Unfortunately the actor Anthony Hopkins admits to interjecting in the movie that his character Fr. Lucas is an agnostic. Hopkins said he wrote the lines in the movie to make the character more like himself, an atheist. There’s no way any exorcist would have a chance against Satan without a strong belief in Jesus Christ. So this movie does an injustice to the Church by not portraying the truth that a Catholic priest as an exorcist must possess a strong and unwavering faith in God to be successful against Satan.

Yes, even with discounting schizophrenia, Tourette syndrome, rye ergot poisoning (once common in Germany and New England)the phenomena of demonic possession exists and exorcisms are beneficial.

I suspect that between formal exorcism and medical practice there could be delivery ministry of sorts. Formal consent agreements should preceed and exorcism, just as in the case of medical practice. Deliver ministry, such as practice by charismatic prayer groups, or simple annointing with oil as a sacrimental need no such formal consent agreements.

Also, I think in past times Catholic exorcists were not commonly priests. There was too much exorcism being practiced in some past times prior to the Reformation. The minor order of Exorcist is well before ordination to diaconate (deacon). Priests are somewhat scarce today and are overworked, and since historically others could do exorcists, I think deacons should be qualified to perform exorcisms after the right amount of training, apprenticeship, and aptitude and charisma for the service.

For what it’s worth, it’s been a long time since I last saw The Exorcist III, but I don’t think that was Father Merrin (i.e. the character played by Max von Sydow in the first two films) that we saw there; rather, it was Father Karras (i.e. the character played by Jason Miller, who supposedly died when he jumped out the window at the end of the first film).

I’m grateful for the thoughtful comments on this article. My thoughts are:

1) No Holy Spirit-filled person, be he an ordained priest or he/she a non-ordained, lay person, can ever be possessed by Satan or any demon: It is written, “He who is in you (the Holy Spirit) is stronger than he who is in the world (the devil or his demons)”.

2) While a Holy Spirit-filled Christian CAN be harrassed by a demon, a child of God need only pray over the person in the Name of Jesus the Christ, and demand it leave, or the person can by himself/herself say, “In the Name of Jesus the Christ, flee” - there is a Bible PROMISE the spirit will flee.

3) No seminarian (especially one that does not even believe in God) is qualified to be sent to exorcism school - among the qualifications for MEN in our ordained ministry is that they be MATURE and seasoned in the Christian faith.  Why don’t we Catholics honor the qualifications from 1Timothy 3: 1-5, or Titus Chapter 1, or 1 Corinthians 9:5,for that matter?

I read the book, The Rite, when it first came out.  The movie is very loosely based on the book.  Information in the book about the history of exorcism is good.  But the manner in which our priests are being taught to exorcise people now is hogwash.  No wonder so many non-Catholics ask, “Are Catholics Christian?”

Seems like we Catholics will read anything but the Bible for our information.  And our clergymen are poorly formed when it comes to Holy Scripture.  I knew nothing about exorcism, when I read the book.  But I knew more about it than the main character, just by having read the Bible.

Catholics are NOT in good hands with the men in the Vatican.  This English-speaking priest had only to take a 40-hour class taught in ITALIAN, a language he didn’t speak, and he was good to go, to battle the devil!  It’s absurd.

We Catholics should DEMAND that our clergymen equip themselves in knowing the Bible so they can teach it and preach it to us, IN CONTEXT, AND IN FULL -  not omitting the parts they don’t like.  Or we should hold back our donations to the greater church, and just give enough to keep the lights on in local parishes.

No expository preaching?  (exposing the truths in Scripture)= No cash.
We Catholics need to be taught truths with ETERNAL VALUE.  The devil is real.  The Rite is bunk.

There’s a line in this movie:
“At times I’ve experienced total loss of faith—day, months when I don’t know what the hell I believe in—God or the devil, Santa Claus or Tinker Bell. Yet there’s something that keeps digging and scraping away inside of me. Seems like God’s fingernail. And finally, I can take no more of the pain and I get shoved out from the darkness into the light.”

Anthony Hopkins was on Charlie Rose the other night and pointed out that he specifically wrote to the screenplay writer and asked if he could put that in. Turns out that’s a direct quote from a Jesuit priest in England who made a big impression on Hopkins who fought his way out of the abyss he got into via booze. He says he used to call himself an athiest, then an agnostic and now a believer - with doubt, but a believer.  He is no longer an athiest.

Are you serious about Fr. Lucas saying he is an agnostic in the movie? Is that a true depiction of the book? Otherwise it seriously damages the spiritual strength of the movie. That’s a ridiculous insertion by Hopkins if that is so.

@Michael: Fr. Lucas is certainly not an agnostic, and Hopkins calls himself a believer, not an agnostic. Hopkins got Fr. Lucas’s line about doubt and faith from an English priest. It’s a startling line, but a good line, I think, and one entirely consistent with genuine faith-amid-doubt, something that Catholic theologians including Cardinal Ratzinger have written about. Here it is:
 
“At times I’ve experienced total loss of faith—day, months when I don’t know what the hell I believe in—God or the devil, Santa Claus or Tinker Bell. Yet there’s something that keeps digging and scraping away inside of me. Seems like God’s fingernail. And finally, I can take no more of the pain and I get shoved out from the darkness into the light.”
 
You are right that this real but wobbly faith makes for a less-than-ideal defense against the Devil. The movie makes that clear, believe me.
 
@ Michael in Abu Dhabi: Thanks for the historical perspective!
 
@Peter T Chattaway: Thanks for the fact check, you’re probably right (as usual). I’ll see about correcting it.

Mr. Greydanus has written here the first clear synopsis of Exorcisms in film. The Rite, directed by Mikael Håfström, is good enough to trigger an interest in how filmmakers have dealt with the authentic Catholic activity of exorcising demons. Greydanus’ review not only matches his previous reviews in terms of excellence but also provides a much needed perspective on Håfström’s film. Young Catholic film reviewers should imitate the above work by Mr. Greydanus in order to help movie producers bring solid Catholic films to a hungry audience.

These things creep me out. But they are real and need to be dealt with. As I read once before, the greatest triumph of the Devil is to make people believe he does not exist. This movie might change some people’s minds.

If anyone wishes to find out the exact truth about what the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and policies are regarding exorcism and also what real and approved exorcists have to say about this topic, I would suggest reading the following books:  “Exorcism” by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer with a Foreword by Rev. John A. Corapi, SOLT, STD published by Human Life International, http://www.hli.org, “An Exorcist Tells His Story” by Gabriele Amorth, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA 1999 and The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Citta del Vaticano, 1994; nn. 1673, 2116-2117 and 2851.

I read the book, The Rite, and several other good books concerning this issue, including those published by St. Ignatius Press. Also I have seen many of the related movies mentioned. I thought this book was very good and rather well balanced.  The previews of The Rite movie looked pretty sensationalistic so I expected it was turned into a total mess.  I am very glad to hear from Steve G that it really was not botched up too badly. Thanks!!

The FACT that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ Himself AND ALL the Holy Apostles exorcised the Devil and many demons in the past is a testament that exorcism is still valid today. The Church maintains this as a reality and it will forever be held true regardless if it was two thousand years ago or 2011. For people to denounce exorcism as fake or unnecessary is a complete rejection of the spiritual warfare that is going on in this world. REMEMBER: THE GREATEST TRIUMPH OF SATAN AMONG HUMANS TODAY IS LETTING PEOPLE THINK THAT HE NO LONGER EXIST. Wake up America.

I can just imagine the devil himself snickering.

In Nomini Padris (In the name of the father)
Et Fili (and the son)
Et Spiritus Sancti (and the Holy Spirit)

Abbe Male Spiritus (be gone evil spirits)
Abbe Male Spiritus (be gone evil spirits)
Abbe Male Spiritus (be gone evil spirits)

In Nomini Padris (In the name of the father)
Et Fili (and the son)
Et Spiritus Sancti (and the Holy Spirit)
In Nomini Jesu Christi (In the name of Jesus the Christ)

Amen. (So Be It)

The sad part is with the hoopla about this fictional movie, The Rite, and the REAL LIFE priest on whom the story is based, people have been writing letters to the editor now, congratulating newspapers for their giant leap BACK into the Middle Ages, when people were burned at the stake for being witches or exorcised, while most of what was happening was untreated mental illness.

The devil is real.  The Rite is bunk.  The movie is silly, and everyone I know is saying it has a sappy ending, and it’s predicatable, albeit scary.

In real life - the character played by the “young” seminarian, is a 57 year old priest that’s been ordained for 27 years.  He did NOT have a crisis of faith.  How stupid is it to think a youngster would be sent to exorcist school, in order to KEEP HIM IN THE SEMINARY?  It is Hollywood.

In real life, the mentor played by Anthony Hopkins is the same age as his 57 year old student.  But two paunchy middle aged men is not “Hollywood”.

I wouldn’t pay money to buy the book - get it from your library.  The book is tedious to read, the writing is pedestrian, with the author describing every last detail, like traffic noise on a Roman street corner, to break the monotony.

If only Catholics would just read the Bible and obey it.  Now that’s GREAT writing and it contains wisdom that has Eternal Value.

