A
anon91549587
Guest
I did not check my words but it is the sacrements that possess minor exorcism properties , not the sacramentals.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sophie111
Guest
Lets give it a rest, I don’t believe you really understand the references provided.
The Catholic Church does not believe in magic whether we speak of sacramentals or the Sacrament of Baptism. They are but outward signs.
The Catholic Church does not believe in magic whether we speak of sacramentals or the Sacrament of Baptism. They are but outward signs.
A
anon91549587
Guest
Ok. Let it rest .
Last edited:
A
anon91549587
Guest
17:40
A
Aquinas11
Guest
“God revealing himself to his saints” is pretty clearly inclusive of private revelation.
Thanks for proving me right. “inclusive” and “requires” are black and white.Nothing in my post requires private revelation
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Reading minds isn’t an argument.We know what you meant
Last edited:
S
Sophie111
Guest
My Chinese partner has a great Chinese proverb for our smart child when he is too shy to admit he has made a public faux pas and then tries to rationalise it away.
It probably doesnt translate as nobly…
“Do you think we cannot see a bottom sticking out just because you covered your face.”
It probably doesnt translate as nobly…
“Do you think we cannot see a bottom sticking out just because you covered your face.”
Last edited:
D
Dorothy
Guest
I know many people who have this medal and they use it prayerfully.
Thank you for your post “oldgraymare2”
S
Sophie111
Guest
OK, I can see where you have been unfortunately reinforced in an understandable yet still superstitious understanding of sacramentals.
With all respect to the good Fr Ripperger, he has gone off the rails a little when he says things like
“some sacramentals have an inherent spiritual effect. …exorcised bells, when you ring the bells, it drives out demons of the air.”
I am not sure what that really means in practise or even how it could be proven either way.
It seems to me no more than a pious comforting thought that actually has no clear Magisterial support.
If you can provide such a Magisterial doctrine, and what it really means, I would of course revise my position. It flies in the face of the current Catechism, sacramentals theology quite apart from being mildly superstitious (if not new age) and against reason.
As expected Fr believes unquestionably in the opposite - the intrinsic effect of “curses” or spells.
This attitude to sacramentals (or their opposite) contradicts the Catechism which states:
“To attribute the efficacy of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.”
Fr R has, not surprisingly, fallen out with his own bishop who would not authorise his organisation of exorcists in his Diocese.
With all respect to the good Fr Ripperger, he has gone off the rails a little when he says things like
“some sacramentals have an inherent spiritual effect. …exorcised bells, when you ring the bells, it drives out demons of the air.”
I am not sure what that really means in practise or even how it could be proven either way.
It seems to me no more than a pious comforting thought that actually has no clear Magisterial support.
If you can provide such a Magisterial doctrine, and what it really means, I would of course revise my position. It flies in the face of the current Catechism, sacramentals theology quite apart from being mildly superstitious (if not new age) and against reason.
As expected Fr believes unquestionably in the opposite - the intrinsic effect of “curses” or spells.
This attitude to sacramentals (or their opposite) contradicts the Catechism which states:
“To attribute the efficacy of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.”
Fr R has, not surprisingly, fallen out with his own bishop who would not authorise his organisation of exorcists in his Diocese.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Fr. Ripperger is a priest in good standing in the Archdiocese of Denver. The same applies to the Dolorans.Fr R has, not surprisingly, fallen out with his own bishop who would not authorise his organisation of exorcists in his Diocese.
It is against the rules of the forum to incite animosity against the clergy. Tread carefully.
Last edited:
S
Sophie111
Guest
I have stated impersonal facts you can objectively confirm for yourself.
I have not denied that your Fr R is officially still has faculties for that Diocese.
Yes I believe his quoted views on Catholic Sacramentals is in error and at face value contradicts the current Catechism.
That is not inciting animosity against the clergy and I kindly ask that you apologise for uncharitably suggesting I am.
I have not denied that your Fr R is officially still has faculties for that Diocese.
Yes I believe his quoted views on Catholic Sacramentals is in error and at face value contradicts the current Catechism.
That is not inciting animosity against the clergy and I kindly ask that you apologise for uncharitably suggesting I am.
Last edited:
A
anon91549587
Guest
Yea , contradicting the current Catechism , Father R did mention the differences .
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I think mrsdizzyd in post #27 nailed it, but I’ll add a personal thought.
From the outside, you might think person A is being superstitious and person B–who is doing exactly the same thing–is simply being pious. But you don’t know. It’s like sin–you might conclude that person A is committing a sin, but you don’t know. Person A might not even know. Only God knows.
I’ve seen a lot of things I would consider superstitions. And they would BE superstitions if I did them. But I can’t judge for other people. I can’t read their minds. So you might say to yourself “That’s superstitious,” but also add “but that’s just my opinion.”
From the outside, you might think person A is being superstitious and person B–who is doing exactly the same thing–is simply being pious. But you don’t know. It’s like sin–you might conclude that person A is committing a sin, but you don’t know. Person A might not even know. Only God knows.
I’ve seen a lot of things I would consider superstitions. And they would BE superstitions if I did them. But I can’t judge for other people. I can’t read their minds. So you might say to yourself “That’s superstitious,” but also add “but that’s just my opinion.”
C
Calliope
Guest
I’d say superstition is putting faith in a thing or ritual with no regard or understanding of the process behind it. Thinking the thing or ritual is responsible for the outcome, rather than the process at work behind it.
I take a little orange pill as prescribed by my doctor. If I run out of it and say…well, I have these orange baby aspirin, they look pretty much the same and take it because I believe the fact that the pill is little and orange is all that matters, thats superstition. If I realize that it’s the particular chemical in the prescribed pill that interacts with my body that keeps me healthy, then I take the correct pill for the correct reason. My faith is correctly placed and my behavior is in line with that.
I take a little orange pill as prescribed by my doctor. If I run out of it and say…well, I have these orange baby aspirin, they look pretty much the same and take it because I believe the fact that the pill is little and orange is all that matters, thats superstition. If I realize that it’s the particular chemical in the prescribed pill that interacts with my body that keeps me healthy, then I take the correct pill for the correct reason. My faith is correctly placed and my behavior is in line with that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.