When the demons strike back: experience of an exorcist after an exorcism

I do not have the impression that Catholics, ordinary Catholics are any more "naturalistic" abouyt the events of the Old Testament than the New. As for the intellectuals, they seem to distance themselves from the miracles of Lourdes. One thing you do not consider is that the ordinary Catholic really doesn't know much about the Old Testament. Barbara Tuchman, the Jewish historian, once reminded us of the close identification that English Protestants felt weith the "Israeltes," who for them replaced the Catholic Anglo-Saxons as their "true" ancestors. The number of Hebrew names among the Puritan fathers exemplifies this. That's because they no longer honored the saints and confined themselves to Biblical names.

This is true, and it has had both positive and negative consequences. The positive is the pull toward Judaism; the bad is British-Israelism and its evil progeny, "chr*stian identity."

I am not sure you understand completely the point I am trying to make, though perhaps you do. I was Catholic for six years and Catholic magazines and periodicals of all kinds ran friendly articles about exclusively Catholic supernatural phenomena such as bilocations, blood liquefaction, the miracles of saints, and above all Marian apparitions. The articles would usually contain a small disclaimer that official Church approval didn't mean that the miracles were authentic but only that they did not contradict Catholic faith and morals, but aside from that all the articles were very enthusiastic.

In contrast with this those same publications never mentioned Genesis without insisting that it was mythology. There was sometimes a disclaimer that it was exactly forbidden to accept the Genesis stories as literal history, but the implication was that who would want to? In other words, the Catholic Church, while reverent enough when it comes to its own miracles, is highly suspicious of the supernatural phenomena of the "old testament" and absolutely refuses to show the slightest compassion to people for whom this constitutes a problem. Intellectuals get all the compassion, Fundamentalists get scolded for being an "embarrassment." Similarly, I have never seen any material expressing discomfort about the excesses of Latin folk Catholicism. Rather, it is defended just as the Fundamentalist culture of the American Heartland is attacked and condemned.

Donal Anthony Foley, a British Catholic literalist, is quite honest about the fact the Catholic openness to evolutionism and blasphemous higher criticism derives precisely from a "suspicion of the Bible" that arose as a reaction against the Protestant Reformation.

I suppose I really shouldn't be complaining, though. This hostility to the Bible is precisely what will prevent my people from ever even being tempted to give the Catholic Church (or the other ancient liturgical churches) a hearing, and as long as that is so, the possibility of cultural conversion to Noachism is still possible.

Catholicism "suspicion" of the Bible has nothing to do with the the histoical character of Genesis and everything to do with the ahistoricism of radical Protestantism. To turn your complaint around, this stand was willing to dismiss every thing that happened after the first century as a perversion of the true Gospel. Luther and many of the other Reformers were Biblical scholars was nonentheless embraced the Church Fathers as peers and men of good faith with whom they felt free to disagree on points of doctrine. Radical protestantism dismissed all of them, because they were tainted by Catholic teaching. Likewise they dismissed the whole of what the Orthodox call "the Holy Tradition."except for the Scriptures. IAC, those Fathers made two crucical decisions: (1) to accept the Jewish Scriptures as Holy Writ and (2) To "Christianize" those Scriptures, by searching them for passages that were most consistent with the Gospel. As you know, they, at the same time regarded them as historical accounts of real events. However, from almost the beginning, Christian scholars applied the method of allegory. They were by this means able to discern references to Christ which the Rabbis denied as applying to him. They saw in Scripture what a Rabbi did not. The doctrine of Original Sin is not a necessary interpretation of the events of Genesis. Ironically, many of the modernists who have spent so much time deconstructing the Scripture have followed Pelagius rather than Augustine and so they have reached the same conclusions as the Rabbis. They are reluctant to give Paul any special authority, just as they refuse to give Moses such authority. . You wonder that they don't accept the parting of the Red Sea? What about their approach to the Calming of the Seas by Jesus?

In contrast with this those same publications never mentioned Genesis without insisting that it was mythology.

Try Catholic Answers, or stick with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There's tons of "Catholic" garbage out there. Many Catholic clergy have been infected with the spirit of Modernism, as have other clerics.

Another orthodox Catholic resource that goes into philosophical issues with more depth is Biblical Catholicism. It's a very ugly website, but very informative. Don't judge this book by its cover 8-)

Catholic Answers, run by Frank Keating, is evolutionist and hardly has inerrancy or the integrity of the "old testament" at the top of its list. The same goes for such publications as New Oxford Review and The Wanderer. The Kolbe Center has had run-ins with both Keating and the NOR (unfortunately, Kolbe has the ant-Jewish lunatic Bob Sungenis, with whom I used to be friendly, on its board of advisors). Keating is also closely associated with Fr. Peter Stravinskas, who blatantly denies total Biblical inerrancy.

I fail to understand why you, who subscribe to this same "garbage," are trying to direct me away from it. Surely none of this stuff bothers you, does it?

PS: Feel free any time to explain why Catholicism, defender of tradition, feels compelled to criticize the Pharisees for not taking a "sola scriptura" position on the Hebrew Bible.

Adam, Eve and Evolution., from the Catholic Answers website. I wouldn't characterize this essay as "evolutionist," but you're free to draw your own conclusions.

PS: Feel free any time to explain why Catholicism, defender of tradition, feels compelled to criticize the Pharisees for not taking a "sola scriptura" position on the Hebrew Bible.

We do? The "Chair of Peter" directly reflects the authoritative teaching "seat of Moses," and has always been understood as such. Jesus certainly didn't reject the tradition of the Pharisees, so the Church certainly would not.

In the time of Our Lord such was their power and prestige that they sat and taught in "Moses' seat".
Pharisees
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia

Keating is also closely associated with Fr. Peter Stravinskas, who blatantly denies total Biblical inerrancy.

Maybe we have an equivocal understanding of inerrancy. How do you define the inerrancy of Scripture?

I found this explanation of inerrancy from a Catholic perspective.

And this entry in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Criticism (Higher):

Higher Criticism may be called a science, though its processes and results do not admit of nicety of control and demonstration, as its principles are of the moral-psychological order. Hence its conclusions, even in the most favourable circumstances, attain to no greater force than what arises from a convergence of probabilities, begetting a moral conviction.

Well, I WISH it were true. Do you think there are times when demons are more, well, evident to a person? I'm what is called a 'newbie', and I'm sure I'm seeing demons stare out of some people's eyes. Never happened to me before, and I don't need meds as far as I know. Comments, anyone?

Satan?

Or a bad batch of this:

Just kidding, folks! Lighten up!

I've met evil people. I think anyone who has been to a FReep (counter-protest of a leftist event) has met them!

There's a fine line between human evil and demonic influence, and I wouldn't know how to tell the difference.

I just read "Hostage to the Devil" (finished it this week as a matter of fact). It was very intriguing!

I just read "Hostage to the Devil" (finished it this week as a matter of fact). It was very intriguing!

I think that's the best book available on exorcism and demonology. Fr. Martin's scholastic analysis of the phenomenon in the "Manual of Possession" section is simply brilliant.

His choices of the five American cases typify major trends in contemporary society: moral relativism, materialistic science, gender-bending, rat-race pursuit of the dollar, and dabbling in the occult.

The sub-story of one priest's soul-searching on the question of evolution alone makes the book a "must-read."