Did anyone else notice the “Magesterium” in its wisdom, chose to edit out parts of the first reading at Mass yesterday?  So much for Catholics hearing the “whole Bible” in 3 years - if they attend daily Mass, that is.

Again, Jesus & His Word, is put aside.  Vatican men take having “the keys” way too seriously.  It’s evident in the way they “exorcise” people, to how they choose to hack up God’s inspired Word.  Outrageous.  Jesus is the One with the Keys.  The Body of Christ is Jesus’ Church.

In the meantime, the world is telling us Satan and his demons do NOT exist.  But they DO exist.  Only Catholics, clergymen included, are ill-prepared to deal with them.  God help us.  And God forgive us for disregarding His Sacred Word, and hanging on the every word of spiritual midgets.

Why would any Catholic or Christian pay $11.00 to feed this Hollywood Satanic sensationalism?  It’s nonsense and exposes a carnal desire to explore the dark side.  And whom do you think is doing the enticing?  Those who engage in Ouija Boards, Horoscopes, Tarot Cards, Black Magic and video games like Dungeons and Dragons are the target audience.  Catholics or Christians who know the Bible already know (or should know)—“Satan is a defeated foe.”

This is very disappointing in that Fr. Thomas shows a certain naivete of having even participated in this exploitation.  Frankly, he should know better and his Bishop must have been AWOL for allowing one of his priests to assist in this creepy Satanic garbage.  In fact, his sanctioning fuels Satan’s purpose to have even more people engage the netherworld.  What cause of Christ is actually being served?  Whom is being honored?  Certainly not Christ.  Catholics and Christians can expect to be tempted as Jesus surely was.  However,—afraid of Satan?  Absolutely not.  If we are called to be a holy and sacred people, is this the best and wisest use of our time?  Think about it.

I saw the movie this weekend. Though there was certainly entertainment value in the movie, I was surprised and disappointed that there was no mention of the Eucharist. How can an exorcist possibly combat the demon without preparation and recourse to the Eucharist? How did Fr. Thomas, consultant to the film, let that slide by?

I was also confused by the seminarian’ status.  Was he a graduated college seminarian, in priestly formation, or a deacon when he exorcized the exorcist? His ordination status was unclear throughout.

@Cradle Catholic: You start by throwing out a charge about “leaping back into the Middle Ages,” whatever that means, and allege that “The devil is real, The Rite is bunk.” Why don’t you back up these charges? Intsead, your complaints boil down to: a) Fr. Thomas studied in Rome as an older man, not as a young seminarian, b) he did not have a crisis of faith, and c) a seminarian having a crisis of faith wouldn’t be sent to exorcism school. These seem to you damning faults? Your strange broadside on the “Magesterium” (sic; scare quotes and misspelling both yours) for ellipses in the Mass readings suggests some baggage that may have more to do with your comments than anything in the actual film.
 
@New Observer: Why do you say The Rite doesn’t honor Christ? I think it does. Have you seen the film? What is your opinion based on?
 
@Joseph dR: Fr. Thomas’s involvement in the film was less than you might think. He didn’t have script approval or anything like that. He spent some time on the set working with the filmmakers teaching Anthony Hopkins the pronunciations and gestures and so forth he would need and making various suggestions; he may also have fielded questions from the screenwriter, but he didn’t tell them how to make the movie.
 
The protagonist is a seminarian; he is not ordained to the priesthood or diaconate. While it is not usual for seminarians to perform an actual exorcism, AFAIK it’s not impossible either.

1) The character in this movie would not even made a good elder at a Bible-believing Christian parish.  While it is pathetic that a young, unseasoned man that has been baptized Catholic CAN be ordained to the priesthood these day, for real, does it not seem odd to everyone that to KEEP him in the seminary, his superior sent him to be an EXORCIST?  Is that not stupid?

2) To have the MENTOR, a supposedly seasoned priest, become possessed, one of two things would have to be true.  A) The priest played by Anthony Hopkin’s did NOT have the Holy Spirit residing inside of him, and he WAS OPEN to being possessed by the devil, or B) The Truths we have learned in the Bible about “He who is in you is stronger than he who is in the world” is wrong.  My money is on the fact that the mentor (in real life and in the movie) does not have the Holy Spirit residing in him.

3) The Los Angeles Times ran a story about the real priest behind this movie, and he DID use the Eucharist.  A young Venezuelan woman was brought to him by her parents, and Fr.Thomas said she was sticking out her tongue, like a snake, and her eyes rolled in her head, and she began to slither around, and she tried to jump out the window, when he asked her if she could take the Eucharist.

He said that he tried to get her to open her mouth, and all he had to “wash it down with” was Holy Water.  I laughed out loud, when I read that.  But it also annoyed me.  I know lovely Christian friends that were at a Catholic funeral recently, and they respectfully went up for a blessing instead of receiving Communion, so as to not offend anyone.

Yet this woman, who tried to jump OUT of the window at the idea of receiving Communion, was given the host and Holy Water - to wash it down?  I’ll bet she did not say “Amen” respectfully, either.

To Steven G:
Please read my first post on Jan. 29th for what I think about the Rite. My post on Feb. 1st, that you refer to, is my SECOND post. 

A clarification about my second post, for the sake of others that may have misread what I wrote: by mentioning the leap back into the Middle Ages, I was referring to LETTERS TO THE EDITOR of newspapers that wrote about The Rite.

I wrote that this is a sad by-product of the movie.  Because The Rite distorts Bible truths, we now have people dismissing the reality of the devil and demons entirely.  I believe in the devil.  But I still say: The Rite is wrong.

@ cradle Catholic
“Catholics are NOT in good hands with the men in the Vatican.  This English-speaking priest had only to take a 40-hour class taught in ITALIAN, a language he didn’t speak, and he was good to go, to battle the devil!  It’s absurd”
By all your comments i am beginning to doubt the authenticity of your callsign or pen name.  Have you tried taking the course there in Rome?  PErhaps if you did you would understand more, and the bible acn only get you so far, if you take theology courses you will see the Bible explained in a more profound way, until then i suggest you keep your mouth shut about matters that you don’t know about.

To “The dude” -

1) I read the book by Matt Baglio, about which the movie was made.
2) I read The Good Book = the Bible. 

Now if only our men in the Vatican would read and obey the Bible.  By the way, I am a Cradle Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education.  I am not a revert - I never stopped attending Sunday Mass.  The Gospel last Sunday was on the Beatitudes.  The pastor preached on the Annual Diocesan Appeal.  Please do not insinuate I am not Catholic.  I am.

I am 100% Pro=Life (no death penalty, we need prison reform instead) and against same-sex marriage.  I am against women being ordained to the priesthood - because it is not in Scripture nor is it in universal Church Tradition (together known as The Deposit of Faith).

Perhaps the only thing that separates me from you is that I’ve read the Bible in context and in full, and I believe it.

@Cradle Catholic: I concur with the Dude, you sound like a non-Catholic, even if your conversion story begins “I was raised Catholic.” (Having been practically every kind of Protestant there is before becoming Catholic, my ear for theological accents is quite good.) Be honest about who you are and what you believe. God is truth; the father of lies is the devil.
 
On the question of the priest’s vulnerability, read my related blog post. I would say that the character in question goes from being in the state of grace earlier in the film to not being in the state of grace later in the film.

Steven- are you a priest?  Or a seminarian?  I have NO conversion story. I was baptized Roman Catholic when I was only an infant, and never left the Church.  The only thing I’ve done differently is read the Bible.

So your post is judgmental and in this case, WRONG.  I have never been a Protestant.  If I sound like one, it’s because I read the Bible. How long do you spend in the Bible every day?  You have an audience here - what are you doing to draw us to God, through His Word?

Perhaps if the clergymen that are behind this movie read the Bible, they’d sound non-Catholic too, & less superstitious, but a lot more Christian.  Jesus prayed for His Church to be unified, not divided.

@ Cradle Catholic: Anyone who wants to know about my background, including my seminary studies, is welcome to that information; I write under my own name and make no secret about who I am. You can read a bit about me at my About page. Regarding what I may be doing to draw people to God, I leave to His judgment; beyond that, anyone may look at my work and the responses of my readers in my mail columns and comboxes and draw whatever conclusions commend themselves to him.
 
You are right, my post was judgmental (thought FWIW your previous post hadn’t yet appeared when I posted above). You also throw around a lot of judgments yourself, e.g., regarding people you are sure don’t read the Bible, including Fr. Thomas. I apologize to you for my judgmentalism. Whether you apologize for yours I leave to your conscience.
 
It is not from Bible reading that phrases like “Holy Spirit-filled Christian” and “harrassed by a demon,” for example, flow trippingly off your tongue. Don’t say you haven’t been influenced by exposure to non-Catholic milieux. It’s obvious that you have. Can I ask whether you attend Mass on Sundays? Do you confess that Jesus’ flesh and blood is truly eaten and drunk in the Blessed Sacrament? Do you acknowledge that Jesus built His Church on St. Peter, and that Pope Benedict is Peter’s successor?

