Originally posted by Worlds Within
Curiously, Pope John Paul was unable to cast out a demon from a girl in an impropmtu exorcism. (Unless, he, like Paul, was an \"antichrist\".)
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/popedemon.html
Seeing a demon behind every post and pillar is good for church coffers.
I saw a supposed exorcism on the telly a while back and it was laughable...
It often takes great deal of work to perform an exorcism, and, as you said, he was in an impromptu situation.
I read of one Exorcism which took a Bishop 21days, after the demon has put two of his priests in the hospital. He had to go to the Religious Orders within his parish and ask for assistance of their Prayer and Fasting, and he himself stopped eating, as a Penance that would give him that extra edge of Power he felt he needed.
And what is the Pope but a Bishop that was able to become popular among other Bishops. A Pope is simply an Administrator and an Executive. No special magic accompanies them. yes, there was the silly doctrine put forth, no so many years ago that states that Popes are Infallible, but that was perhaps the most Fallible of Rulings, since it has been used to make an Anti-Pope out of any Pope who ever happens to disagree with whatsoever another Pope might have said. It was silly for any Pope to claim anything but Executive Control of a Unified Church.
Oh, and regarding your comment that the Church popularizes demon possession. No, it really doesn't. Most Catholic Families live in well protected homes and so the issue rarely comes up.
Paradoxically, one sees the most of Demons with people who also see the most of Angels and who have the greatest exposure to Beatific Visions. One would suppose that there is something a bit Manic Depressive about it... or Bi-Polar. it is as though a person who is very Spiritually Sensitive is very much open to both the Positive and the Negative Influences. In History we hear a great deal of Sainted Monks and Nuns having contentions with Demonic Spirits, and within the districts of their Monasteries, which should have a great deal of spiritual protections, and so it seems odd that they should have become vulnerable. this is why I often suspect that Catholicism has exposed itself by incorporating some certain fatal flaws into its otherwise pristine set of Doctrines. The Paulist notion that Humanity is Saved by the Torture and Murder of Christ is nothing better than a criminal idea which Demons can do a great deal toward exploiting. We may have the Golden Rule at play here. Now take a Saint -- one with a very open Spiritual Temperament -- who supposes that it was ultimately a beneficial thing that Christ, the Messiah and Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was cruelly slaughtered, and that one should personally benefit from such criminality. The Golden Rule, here, which states, in the inverse, that one will receive to one's self as one wishes upon others, then we can only suppose that these Souls will receive some great deal of suffering in some of the same proportions as they wished upon Christ. If Christ must be tormented for Sin, then it only makes sense that any Holy Person should be tormented for Sin. These good and decent Saints find it difficult to escape from this moral logic. And the Demons step in and exploit it.
Christ, in Apparition, has often commented upon the subject of His Suffering. Each of the Stigmatic Saints was offered a Choice, as He appeared to them, of whether they would choose his Glory or His Suffering. As good Catholics, they all choose Suffering. Well, Suffering was indeed imposed upon the Christ, but we need to wonder whether that had been quite so inevitable as the Church under Paul had assumed. The Three Kings of the Orient and a great deal of Messianic thought at the time supposed a King of King was to rise up from the Seed of Abraham and the House of David. Nobody supposed it was all to end in a premature political assassination... not until after the fact. Everybody had been expecting a Glorification of the Messiah. And when Christ came in Apparition to these His Saints and again presented them with the Choice, what would have been so terribly wrong with choosing Glory for the Messiah. Why repeat the same mistake over and over and over.
You know, I would be much more aboard the Notion of Forgiveness of Sin if I could look at History and Civilization and discern that there has been any great deal of Forgiveness. But there has been none. After the Messiah was murdered, God destroyed Jerusalem. It was rebuilt and God destroyed it again. It was rebuilt and God destroyed it again. The Temple was eradicated, and the Murders of the Messiah were stripped of Prophecy and sent off in a Diaspora, forbidden their Promised land. Then those who adopted this Doctrine of Forgiveness by Messianic Murder and Suffering faired little better. Plagues and Wars ever assailed that Civilization. Would a Divine Forgivensess of Sins had brought a Universal Joy and Prosperity. But no, that is not what we have seen. We do not see Forgiveness, not even when Catholic doctrine was almost Universally adhered to at the very height of Catholic Civilization... indeed, that was when we had the Onslaught of the Black Plague. So, NO, God has not Forgiven a single Sin because Humanity Murdered the Messiah. In fact it seems that He may still be harboring a very serious Grudge.
|
|
Bookmarks