It's very sad to see someone like yourself resorting to such a blatant Red-Herring fallacy @Ave Crux
. This post is not about Fr. Ripperger and never was
. It's about Archbishop Vigano.
You're trying to use Fr. Ripperger's unsupported claims as some sort of "proof" to bolster Archbishop Vigano's equally unsupported claims
and, of course
to cover his obvious gaffe
TL;DR Nice try but, so sorry, you simply must do better.
As for Fr. Ripperger
, arguing his claims are correct because he's an expert
is a textbook example of a fallacious appeal to authority.
Experts aren't automatically right because they're experts
."to bolster your objections as a layperson without any background in this matter"
What a courteously phrased Genetic Fallacy
Please explain how my background
alters the historical counter-examples
already supplied or the examples presented later on? Good luck with that, since my background is irrelevant..
Facts are facts, regardless of the background
of the person supplying them. Fr. Rippgerger made a claim, a claim absent so much as a shred of support for it (beyond your fawning
adulation of the man), his claim has since been disproven with mutliple examples."I'll stay with my sources and accept Father's representations based upon his exceptional reputation..."Your
So far you haven't supplied any.
The only sources
presented thus far have all been mine
. Heck, you didn't even think to supply a source
for your quotation. :P"regardless of your Mount Vesuvius-like eruption of absolutely factless, feigned expertise and vastly unsubstantiated counter-testimony."
Since that's how you choose to describe historically documented failed exorcisms before Vatican Council II, facts
have no place in your fantasy-based world-view... quite the opposite. They're a direct threat
to the personality cult you've built around Fr. Ripperger and, of course, Archbishop Vigano.
In light of that, I can understand why you lash out with increasingly shrill rhetoric absent any supporting information of your own
. Strange how what you choose to call "absolutely factless"
invariably has a blue hotlink
to a factual source
and what you like to describe as "vastly unsubstantiated"
generally has a long list of references
appended to the bottom.
The only thing that's "absolutely factless"
is your claim to the contrary."Feigned expertise".
Nice Non Sequitur Fallacy.
Presenting a factually based rebuttal does not presuppose any implied expertise in the field. I'm not an expert. That's why I document my claims. You
, on the other hand, clearly have no need to do so for any of your drivel. Your actions
speak louder than your accusations
, muchacho :D"And given Father's testimony that demonic activity rose to the point of rendering exorcists more and more powerless beginning exactly and abruptly with the opening of Vatican II..."
...which has already been disproven, with absolutely ZERO counter-example from either him or you
. There were seventeen
failed exorcisms at Loudun alone
Thomas Hunkeler took a lot more than "7 days at most"
So did the exorcism of Anna Ecklund in 1912
. .The exorcisms of "Roland Doe"
,(Robbie Manheim) in the late 1940s were an absolute disaster
on so many levels they surpass Fr. Ripperger's most pessimistic claims about exorcisms after
Vatican Council II.
But don't let mere evidence
stand in the way of you repeating Fr. Ripperger's still
-unsubstanitatied opinions and, of course
to trumpet his credentials again
to fill the void.
Fr. Ripperger doesn't become correct after you repeat his credentials
a certain number of times. Incidentally, that's yet another
charming fallacy called Argumentum Ad Nauseam"I don't rely on my own pretended knowledge when I can have recourse to experts in the field --"
Your expert's claim has already been repeatedly
disproven and additional
counter-examples were supplied tonight. :D
Thus far, all you've
supplied is well... nothing
save some unsourced quotes from Fr. Ripperger with lots and lots of bolding,
followed by a laundry list of errors in reasoning and the whole sorry mess delivered in an increasingly strident manner.
Me? All I've
got are hot-link after hotlink to documented exorcisms, every one of which
disproves Fr. Ripperger's claim.
...accompanited by a whole bunch
of hotlinks to the fallacies you've
made while trying to defend your position.
While on the subject of documentation, while you obviously aren't aware of this, the case of Thomas Wu (and its tragic aftermath for the exorcist) was thoroughly discussed in Fr. Malachi Martin's "Hostage To The Devil."
which remains one of the best treatments of the Wu case in print.
also want to take a look at all the "References" sections of those wiki articles.
That's the difference between us. You've got your starry-eyed belief in Fr. Ripperger's expertise, and an obvious predisposition to ignore all
information contradicting him.
have is extensive documentation backing my sources which all contradict Fr. Ripperger. Guess which one of us is more credible from an academic standpoint? ;-)" experts in the field -- both Archbishop Vigano and Father Ripperger certainly qualify as such."
Please explain why your first "expert in the field"
doesn't know the difference between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ.
where we started, after all. :D