Steven D., This is getting a bit ridiculous.  The value your opinion concerning The Rite should be valued as much as the opinion and viewpoint of Cradle Catholic and Joseph dr.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

With the injection of “dude”, the conversation has now digressed and sunk to a low of questioning “How Catholic are you?” or whether Cradle Catholic is really an imposter.  Since you say you “have been every kind of Protestant” you are now well aware that Catholic and Protestant education alike run the table from Catholic grade school catechism or Sunday School Protestant all the way to Seminarian or Divinity School trained clergy.  Beyond that, clergy of liberal, moderate and conservative bent exist in both churches and they do not always toe the church theological line concerning every nuance.  The topic is about the film—not the core tenets of Christian faith.

Thank you, Steven.  I will check out your web page later, I’m grateful that you provided it.  Regarding my being judgmental, by making statements about Catholics not reading the Bible- it’s by their own admission.  So many non-Catholics would not be asking us, “Are Catholics Christian?”, if as a group, we were all well-taught in Scripture.

We may be familiar with Bible stories, but we are sorely uneducated in matters of our faith that have Eternal Value.  Further, I only know of two priests that understand the letters of St. Paul.  I was able to get a question to the priest from The Rite, and ask him how he used the Armor of the Holy Spirit in his work.  His answer was so poor, I concluded he did not know what that was (Ephesians Chapter 6).

As for your questions -
1) I attend a weekly Bible study at a Roman Catholic parish, where non-Catholic Christians are in attendance.  Since we have been in the Word for several years, it’s possible that I picked up some terminology that sounds “Protestant” from them.  With that said, I would only use it if it squared with Scripture.  Much of what I write that may “sound Protestant” might well be directly from St. Paul, or even Jesus = such as “you must be born again.”  Keep in mind that Martin Luther was an ordained Roman Catholic clergyman, until he read the Bible and he started to “sound Protestant” too.

2)Regarding Mass on Sunday- yes, I go on Saturday nights to one parish, and I go on Sunday mornings to another parish - I like to hear the homilies, and reflections on the readings.  When I was a child, Mass was not optional for me.  We went as a family, and I never stopped going to Mass.  My mother told me the Eucharist was “food for your soul”- I didn’t appreciate that, until I grew up.

3) I do believe that our Communion is Jesus’ Flesh and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament.  He said, “This is My Body, this is My Blood, unless you eat and drink…” - whenever anything is written in the Bible in a context such as that, I take it literally.  Communion is a Communion of Saints, in Heaven and on earth.  I do not believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit “obeys” the command of the priest, and enters into the host.  I do believe that as a Body of Christ, our “GREAT AMEN” to the priest’s words, has the most weight.  Only God knows for sure what and how His Presence happens.  Jesus said, “Do this…” and I do.  I obey His command.

4) Regarding Jesus building His Church on St. Peter - Jesus was always the Head of the Church.  Peter was the apostle that God gave a special grace to, in order for the confession to be made about Jesus being the Son of God.  Peter did have a large role in the Church, and it was he that also spoke first after Pentecost, to tell people that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired the apostles and disciples to speak out (in tongues that they didn’t know, in order for foreigners to hear and understand the Good News of the Kingdom of God being at hand.)

The apostle James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the Church in Jerusalem was the first Church.  The Church in Rome did not come until later, and Peter did not start the Church in Rome, it was begun by disciples of Paul.  That’s why it was Paul that wrote the letter to the Romans, so important it’s considered the “Constitution” of the Christian Church.

I believe that Jesus based His statement on Paul’s confession that He is the Son of God.  I believe that Jesus was placing a great responsibility on Peter’s shoulders, in terms of Peter being a major spokesman for the rest of the apostles.

But I wonder why it was James, bishop of Jerusalem, that was the message-bearer regarding the apostles’ decision after the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts of the Apostles, when Paul confronted Peter about Peter’s error in judgment.  I wonder why Peter calls himself just another ‘elder’ of the Church, and I wonder why Peter did not place more emphasis on his own role, and even retain his own successor, in the Bible, if Peter’s role was of such major importance to Jesus.  That’s all missing. 

I do not believe that by giving Peter the “keys to the Kingdom”, Jesus meant that anyone that took Peter’s place, as Bishop of Rome, would have 100% authority to do whatever he wanted, taking the Body of Christ on almost a wild ride, as if the Church was a Mazzerati car, and Jesus had lost control of it, because he gave the keys away to a new owner.

Jesus is the Head of the Church.  There were no ‘princes’ of the Church in Scripture = our cardinals; and there were no ‘monsignors’ aka, ‘my lord’, in Jesus’ day, so our bishops are to look to Him as the Head, and to carry out the work of TEACHING and PREACHING the “Deposit of Faith”, the body of truth left to us by Jesus, and spread through His apostles, in tact, showing that they LOVE US, by teaching us HIS TRUTH. 

When we hear HIS TRUTH taught to us by the bishops, then we submit entirely to their authority, because we can trust what they say 100%, and we, like the Bereans, can search the Scriptures (New Testament, today) and see what our leaders say is correct.  We should be able to see that nothing they are teaching us is self-serving, or not squaring with the New Testament, when read IN CONTEXT.

Anyone can take Scripture out of context, and make it fit to what they want it to say, to justify an agenda.  There are so many times that I hear, “Are Catholics Christian?” and I have to wonder why our church leaders are not standing on parish rooftops, teaching and preaching the Deposit of Faith (New Testament), spreading the Good News and WANTING everyone to check out what they say with the Bible. 

Instead, anyone that questions what they say is accused of sounding “Protestant”.  At least one’s life does not become threatened for questioning now, as was Martin Luther’s.  From what I understand, Luther did not want to leave the church, or start a new one, he just wanted Church Reform, and he spoke up.  His effort was just shot down, by the institutional church, and to this day, the reforms he brought to their attention still need addressing.

I believe we need leaders in Jesus’ Church: bishops, and clergymen.  No organization would get by without some kind of leadership.  Women are not to lead groups of men - so no women priests.  The Vatican gets a lot of its structures right, and what they teach squares with the New Testament.

But the problem is that sometime in the years after Jesus died, even in the 200’s, ideas crept into the church by pagan converts, and those ideals remain today.  Those ideals do not square with St. Paul’s letters, and Paul even warned about some of those teachings.  Yet, since the institutional church bought into those ideas from the years 200-1800, we keep the “traditions” today.

And worse, we make new ‘traditions’ of our own, and often, further removing us from the Deposit of Faith, and much of what St. Paul wrote in his letters.  As long as Catholics choose to read and believe everything BUT the Bible (like The Rite), the less like the original Church left by Jesus we become.  “As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.”  Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  Not an institution.

When the Vatican sells out to Jesus, as did Peter and the rest of the apostles, I’ll put more weight on their authority.  Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you.

@New Observer: I’m not sure why you bring up the subject of the legitimacy or value of different opinions, a point that I can’t see has been called into question by the discussion to date.
 
Since you bring it up, I’ve never denied, and have often stated, that everyone is entitled to his opinion. I don’t want to tell anyone else what to think about any movie under the sun. My opinions are no better or worse than anyone else’s merely because they’re mine—though this is not to say that everyone’s opinions are equally valuable, which seems to me obviously false.
 
I have no quarrel with anyone who thinks that The Rite is a poor movie, and I’m willing to listen to anyone who takes theological issue with it. I do have a quarrel with anyone, especially anyone who claims to be Catholic, who holds the sort of view of the Magisterium and of magisterial teaching that it seems Cradle Catholic does.

@ Cradle Catholic: Thanks for your gracious and thorough response (3:06 PM), which I accept and appreciate. (Once again, my answer above was posted before your post came through, I hope that’s clear.)
 
Regarding the questions you raise about Peter, James and Paul, you might be interested in my multi-post exegetical overview regarding what I call “the Petrine Fact,” i.e., the clear teaching of Scripture that Peter’s preeminence and leadership role in the early church was not an informal role based on his outspoken personality or other informal considerations, but was rooted in the choice of Jesus Christ, who intended Peter to have a unique foundational role in the new People of God, a representative headship among the apostles, and a uniquely privileged relationship to Jesus himself in the kingdom.

So…who actually enjoyed the movie? Why?

I’m looking forward to Joseph dR’s question to be answered.  I read the book, from cover to cover, taking detailed notes of The Rite.  For those weighing in on the movie, please answer these questions too:

1) Is it possible for a ‘saved’ person, one sealed by the Holy Spirit and whose body is called the Temple of the Holy Spirit, to be possessed by either Satan or a demon?  If so, why ... and how would that differ from what is written in the New Testament?

NOTE: I do believe a saved person can be tempted, harassed, oppressed, etc. by the demonic. I am only referring to outright POSSESSION.  We are told to “resist” any spirit that is not from God, & the spirit must “flee” as a result.  We do not fight against flesh and blood, but “powers and principalities”- that is why we have a Communion of Saints, a “Priesthood of believers” here on earth, and we have the Holy Spirit IN us to help us -“He who is IN YOU is stronger than he who is in the world.” 

2) Do the exorcists in the movie handle satanic presence in the same manner as the apostles and disciples did it, in the Bible?  If not, what is the difference?

3) Would it be reasonable for a young man that’s still in the seminary, to be sent by his superior to be an exorcist, in order to help him get over his crisis of faith, making sure he becomes an ordained priest?

Steven- thank you too, for your follow-up responses!  I will look up the other links you so kindly provided.  It’s much appreciated.

