarnate.

What Fr Ripperger brings out here is that communism is all about power. It is a framework of power. Where Freud thought everything was about sex and death, Communists think everything is about power. This is embodied in Critical Theory and its branch Critical Race Theory, the idea that everything is about power. It is no surprise that the founders of BLM*org (not the movement) said they were Marxist-trained.

And I am not saying that nothing is about power.

But the solution is not grabbing the power away from one set of people. Just as we don’t really fight fire with fire but with its opposite, water, we don’t fight power-mindedness with power-mindedness but with love.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, it looks like we’ve come to the end of the CAF. We’ve got a month to end this thread, and then it disappears, from the sound of it.

I watched most of the video.

Let me get to the real bottom of my motives here, my own reason for participating @silentwitness, @Cathoholic, @Annie.

These guys, Terry and Jesse, are endorsing the demonization of huge groups of people, as is Fr. R.

There are Catholics, well-meaning Catholics, who are sympathetic to these groups, and some Catholics are “liberals” and protestors, walking alongside these same groups, advocating for their causes, advocating for BLM.

Demonization of groups is factionalism, and it is schismatic. It is not a Christian way of dealing with people. It is not pastoral. It is not a work of the Spirit.

Is this thread one of the reasons why CAF is ending, so that people don’t continue to give voice to those who sow schism and discord?

We are to understand and forgive people first, not demonize them.

So what I am seeing in this thread is an opportunity for the exercise of understanding and forgiving the very groups being criticized by Fr R. To start out on this effort, we need to find more favorable ways of interpreting thoughts, words, actions, motives, etc. There are indeed more favorable things to be found, if a person is open-minded to Seeing God in All Things, as St Ignatius asked of his brethren.

I see Terry and Jesse’s good intent, but their use of language is very much like others in degenerated public discourse. Are they understanding and forgiving? Do they have a pastoral goal, one of bringing people together in love, even people of opposite opinion, or are they feeding the fires of discord?

In order to do such understanding and forgiving, we have to start with looking at what the people we are condemning are actually doing and saying. For example, this is not about understanding and forgiving people who “follow the devil”, it is about looking at people’s words and actions and finding alternatives that are more charitable than saying that someone is “following the devil” in the first place.

Here is an example: Fr. R. put a lot of emphasis on law-breaking. The vast majority of protestors did so peacefully and non-violently, yet he is lumping them all together. Could we at least narrow the people being addressed to those who are breaking the law? Can we start there and seek to understand their thoughts, words, and actions? Would we not want people to do this for us?

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep. You seem to be impugning the worst motives here . . .

These guys, Terry and Jesse, are endorsing the demonization of huge groups of people

I again would refer you to not just Fr. Ripperger’s videos, but his advice too.

 

[Annie]

How can we discuss what was said when all you can say is that we need to repudiate what was said?

If you were interested in doing anything other than putting forth your point about accepting the most favorable interpretation of everyone’s actions (while attributing unfavorable motives to Fr Ripperger), we could have had a real discussion about what he said. We all could have thought about different points he made. We could have all learned from each other.

But you were not the least bit interested in engaging, you would not answer my questions to you (and maybe not anyone else’s), and so we could not move forward with any sort of discussion.

 

[OneSheep]

while attributing unfavorable motives to Fr Ripperger

I have done nothing of the sort. I have always said that he means well. He wants the best for people who read his material, as well as people who don’t.

we could have had a real discussion about what he said.

I don’t want to have a discussion about what he said. I want to come up with a more favorable interpretation of what he is addressing.

But you were not the least bit interested in engaging

You’re right. I am not initially interested in engaging what he said, because we do not have him here to answer for himself. Let’s just say that he was well-intended and leave it at that for now.

What I would like to do is to start out with making our own interpretations about what he was addressing, for example protestor lawlessness, and then we can compare our interpretation with his, and see which interpretation is more favorable. This is not about repudiating, it is about coming up with the most favorable interpretation. We can accept all interpretations, yet rationally pick the most favorable.

We can’t seem to get to the first step. I’ve tried again, but as you can see, no one wants to work at understanding why some of the people on the streets did violent things.

Are you happy with saying that the violent protesters are simply influenced by the demonic, without really looking at what is behind their actions? We have already addressed the peaceful protesters, right? We looked at their wants, and found nothing demonic.

Again, if you were out doing what you think is right, how would you feel about some random person saying that you were influenced by the devil? Does that sound favorable? Does it sound loving, holy, kind, merciful? Does it sound like the voice of our Church?