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.
:DTL;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 sources?
:D 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.
:P 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,
continuing 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.
:DThus 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.
You
might 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.
All
I 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.That
is where we started, after all.
:D