Dear Cradle Catholic
From what I understand about your last post is you are wondering if one who has been baptized and confirmed can be possesed.  From the small studies I have done in this area, I would say that it could be so.  NOW you raise an excellent point, that “HE who is in you is stronger than he who is in the world.” This lovely quote sums it up.  That we need to always be in the state of grace and frequent the sacraments.  As well one can not be possesed unless he consents to it.  IT may sound stange to have it put that way, but no one can have something done to him by God or the enemy if he does not freely choose it.  God respects our frees will. Throughour free will we choose to fall into temptation and thus sin.  Does God stop us?  Does Satan force us? 
For me it seems the same for diabolical possesion.
I know a deacon who has his PHD in psychology.  In his diocese he interviews those thought to be possesed to make sure that they really are and not suffering from a mental illness.  He told me once, when i was having my evaluation to enter the seminary, that he did deal with some people that were possesed and yes they were Catholic people.  I used to have the same doubt until he told me those stories.  As well could you tell us what you had in mind when you referenced the NT: ” If so, why ... and how would that differ from what is written in the New Testament?”
—Steven did what I say sound good to you?  or am I speaking nonsense?
Cradle Catholic, I hope that this helps you!
God Bless!

I think Steven has pointed out the weak spots in this movie, so I would like to add what I thought were wonderful moments (and I didn’t expect wonderful moments with this subject material): Hearing the creed prayed as if it were a battle cry, a pivotal scene having to do with the seminarian’s mother, the 2 priests that weren’t put off by the seminarian’s doubts, an early scene having to do with the last rites and the beauty of the priesthood.

catholicman77 —your comments are salient and speak to much of what many people become confused about.  One is not immune simply because they identify themself as Catholic,—or a member of a Christian church.  Referring to oneself as Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist or non-denominational is meaningless.  The larger question is:  Are you in Christ?”  Marginal Catholics and Christians in which their lives are not committed to Jesus as Lord are only that —marginal.  You are either “in Christ” or not.  How many people (church people) think it’s OK to dabble and play around with the darkside?  This is an invitation for Satan to enter your playground.  Such experimentation has zero attraction to a true child of God for your defense shield is always up.  Temptation is what we can always expect but demonic possession is out of the question.

Bobbie - 13 year old kids were brought to this movie in droves.  Were they being taught TRUTH or fiction?  This was not a vocation movie, and the only way the Creed as a battle cry could be useful in the real world is if we said it that way THIS SUNDAY AT CHURCH.  I only use caps for emphasis - and I do so because this is very important.  It is critical- as it will and is being used for TEACHING.

Catholics can be led astray very easily, by the images in this film.  I maintain the book was false teaching (other than the historical summary of exorcism- which would be factual), and the film is even WORSE.

“the only way the Creed as a battle cry could be useful in the real world is if we said it that way THIS SUNDAY AT CHURCH.”

Exactly! That was my thought. While I try to be mindful of those beautiful prayers we pray every Sunday, I will think more about the “battle” aspect of that prayer than I did before. As for the rest of your post, I’m lost. Because it showed priests in a positive light doesn’t mean it is a vocation movie, that was your big jump, not mine. I’ve not heard of nor seen this movie used as a teaching tool. The weaknesses have already been pointed out, the seminarian in the role that a priest should occupy, the hollywood effects, etc. What images in this film will lead catholic astray?

Dear New Observer,
I was only trying to answer the question that Cradle Catholic brought up, if it is possible for one who is saved to undergo posession.  I clearly stated that if we are in the state of grace then we are untouchable.  St Therese of the Child Jesus tells us that the devil is most afraid of one who is in the state of grace.  This being in the state of grace would be as you say “in Christ”.  Thus you seem to me only to agree with what I have said, when you try to bring up points against me. You bring up the “larger question” thing and if you look again I answered that in the previous post.  I can be lengthy about it, but I prefer not to, but I will state it again just for you.  WHEN WE ARE IN THE STATE OF GRACE THEN ALL EVIL IS REPULSIVE AND UGLY, AS IT REALLY IS.  Thus being in the state of grace we are “able to do all things in HIM who strengthens us”.  It does seem clear to me and to others that I had read my post, that I did not say we are immune because we are Catholic, perhaps you need to read my anecdote again to understand. I agree that yes to play with the dark stuff is not at all attractive to one who is in the light.  Yet how many people out there are confused?  Many don’t konw that they are dealing with invitations to the Satanic realm.  I have a few Protestant/atheist family members who would fall into this category.  And the next time, New Observer, that you happen to read one of my answers to one who asked a question I suggest that you read their question and then critique my answer.  Don’t jump in a conversation when you happen to hear a word or two.  IT helps to participate from the start of it.

To all.  I apologize for not sharing my thoughts about the movie as some of you have been doing and had asked that we do.  I was only trying to help answer a question from Cradle Catholic, as well i have not yet seen the film since my duties in the seminary have kept me from doing so.  God bless you all!

When I read the Bible, I take seriously that Christians are protected by the Blood of Jesus that overcame evil on the cross.  A child of God has access to Ephesians Chapter 6, the Armor of the Holy Spirit.  We can RESIST Satan and his demons, by telling them to flee, and they must flee.

Other verses that are IN Scripture, but are NOT in the book or the movie, are 1John 2:14, or the protection and ASSURANCE of John 17:15.
He who is in us (The Holy Spirit) is stronger than he who is in the world.

Further, the opposite of God is NOT Satan.  The devil and the other demons are created beings.  The opposite of Satan would be Michael the Archangel, if he had a counter-part.  God has NO EQUAL.  God is God.
Are average Catholics TAUGHT any of that?  Are teens 13 years old taught that? Carloads of teens went to see The Rite.  What did they learn?

As for saints that saw good things and benefits coming from being possessed (my word!!!!  are they serious!!!!????), Page 59 of The Rite quotes St. John Chrysostom saying exorcised persons can pay their debt for their sins and present himself/herself pure before the Lord.  WHAT???  Jesus did that for us, on the Cross.  RED FLAG.

In the book’s Notes: St. Gemma Galgani said she felt the Devil raining blows upon her back for several hours - and she felt constantly tormented by him.  She died at age 25.  Huh?  Was she Bible-literate?  Doesn’t sound like it.

Church “Fathers” such as St. Athanasius (died in 375) warned against using complicated formulas because of the risk of being ridiculed by demons - seems like excellent advice being ignored by the Vatican and by The Rite modern-day exorcists.

In the book, the mentor “taps the forehead” of the person - sounds like he is bringing them out of a trance.  Let’s face it- in the book and the movie, it looks like for much of the time, the demon is in control.

1500 priests meander Rome daily, and 83% of Italy calls itself Catholic, yet a whopping 500,000 Italians are enthusiastic about exorcisms???? Looks like the priests there are falling asleep on the job.  Why can’t they just TEACH the Bible?  Give Catholics the TOOLS they need. 

Now The Rite wants to bring the insanity to the US and the world?  The devil is real.  The Rite is wrong.

No child of God can be possessed.  We have tools in the Bible to use when we are oppressed or tempted.  Jesus used “It is written” to deal with Satan, in the desert.  We should use “it is written” - NEW TESTAMENT words, not pages of pre-scripted prayers by the Vatican, to deal with demons too.

catholicman77— I have no disagreement with your comments.  In fact, I was in support of you.  I think you might have misunderstood the context of my immunity to demonic possession point.  Let me restate.  There are some who believe that church membership is key to immunity.  You can attend church but that does not mean you are “in Christ” or as you point out, in “a state of grace.”  What you have said above and earlier I agree with.

@ Cradle Catholic: From your comments I’m not sure you’re taking seriously enough the scriptural teaching, clearly affirmed by the Church, of falling from grace or losing one’s salvation. I agree that he who lives in Christ and Christ in him is immune to diabolical possession, but we must reject the unbiblical and unhistorical “once saved, always saved” teaching popular among many (not all) Protestants, and with it the idea that no one who is a true believer could ever become demon possessed. If you’re unclear on the biblical and historical Christian teaching on this point, you might want to check out Jimmy Akin’s classic treatment.
 
Likewise, regarding your “red flagging” St. John Crysostom’s comment about paying for our sins supposedly contradicting the doctrine that Jesus paid for our sins: The Bible teaches Jesus alone bears the guilt of our sins—the eternal consequences—but it also teaches that there are still temporal consequences or punishments that we can and do bear. For more see various articles here; even better, get Jimmy’s book The Salvation Controversy.
 
Finally, getting back to the movie, what did viewers of The Rite learn? Among other things, that exorcism depends on God’s power, not the priest (Fr. Lucas tells Michael this in so many words). That even the beginnings of faith can defeat the devil. Never listen to what the devil tells you. The devil prefers that you not believe in him, and disbelief is no defense. Aren’t those good lessons?

P.S. It is a movie—not a catechism class. It is not meant to “teach” per se, but to tell a story in a compelling and intriguing way. A good story necessarily bears witness in some way to truth, but it is not the movie’s job to teach anyone about God. If the movie is effective, it might help move receptive viewers to ask questions about God which it is the Church’s job—that is, our job—to answer.

