So as a complete outsider reading this with something of a detached interest, I'd just like to remark that I see two arguments being given and that neither side is addressing those arguments at all. It seems to me that Alex is making a perfectly defensible claim that words matter, and that certainly seems that it would be true. While I, given my own theology, wouldn't put nearly the emphasis on place of importance on it that you all do (given my general disregard for the importance of forms of rites, and that given the fact that I'm not a sacramentalist in any meaningful sense), even I can see that words matter. Unfortunately, Michael doesn't seem to be accepting that rather simple statement and instead is wanting to say that such a claim--that the words matter--is somehow an indication that there is a lack of faith. That's a pretty clear straw man, I think.

On the other hand, Michael seems to be arguing that so long as one uses words approved by the Holy See, that those words are sufficient, and from there he's just not going to admit or try to judge between degrees of sufficiency. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable argument to me, but Alex hasn't responded to that point as far as I can tell, but has returned a straw man of his own by reducing Michael's claim to the suggestion that words are completely unimportant, that you could utter any words whatsoever and have the intended effect.

So I, for one, am not seeing a necessary conflict. It seems to me that you could admit that words are important insofar as they convey the intention of the prayer/exorcism/whatever. I take it that even Michael would agree that you couldn't expect to walk up to a demon-possessed person and high-five them and shout, "Hey, Dude!" and think that could possibly effect an exorcism. But then does it follow from there that a highly specific set of words is essential, or rather without getting into concerns about minimal sufficiency, it is sufficient to pray from a range of rites that all, in their own way, do actually express the intention. If so, perhaps you could go on to argue that one rite (or whatever the word is, I have no idea) might be more effective than another and that for a myriad of reasons possibly not related to the words themselves per se. Maybe certain words are more effective in drawing our minds to Christ or focusing on His power or authority or whatever other variable you want to cite. Or maybe certain words really are more effective . . . but I can definitely say, for whatever it's worth, that I don't see that addressed in these comments. Could be I'm missing that, of course, but that's what I'm (not) seeing.

So much for my half of a cent.

That's an accurate summation as far as I can tell.

To state my own position more clearly (I hope): We are discussing matters that lie in the realm of free opinion; reasonable arguments can be adduced for both sides; and I for one don't know how to resolve them.

I'm not fond of the idea of various forms of holy water, FWIW.

TheJack, I appreciate your sense of unbiased input.

I am not trying to launch a strawman regarding the content/words of the prayers. I am stating a Catholic trusts the Holy See as the only authentic authority one appeals to for such a judgement.

My faith argument is not a personal attack but more one directed that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Holy See. Not individuals.

So, for example, is Epiphany Holy Water is no different than non-Epiphany Holy Water?




I would probably need the strongest anxiety medication possible coupled with all sorts of government handouts as I would be making 15k a year, :).

I don't know Give me some reasons why it might be.

Because he makes this claim:



Sufficient for what?

For spiritual warfare? The Holy See has said nothing. THAT is my point.

Thank you for clarifying. That is a better question.

I don't think there is anything weird about Fr. Ripperger. He founded a society of priests whose focus is exorcism and they use the old rites. They moved to Colorado and operate with the permission of the Bishop.

No, no, no. That's not what I am talking about. You are already given the correct words for blessings in that book. So take that knowledge form the Holy See and consider what you said:





You are inferring that correct words may not be necessary.


So I ask again, keeping mind that you are bringing in the issue of “correct words:”

Go up to your priest and ask him to make holy water with the following words:

O Lord, we love you, please guide us. Amen.


Do you have Holy Water now? Yes or no?



2. Prove that the Holy See has made a definite decision that the new rite Holy Water is just as effective for spiritual warfare as the traditional rite.


If not, then I can legitimately question this without my faith crumbling before your keen perception of my state supernatural virtues.

Oh, I haven't looked into Epiphany water that much, I was really asking if you knew.

Sufficient for it's purpose. A blessing for Holy Water,

If you want to focus on a "prayer of exorcism" that is found within the Rite Of Exorcism. NOT a blessing of Holy Water.

Obviously not

That wasn't a strawman, as I clearly stated it was a hyperbole - twice. If it was a poor hyperbole, then so be it. I am stupid, not malevolent.
As for the point of me not responding to the argument, I was trying to shift through Michael's words in order to get to the heart of it - I think I finally figured it out with my above responses (in other words, my thick head is finally seeing what he is trying to say).

Yep. I agree with you. It's sufficient to make Holy water...






Um. I am not talking about the Rite of Exorcism. I have been talking about this since the first post: a prayer of exorcism with the Holy Water blessing in the old rite vs no prayers for exorcism in the Holy Water blessing for the new rite. Argument: The Old rite holy water is better for spiritual warfare as a result of these prayers - because words, and words in prayer, actually matter.


Now, with that in mind, let’s see some answers:

Yes. I see.

My objection is conflating Holy water(s) purpose in spiritual warfare. It's main purpose is to predispose one to the Sacraments. Which is the ultimate weapons for spiritual warfare - most specifically, the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist. It's possible the Holy See revised the Blessing to avoid such CONFUSION.

And it's not as if Paul VI didn't take this matter quite seriously.

Outside of the Sacraments i'd also appeal to the Prayer to Saint Michael.

I have never, ever, said holy water's main purpose was for spiritual warfare. I didn't even infer it. I just said traditional holy water is better for spiritual warfare - nothing fancy about this statement, nothing about bringing primary, secondary, or tertiary into this.

I even agreed with you that confession and the Holy Eucharist are the best means - do you remember that?





Do you have proof of this? Or even historical proof that laity was confused over this?




Taking things seriously doesn't mean you are immune to imprudence.

In what verifiable way?




True yet the warning from Paul VI in 1972 made it quite clear he was far from imprudent in the utmost Spiritual danger of our time.

You're assuming what you're trying to show, and presenting it as fact. That is the logically fallacy of begging the question.

There is nothing weird about Fr. Ripperger's standing in the Church, put it that way.

Actually, not only can changes to rites render them illicit, they can also render them invalid. The Church has the authority to change the form of certain rites, even of certain sacraments, but not all of them.