Steven- carloads of Catholics from parishes around my area flocked to see The Rite, bringing with them teen groups of children age 13 & older.  So like it or not, it IS a form of teaching, and it IS a Catechism class, because the messages these children saw will be retained for life, all in living color and on the big screen.

Last Sunday, after Mass, I asked a catechetical teacher what she thought of the movie.  With flowery words she described how inspiring it was, ‘faith’ wise.

I asked her how being “sealed” with the Holy Spirit factored into Fr. Lucas becoming possessed.  She looked at me with a furrowed brow, showing she didn’t know what I meant, and said, “Sealed?”  God help us.

P.S. It is a movie—not a catechism class. It is not meant to “teach” per se, but to tell a story in a compelling and intriguing way. A good story necessarily bears witness in some way to truth, but it is not the movie’s job to teach anyone about God. If the movie is effective, it might help move receptive viewers to ask questions about God which it is the Church’s job—that is, our job—to answer.

Steven, thank you. What a gift to be able to put your thoughts so clearly. That was the crux of the problem with Cradle Catholic’s posts and I didn’t know how to say it. Keep up the good work. You are my only trusted and favorite movie reviewer! Even in the desert of a movie theater, it is still possible to stumble upon truth, goodness and beauty. Praise God!

@ Bobbie: Thanks for your kind words.
 
@ Cradle Catholic: The filmmakers are not responsible for the actions of parishes around your area or for the responses of a catechetical teacher you spoke to. If parishes are busing teenagers to see The Rite and then talking about its faith content with them afterward, then it is those parishes that are “teaching,” or perhaps failing to teach.
 
The filmmakers made a movie, one that I believe I have demonstrated has flaws and weaknesses but also significant positive elements. Their work is subject to many legitimate criticisms, but whether the film articulates that Satan’s counterpart is St. Michael is not one of them.
 
If your only point is that there is a lot of ignorance and deficient catechesis in many parishes, no argument. (You might have asked your catechist whether she remembers being confirmed, or is familiar with the words spoken by the bishop (or confirming priest) during confirmation.) There are also parishes where it is done right. I know. I go to one.
 
Following up on your question to the catechist: How does the biblical and magisterial teaching regarding the possibility of falling from grace factor into the argument you keep reiterating about how Christ in us protects us from the possibility of possession?

I can’t help thinking that some of Cradle Catholic’s problems may be the language she (?) is using.  Aside from sounding Protestant (to me) it is steeped in certain preconceptions and assumptions, and the anecdotes remind me of many conversations I have with my husband where I think I’m being perfectly clear about God/religion/beliefs and he ... let’s just say he doesn’t agree.  And it’s language.  When we thrash it out I’m usually using religious jargon I’ve picked up, and once I find other words my husband gets it and agrees.  The story of the Armor of the Holy Spirit question - I ran that by my husband, and he said, that question was posed from an environment where people talk like that.  He, not being in such an environment, didn’t get it.  I run the parish Bible Study and I took a few minutes to get it. It is not unCatholic, heck Aquinas wrote a prayer for after Communion basically invoking it, but not by that name, and I think many Catholics, priests or not, would be puzzled by the question, when coming to it cold.

Maybe this will help.

Steven- regarding a “believer” being possessed - it cannot happen because of the Bible promise, “He who is IN you is stronger than he that is in the world.” The Holy Spirit is IN us.  The devil is in the world.  A child of God could be oppressed by the devil or a demon (...as was Job) but he/she can never be taken over, or possessed by a demon because it would be denying that verse.

When a believer is “born again” of the Holy Spirit, we are “sealed” and kept separate for God.  We can and do sin.  But we can NEVER be UNborn.  Our status changed us - we are IN the family of God, and “heirs” of Jesus’ Kingdom.  Jesus and our belief in Him made us Justified - and we have a relationship with God, as “family”.  For this reason, we like Jesus, can call God, “Our Father”.  We belong to Him and not to the devil.
We can never be UNborn.  Just like when we were born to our mothers and fathers in this world, we can die.  But we can never be UNborn to them.

We have tools in the Bible to use, as did Jesus, when He was tempted by Satan himself, in the desert.

Here’s where I come from, after having read the Bible and remembered how I was taught in my youth:  I see a disconnect, and the problem is the Roman Catholic Magisterium does not teach or preach about St. Paul, or any of his 13 New Testament letters, verse by verse, and in context.  They only take a few verses out of context, here & there, using it to back up preconceived teachings, based on ‘tradition’ and not based on the Deposit of Faith.  Paul preached and wrote about The Deposit of Faith.

Without teaching Paul’s writings, verse by verse, and in context, I as a Roman Catholic, would have:

No grace
No assurance of salvation
No security of redemption
No spiritual safety
No trust in being preserved for Him, for eternity
No Bible promises
No living Hope (hope is not how Webster defines it, but it is assurance)
No Good News -

...because the Good News is that we sinners cannot disappoint God and it is He (through our faith, and by His grace) that preserves us, for eternity.  That is the Gospel.  “Repent, the Kingdom of God is at Hand.”
“I come to save sinners…” 

Without Paul - Catholics have no “Seal” of the Holy Spirit.  Without Paul, Catholics have a faulty view of the character and nature of God.

That is the importance of reading and believing Bible promises - and it is ALL contained in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the original apostles, including St. Paul.

The Catholic church teaches a “new and improved” religion that comes from the Church Fathers, on down, where, sadly, St. Paul’s writings are omitted
except for those few verses that are taken out of context, to prove a preconceived point of teaching that came after the Deposit of Faith was compiled.

The Catholic church illustrates for me that God is neither trustworthy nor able to save me - rather, I must save myself ... over and over again, and if I have a “lapse” in judgment, I could be forever removed from His presence.  Of course, that negates the entire book of Romans, that many consider “The Christian Constitution” - and… written by Paul.

PS - I know the Vatican declared the Year of St. Paul.  But no effort was made to teach and preach anything Paul wrote (in context and verse by verse) so most Catholics know no more about him or his teachings than before.

With all that said, I prefer to read and believe the Bible, where I have this promise: If I am born once, I die twice (physically and spiritually) but if I am born twice, I die only once (pysically) - and I live forever in Heaven with Jesus.  The Holy Spirit HELPS me to get through life, and He keeps me faithful, and having the fellowship and support of other Christians (some of them, Catholic) & then He brings me Home to Him, when my life is over.

By reading and believing the Bible, including Paul’s writings, I have a right idea of Who God is, and who I am IN Him.  I have His Grace, His assurance, His security, His preservation, His safety, and His promise, which equals living HOPE, and thus, I really have Good News!

Thank you for allowing me to share what I think with you- and most especially, to illustrate why I believe that ANY thing taught to Roman Catholics, be it a book or a movie, or anything, must be 100% TRUE.  Thank you also, for drawing attention to the topic of why we must “think about what is right and TRUE…”

Steven- regarding your last post - you asked me, “How does the biblical and magisterial teaching regarding the possibility of falling from grace factor into the argument you keep reiterating about how Christ in us protects us from the possibility of possession?”

Cradle Catholic response:
A believer cannot ever be possessed.  It cannot happen because of the Bible promise, “He who is IN you is stronger than he that is in the world.” The Holy Spirit is IN us.  The devil is in the world.

A child of God could be oppressed by the devil or a demon (...as was Job) but he/she can never be taken over, or possessed by a demon because it would be denying that verse.

When a believer is “born again” of the Holy Spirit, we are “sealed” and kept separate for God.  We can and do sin.  But we can NEVER be UNborn.  Our status changed us - we are IN the family of God, and “heirs” of Jesus’ Kingdom.

Jesus and our belief in Him made us Justified - we have a relationship with God, as “family”.  For this reason, we like Jesus, can call God, “Our Father”.  We belong to Him and not to the devil.
We can never be UNborn.  Just like when we were born to our mothers and fathers in this world, we can die.  But we can never be UNborn to them.

We have tools in the Bible to use, as did Jesus, when He was tempted by Satan himself, in the desert.

Here’s where I come from, after having read the Bible and remembered how I was taught in my youth:

I see a disconnect.  The problem is the Roman Catholic Magisterium does not teach or preach about St. Paul, or any of his 13 New Testament letters, verse by verse, and in context.  They only take a few verses out of context, here & there, using it to back up preconceived teachings, based on ‘tradition’ and not based on the Deposit of Faith.  Paul preached and wrote about The Deposit of Faith.

Without teaching Paul’s writings, verse by verse, and in context, I as a Roman Catholic, would have:

No grace
No assurance of salvation
No security of redemption
No spiritual safety
No trust in being preserved for Him, for eternity
No Bible promises
No living Hope (hope is not how Webster defines it, but it is assurance)
No Good News -

...because the Good News is that we sinners cannot disappoint God and it is He (through our faith, and by His grace) that preserves us, for eternity.  That is the Gospel.  “Repent, the Kingdom of God is at Hand.”
“I come to save sinners…” 

Without Paul - Catholics have no “Seal” of the Holy Spirit.  Without Paul, Catholics have a faulty view of the character and nature of God.

That is the importance of reading and believing Bible promises - and it is ALL contained in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the original apostles, including St. Paul.

The Catholic church teaches a “new and improved” religion that comes from the Church Fathers, on down, where, sadly, St. Paul’s writings are omitted
except for those few verses that are taken out of context, to prove a preconceived point of teaching that came after the Deposit of Faith was compiled.

The Catholic church illustrates for me that God is neither trustworthy nor able to save me - rather, I must save myself ... over and over again, and if I have a “lapse” in judgment, I could be forever removed from His presence.  Of course, that negates the entire book of Romans, that many consider “The Christian Constitution” - and… written by Paul.

PS - I know the Vatican declared the Year of St. Paul.  But no effort was made to teach and preach anything Paul wrote (in context and verse by verse) so most Catholics know no more about him or his teachings than before.

With all that said, I prefer to read and believe the Bible, where I have this promise: If I am born once, I die twice (physically and spiritually) but if I am born twice, I die only once (pysically) - and I live forever in Heaven with Jesus.  The Holy Spirit HELPS me to get through life, and He keeps me faithful, and having the fellowship and support of other Christians (some of them, Catholic) & then He brings me Home to Him, when my life is over.

By reading and believing the Bible, including Paul’s writings, I have a right idea of Who God is, and who I am IN Him.  I have His Grace, His assurance, His security, His preservation, His safety, and His promise, which equals living HOPE, and thus, I really have Good News!

Thank you for allowing me to share what I think with you- and most especially, to illustrate why I believe that ANY thing taught to Roman Catholics, be it a book or a movie, or anything, must be 100% TRUE.  Thank you also, for drawing attention to the topic of why we must “think about what is right and TRUE…”

@new observer
I apologize.  To me it sounded from your tone of writing that what I had said was not agreeable to you.  I re-read it with the light of your new comment and i understand what you were pointing to.  Thank you and God bless you always!

Elaine, thanks for your insight. Yes, much of Paul’s language and use of terms do sound foreign to Catholics.  Why is that?  Sometimes Catholics will think if we use Paul’s language we will sound ..... “Christian” and thus be called a (God forbid)  ... Protestant.  I think it’s because our priests have never adopted Paul’s language and terms.

Cradle Catholic: Please try to be more succinct and more direct. You’ve flooded this combox with one lengthy post after another, often repeating yourself over and over, throwing out sweeping generalizations and inflammatory claims without a lick of proof or argumentation, and often dodging questions until they’ve been put to you three or four times.
 
For all your verbiage, I still can’t quite tell whether or not you accept the biblical and Catholic teaching regarding the possibility of falling from grace. You seem to affirm it with the business about “just like when we were born to our mothers and fathers in this world, we can die,” which would seem to mean “die spiritually, through sin.”  If so, then we seem to be on the same page—and yes, you cannot be “unborn,” which is why baptism is never repeated. But then you drop the Protestant buzzwords “assurance of salvation” and “security,” which are often used to affirm the impossibility of falling from grace.
 
You accuse the Catholic Church itself, the Magisterium itself, of teaching a “new and improved religion,” essentially a false gospel, in place of the true Gospel which you say the Church does not teach. But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has been entrusted by Christ to the living Magisterium of the Church alone (Dei Verbum 10, CCC 83). Do you accept this? Do you possess the “religious submission of mind and will” to the Magisterium (Lumen Gentium 25) that God requires of Catholics?
 
Are you really that unfamiliar with all that the Church teaches regarding grace, confidence before God and trust in Him for salvation? Would you like me to take you section by section through the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II and Trent, the Summa Theologiae, and show you the Good News, the Bible promises? (Not in this forum; this discussion has run its course, but we could have recourse to email.)
 
How can you so complacently consign to benightedness the Magisterium to whom you owe religious submission, when you are apparently so unfamiliar with what it actually teaches?

Steven, you wrote: “I still can’t quite tell whether or not you accept the biblical and Catholic teaching regarding the possibility of falling from grace.”

My Reply:
Falling from grace has nothing to do with salvation.  What the Bible teaches and what the Magisterium teaches are two different things.  I believe the Bible.  I believe once saved, always saved.  Therein lies the Good News.  Jesus did the work.  I accepted His gift.  It would not be good news, if it all depended on me, a sinner.

If I throw around Protestant buzz words, I apologize.  I only read the Bible and the words I use are appropriate to me, for describing what I believe from having read it.

There are two ways to be “born” - physically and spiritually.  We are only RE-born spiritually.  All of us are ‘dead’ spiritually, until we are “reborn” of the Holy Spirit, “baptized” and “sealed” by Him.  It is by God’s grace, through our faith.  When we are re-born, it is no longer US that live, but His Spirit lives IN us, & we show “fruit” as evidence of it, which is good works.

If we are not RE-born spiritually while we are physically alive on earth, then at our physical deaths, we remain dead spiritually, and that is separation from God.

Being UNborn has nothing to do with not being re-baptized.  Infant baptism is a dedication.  Hitler was not only baptized as an infant, but he received Confirmation, Confession, Communion, and he had all the Sacraments, as far as I know, except his heart may not have ever been really turned towards God, based on the “fruit” of his life.

It was Hitler living inside of him, not the Holy Spirit, based on the fruit.  I don’t mean to sound judgmental.  But we are called to be discerning, and about a child of God, it is written, “You will know them, by their fruit.”

I answered your last question yesterday, but for some reason, your approval of it took longer this time.  I thought perhaps you did not receive my post.  So I submitted it again today- and both posts came out at the same time.  (Though both have different dates on it.)  So I don’t know what the glitch was.  But I wanted to answer your question.  What does “benightedness” mean?  Regarding obedience: I obey God, not men.
Safer.

@Cradle Catholic
Thus with your last post, you mean to say that the sacrament of confession is usless?  ONce saved always saved, and as long as wel repent through our prayers confession is not needed?  I would recommend tyou take Steven up on his offer to go through all the Church documents, step by step, you will see that the Magisterium does not contradict the Bible but really puts it into practise.  God BLess you always!

@ Cradle Catholic: You say you listen to God, not men. It is God who requires you to listen to the Church. “He who hears you, hears me.” The Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” “the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” The deposit of faith was “entrusted once for all to the saints.”
 
Unless you believe that Jesus and the Apostles were such ineffective teachers that their message was immediately and universally distorted and mangled, the unanimous witness of the apostolic and post-apostolic Fathers on such subjects as baptism is powerful evidence of what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught.
 
St. Paul commands us to “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you received, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” How can you hold fast to the traditions if you don’t heed the Church?
 
Your idea about infant baptism as a “dedication” has no basis in scripture or in historic Christian thought. Neither the Bible nor the early Fathers ever present baptism as anything other than efficacious for salvation. Jesus equated being “born again” or “born from above” with being “born of water and spirit” (John 3:3-5). The notion that being “born again” meant anything other than water baptism, for infants as well as adults, was completely unknown to the apostolic, post-apostolic and later early Fathers.
 
Likewise your idea of once saved, always saved is contrary to biblical teaching as well as the unanimous belief of the early Christians. Thus, Hitler was reborn in Christ as an infant, but to all appearances later embraced mortal sin and great evil, risking all the scriptural warnings about loss of salvation attested in the link above. (You frequently mention the promises of scripture; are you familiar with the warnings, even for believers?)
 
I appreciate your zeal for scripture. What you may not fully appreciate is that Jesus did not give us a book and leave us on our own, nor did the Holy Spirit inspire the New Testament and then go on hiatus for 1600 years.
 
Individual Christians might disagree about some interpretive points, but at the very least where there is unanimous Christian assent regarding a doctrine of faith for century after century, we must either recognize the Holy Spirit’s leading there or else give up on the idea that the Holy Spirit is leading us at all.
 
If you believe that the whole Christian world of the first millennium was completely and unanimously wrong about such an important thing as infants being reborn in baptism, on what basis do you conclude that they correctly identified which books were inspired and which books weren’t? If nobody in the first millennium knew how to correctly interpret scripture, why should they have been able to correctly identify scripture?
 
P.S. “Benighted” means unenlightened, in moral or intellectual darkness.

Steven writes to Cradle Catholic:

“Your idea about infant baptism as a “dedication” has no basis in scripture or in historic Christian thought. Neither the Bible nor the early Fathers ever present baptism as anything other than efficacious for salvation.”

Mary and Joseph brought the infant Jesus to the Temple for dedication.

Steven further writes to Cradle Catholic:

“Jesus equated being “born again” or “born from above” with being “born of water and spirit” (John 3:3-5). The notion that being “born again” meant anything other than water baptism, for infants as well as adults, was completely unknown to the apostolic, post-apostolic and later early Fathers.

What ?

You probably need to have a connversation with Nicodemus, the Apostles following Pentecost and then read again all the letters of St. Paul.  Since you say you are a former Protestant, your comments are rather surprising.  Actually, shocking.  And if you are going to take Cradle Catholic to task, please also take caution to ensure that your own arguments are biblically correct.

@ New Observer: The presentation of the child Jesus was a firstborn-son thing for the Jews. It was called the redemption of the [male] firstborn. Subsequent sons, and all daughters, were not likewise presented in the temple. The redemption of the firstborn was not a rite of passage or initiation ritual akin to baptism and circumcision.
 
Nor was it a “dedication”—in fact, it was almost the opposite of a dedication, a redemption or reclaiming of the firstborn from a putative obligation to the priesthood. It was a way of saying to God, “I know every firstborn male belongs to You, but here, take two turtledoves or pigeons instead.” (That’s why Levites didn’t do the redemption thing: Their sons did grow up to be priests.)
 
No NT passage analogizes the redemption of the firstborn to baptism. The NT does analogize circumcision to baptism: Both are initiations into the covenant. But baptism is efficacious for salvation in a way that circumcision was not.
 
FWIW, my father did his pastoral thesis on the Reformed understanding of baptism and infant baptism, and I’ve been deep enough in Anabaptist teaching, alas, to have attempted rebaptism in a Bible church setting (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa). I was a senior acolyte in the Episopal church; I was married in a Presbyterian church in which my wife and I were both active for years and very close to one of the pastors. Those are highlights; there were others (Assemblies of God, Evangelical Free, etc.). Suffice to say, I’m very familiar with multiple varieties of Protestant teaching on this and other subjects.
 
My MA is in biblical studies, New Testament focus. If you want to make an argument about Nicodemus, the apostles and the letters of Paul, you will have to make it, not just gesture toward it.

Catholicman77- Confession is not useless.  We are told to “confess your sins, one to another”.  And the ordained ministry was given the authority to be a part of that command.  But it ought not be EXCLUSIVE to the ordained ministry.  Frankly, I think it’s become clerical job sercurity, to insist it must be a priest that “hears confession” and “absolves” sin.  I know what the Magesterium says about it.  I just don’t buy it. 

Regarding baptism - I think of the Ethiopian enuach and Phillip.  When he believed, he was baptised, and justified, and on his way to being sanctified.  He showed fruit in his life, by telling others about his experience, is the obvious next step.

Once saved always saved is to me, once RE-born in the Holy Spirit, never UN-born.  We are IN Christ. And no longer in the world- where the father of it is the devil.  That’s the assurance.

Steven,

Having followed the conversations regarding The Rite so far, I have to say, “WOW!” Here I thought you were just some Joe Schmoe movie reviewer. :)

I’m so happy you ended up in the Catholic church. God bless you for using your gifts in her service.

@ Cradle Catholic: Jesus authorizes the Apostles to forgive sins, not just to declare sins forgiven (John 20:23). That is not an authority that belongs to every Christian. You can’t forgive my sins. A priest can.
 
If you “don’t buy” the Magisterium’s dogmatic interpretations of scripture, then to that extent you are in a state of impaired communion with the Catholic Church. I urge you to study the scriptural basis for the Church’s teachings, rediscover the truth as it has been believed for 2000 years, and perfect your communion with the Body of Christ. 
 
On the false teaching of “once saved always saved,” I urge you to prayerfully study the link I keep providing for you.
 
@ Bobbie: I prefer “Joe Schmoe movie critic.” :-) My pseudo-Pauline “foolish boasting” aside, I’m grateful for the opportunities I’ve been given, including the opportunity to write for this publication.

HEy Cradle Catholic,
YOu won’t be let down by what you find at Steven’s links…In fact you will see that Yes Catholics really do put the BIble into practise.  I read and meditate on the Bible at least one hour a day, as do about 100 young men and priests here in the seminary with me!  IT is our source of spiritual strength, and through meditating on it, i have come to see why the Church does most of the things it does.  Please take Steven’s advice on this one.

Catholicman77- Wow.  100 seminarians reading the Bible and putting its wisdom into practice?  It’s the source of your spiritual strength?
Please someone: pinch me!

I’ll look up Steven’s links - I promise.  What I have issues with is all the folks that study the Bible and THEN read the writings of various Church Fathers.  Seems like reading the church fathers is what separates people.

Yet, many non-Catholics I know LOVE the Church Fathers.  Frankly, I’d like to make a list of the ones that (I believe) caused the most confusion in terms of reading INTO the Bible and distorting what it says… and give them a piece of my mind. —said in jest.  The Bible?  Good.  The Church Fathers?  Read with discernment.  My thinking.

@ Cradle Catholic: Couldn’t we just as easily say that not reading the Fathers separates people? After all, it’s non-Catholic Christians not reading (or heeding) the Fathers that leads to divisions on infant baptism, the ordination of women, the meaning of the Eucharist, and so on. If they heeded the Fathers, all those divisions would evaporate.
 
No question, the Fathers need to be read with discernment. They aren’t infallible. But they do transmit divine revelation in the form of sacred tradition. Where discernment is needed is in distinguishing when the Fathers express personal opinions and when they attest sacred tradition.
 
One useful principle is unanimity: The Fathers don’t always agree on articles of faith, but whenever they do agree on an article of faith, that article of faith represents the leading of the Holy Spirit. Whenever the Church speaks with moral unanimity, with one voice, that voice is the voice of Christ. And the voice of Christ, once heard, is binding; subsequent divisions and disputes do not dissolve the confidence of an earlier unanimity. The Holy Spirit does not change His mind.
 
This is the “Vincentian canon” or rule of faith of St. Vincent of Lerins: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; “What has always, everywhere and by everyone been believed.” This was the insight that settled my doubts, as an Evangelical Protestant, about the NT canon, as well as infant baptism and the ordination of women—but it also set me on the road to embracing the Catholic teaching on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharistic sacrifice and Real Presence, apostolic succession and the ministerial priesthood, and so forth.

Dear Cradle Catholic
Just a question, have you read St Augustine’s COnfession and City of God?  They may take some time reading, but there you will see how much St Augustine, a church father, relys on the Bible and takes many of his teachings from there.  I just thought of this.  St Augustine’s conversion came from picking up the bible and reading it, and his teachings on life in the Church have followed from his experience of reaching Christ through the Gospel.  I hope that this helps, and let me know what you think!  God BLess you always

Steven, you wrote: “... it’s non-Catholic Christians not reading (or heeding) the Fathers that leads to divisions on infant baptism, the ordination of women, the meaning of the Eucharist, and so on.” and “The Holy Spirit does not change His mind.”

My reply to both comments:
This is a perfect illustration of why I believe there is ONE Body of Christ, His Church, composed of males and females of all ages, that believe One Creed about Him; truths of the Deposit of Faith that have Eternal Value.  It is not a denomintion.  It is a belief in God’s Truth revealed to us through His Word.  I can speak so easily with another Christian or with another Catholic, when the Bible is the Gold Standard of Measure, & we obey it. 

For instance, when you mentioned the ordination of women: non-Catholics I know, friends of mine that are wonderful Christians, would NOT SUPPORT the ordination of women.  Myself included, though I am Roman Catholic. Everything about the idea of women being ordained goes contrary to the Bible, and it is no where in UNIVERSAL church Tradition.

Only apostate denominations & people call for women’s ordination, and it has set them upon a slippery slope to total destruction, because they then accept homosexual clergymen in relationships with other men, and the sanction of same-sex marriage unions.  This behavior grieves God.  He will judge, in His time.  All we need to do is read Romans Chapter one.
How God feels about same-sex relationships is not a secret.  It is an abomination to our holy God.

Regarding your statement, “The Holy Spirit does not change His mind.” I agree with you 100%.  One of God’s attributes is that He is immutable, unchanging.  For this reason, I believe in once saved, always saved.

I checked one of the links you provided about this, describing the word “can” in Greek.  It indicates that sometimes God calls us and sometimes, He stops calling us, then He calls us again.  So what you wrote about God’s attribute, that He is unchanging, would not square with the unstable on/off “calling” hypothesis.  Further, we ought not depend on the translation of the word “can” in Greek, to make a determination as important as this, because by doing so, we are making a determination about God’s Character.

God is, as you say, immutable.  Unchanging.  Trustworthy.  We are His children, and He, our “Abba”.  Our daddy.  He would never call us to Himself and then allow us to flail around on our own. 

We are called, through our Faith, and by His grace; we believe, and from that time on, we live IN CHRIST, and no one can ever remove us from the status of our being justified.  We are in “His Family”. 

It’s not that we do not sin.  But God has us on a short leash, for lack of better words.  The pain of hurting Him is what keeps us from sinning more.  It’s like if we have someone very special in our lives that is SO good to us, SO kind and compassionate, SO encouraging and supportive, SO available and loving, that we would never want to cause them pain.  We want to please them - we want to please our Father.

The Holy Spirit helps us, presenting us to Jesus, individually, but as part of The One Bride, spotless.  It is not due to anything we have done.  But only through our faith, our trust and our obedience to His Word.  God reveals Himself to us in His Word.

One thing a local pastor does(whom I like very much, due to his reverence)
is on special holy days, instead of just holding the Bible (Lectionary?) book up on Sunday, prior to reading the Gospel, he will actually bless us WITH the Bible.  It’s beautiful.  It looks like I’m the only one that will make the Sign of the Cross, when he does that.  But how I wish priests would start to do that, on a regular basis!  Being blessed WITH the holy Word of God is beautiful.  It’s like when we have a Benediction, and a priest will bless the congregants with the Monstrance.  Lovely!!!

Lastly, since this blog is about “The Rite”, one wise bishop - I forgot his name, but he’s head of some USA congregation, is quoted as saying he dislikes exorcism movies, because he believes they do much more harm than good.

To him, I say: “Hip, Hip, Hoooray!!!!”  I’m going to find out who he is, and write him a thank you note.  Bishops with courage to go against the grain need to be supported and encouraged.

Catholicman, thanks for commenting about never going wrong with Steven’s links and that you and your fellow seminarians are meditating on the Scripture.  Perhaps you and your friends could look at Steven’s link concerning “once saved always saved” and comment about the interpretation of John 6:44.  I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on how the action of the aorist tense, particularly the infinitive, can be translated as “keep coming” rather than punctiliar “to come.” Also, what basis is there for categorizing this verb as an inceptive aorist?  Thanks.

@ Cradle Catholic: “Only apostate denominations & people call for women’s ordination”
 
Not true. My Dutch Reformed background has been deeply divided about this issue for decades, and it’s NOT because anyone is “apostate.” I know wonderful Christians who believe, wrongly, in women’s ordination. To be clear, “apostate” does not mean “heretical” or “badly heretical.” “Apostate” means “rejecting/denying Christ/Christianity.” Arius was a heretic. Julian was an apostate. There is a difference.
 
God is unchanging. If you think that this fact provides you with some buffer against the manifest scriptural evidence that we can be saved and then fall away from God, you are badly misled. The scriptural evidence is clear and the the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God belongs not to you or me but to the living Magisterium of the Church. I follow Jesus, which means that when He bids me hear the Church, I listen.
 
@ Twelve Oaks: A word to the wise. A Calvinist friend of mine used to say, “Beware of the man who hangs an argument on the Greek tense of one verse.” Jimmy’s case for the historic Christian teaching is a veritable synthesis of NT teaching. You would do well to heed the Church and the cumulative case of sacred scripture.

@ Twelve Oaks:
When i have the time this weekend I will look it up.  I am just finishing my philosophy first semester exams, but this is interesting.  By the look of it, it will probably have to do with the aspect of the verb and not neseccarily with the tense.  Yet I need to check my sources and my old textbooks from last year, when I was studying Biblical and Classical Greek.  Hey thanks I like when people ask me these types of questions, I get to review my old work.  I used to complain in Greek class that I would never use this to help someone, and now i have been proven wrong! God blees you always!

Steven, thanks for posting my comment and for offering a brief word of exhortation from a Calvinist friend.  There is some truth to what he says.  You might enjoy this quote from a writer of similar persuasion:

Exegetical fallacies are painfully frequent among us – among us whose God-given grace and responsibility is the faithful proclamation of the Word of God.  Make a mistake in the interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s plays, falsely scan a piece of Spenserian verse, and there is unlikely to be an entailment of eternal consequence, but we cannot lightly accept a similar laxity in the interpretation of Scripture.  We are dealing with God’s thoughts; we are obligated to take the greatest pains to understand them truly and to explain them clearly.  It is all the more shocking therefore to find in the evangelical pulpit, where the Scriptures are officially revered, frequent and inexcusable sloppiness in handling them.  All of us, of course, will make some exegetical mistakes; I am painfully aware of some of my own, brought to my attention by increasing years, wider reading, and alert colleagues who have loved me enough to correct me. But tragic is the situation when the preacher or teacher is perpetually unaware of the blatant nonsense he utters, and of the consequent damage he inflicts on the church of God.

@ Twelve Oaks: I do indeed appreciate that quotation. It puts me in mind of two other quotations that have meant a lot to me over the years. One is from St. Augustine: God does not need my lie. It can be perilously easy to embrace what is convenient, what ought to be true, for the sake of a greater good, but to grasp fully that God is truth is to see things in a whole new way. And secondly, a line attributed to St. Thomas More in the Robert Bolt stage play version of A Man For All Seasons (not in the film), in response to a glib misuse of scripture by the character Chapuys (not in the film): “Stop! Holy writ is holy, Excellency.” I tell myself that whenever I want to make scripture mean what it would be convenient for it to mean (and I have said as much to others).
 
God does not need my lie. Holy writ is holy. Were Christians of all stripes to humble themselves before holy writ, to allow God’s word to say to us what it says, were we to love one another as Christ would have us, I think that the lines dividing us from one another would appear in an altogether different light, and the way forward would be clear.

Steven- Your reply to Twelve Oaks is confusing to me.  What specifically do you mean?

I’ve read it a few times- it reminds me of a time when I inadvertantly read Romans One to a woman that (I later learned) may have been lesbian.  I was reading verses about that lifestyle to her, it was clear that God prohibits that behavior.  Yet, she just looked at the paragraph, and heard me reading it, but her face was blank, as if she “didn’t get it”.

The way I interpreted your response to Twelve Oaks reminded me of the blank look on that woman’s face.  So if we all read Romans Chapter One, are you saying we ought not interpret it in the LITERAL sense first, and that woman was right in “not getting it” and I was in the wrong, for trying to point it out to her that it is an abomination in the literal sense?

My take was, as you write, “holy writ is holy” - and it should be taken in its literal sense.  But because I was indeed guilty of “interpreting” what the Word said, so the woman could have also been right by thinking, “God does not need your lie, Cradle.”  Because she finds nothing wrong with same-sex sexual behavior.  Her truth differs from mine.

I think it’s of utmost importance to read Scripture in its literal sense -unless the literal sense is cleary incorrect (CLEARLY incorrect). I say, it’s not ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth’ or ‘their truth’, it’s God’s Truth that is all-important.  The $64,000 question is - how to determine His truth.  Your thought?

@ Cradle Catholic: I can’t tell, but it sounds as if you completely missed my point (and Thomas More’s point, at least as represented by Robert Bolt). I can’t see that either Twelve Oaks or I were at all discussing the subject of the senses of scripture, or of the primacy of the literal sense. (As an aside, the Magisterium affirms the primacy of the literal sense of scripture. I don’t know whether you knew that or not.)
 
“Holy writ is holy” is not a statement for or against any particular sense of scripture. It is a warning, a caution not to treat scripture glibly or presumptuously, not to assume that we know in advance what a particular text means, or that obviously it supports what we know in advance to be true. “Holy writ is holy” means that we must approach the task of exegesis with a profound humility, to be willing to be instructed by the text, by every text, to be willing to recognize that no matter how correct and complete we believe our theology to be, scripture may have another lesson to teach us.

Steven, I appreciate your comments to Cradle Catholic, however, what “other” interpretation can possibly by derived from Romans 1 in the post Cradle has made?  I realize you are not specifically identifying any one, lone passage.  However, can you provide any examples whereby people have treated scripture presumptuously?

@ New Observer: Why are you asking me about Romans 1, a text that CC brought up after the (I think quite straightforward) exchange between me and Twelve Oaks that seems to be giving you and CC such difficulty? Why do you question me instead of asking Twelve Oaks what exegetical fallacies he had in mind with his D.A. Carson quotation? For that matter, why not write to Carson and ask him what he had in mind? I can’t see that I’m saying anything controversial or in need of special unpacking, especially 70 comments plus one into a combox ostensibly about an exorcism film. If you haven’t run into the phenomenon of the presumptuous misuse of scripture, keep your eyes and ears open and you will, soon enough. For that matter, cross-examine your own approach to holy writ. I’ve said nothing in this combox against any fallacy I haven’t made myself.

Steven, I was only using the “example” of Romans 1 (since Cradle Catholic brought this up.  You state above:  “Were Christians of all stripes to humble themselves before holy writ, to allow God’s word to say to us what it says, were we to love one another as Christ would have us, I think that the lines dividing us from one another would appear in an altogether different light, and the way forward would be clear.”

Steven, I was only going for clarity of your position allowing the Believer to be able to read God’s Word and understand, but you seem to be saying we should not have absolute surety concerning the meaning.  I only wanted further elaboration of your position.  Thanks.

@ New Observer: True faith is absolutely certain regarding what God has certainly revealed. This does not mean that faith is absolutely certain regarding the literal sense of each and every individual text of scripture. Nor does it mean being absolutely certain that we have fully plumbed the limits of the meaning of any text of scripture—that the text no longer has anything left to teach us. Even learned Christians immersed their whole lives in Bible study can suddenly discover hitherto unseen riddles in a familiar passage that always seemed straightforward, and or find new clarity in a passage that always seemed ambiguous in the past. Scripture is living and active that way.
 
When devout, serious-minded, well-informed representatives of differing theological traditions disagree about the meaning of scripture, should both sides have absolute certainty that their side is right? Should certainty be a given on either side, something taken for granted even before fully hearing out the other side’s exegetical reasoning? When can we be absolutely certain that the other side’s reasoning has been fully heard out?
 
True exegesis should be guided by the conviction that there is not Catholic exegesis, Orthodox exegesis, Lutheran exegesis, Calvinist exegesis, Anabaptist exegesis, etc. There is only Christian exegesis. This doesn’t mean that the Catholic doesn’t read as a Catholic or a Lutheran as a Lutheran, etc. It does mean that the exegete, whatever his theological convictions, must not automatically assume that every scriptural passage necessarily means exactly whatever is most consonant with his own views. He must accept up front that the most convenient approach (theologically and apologetically) may not be the most credible approach (literarily and contextually). By the grace of God, he must be self-critical and humble before the text and before God.
 
To my mind, this is Exegesis 101, and any good Protestant exegete should offer at least converging comments. I hope it’s clear enough for now. Perhaps we can revisit this in some practical connection over a scripture issue organic to overall context.