There is a radio interview with Fr. James. J. LeBar availible from the Catholic.com radio archives in which he discusses exorcism. In it he makes two claims (spread over a number of statements), the first being that the devil actually lives in hell, the second being that he sends damned souls (or perhaps they act autonomously) of the deceased to torment and/or possess people. He claims to have exorcised many such spirits. Both of these claims seem very, very, very theologically wrong, however upon research he is by no means the only exorcist to make such claims. What is going on? If this is true, how is it so? If it is not, what does this say of the authenticity of the field of exorcism as a whole?
ADDITIONALLY, I wish to ask about the Catholic teaching concerning Lucifer/Satan/The Devil. Is Satan considered to be the same thing as the Devil, or is it that Satan is the same as Lucifer but the Devil refers to any demon in particular (which is the impression I get). I am also concerend with the fact that the chief demon/devil is called Lucifer. I looked into this before and learned the history of the term Lucifer:
Lucifer is a Latin (I believe) name for Venus, the morning star. Jerome translated morning star in Isaiah 14:12 to Lucifer. In subsequent Enlglish translations (notably KJV) the word Lucifer was kept, because in the Vulgate it was a proper name. This is one arguement KJV only people use: in KJV Isaiah 14:12 says Lucifer, so they equate it with Satan, but in modern translaions, the correct translation is made and it says morning star. Because Christ is called morning star in Revelation, they say that modern translations say Christ=Satan. Of course this is not true, but my concern is with a teaching of the Church which calls Satan Lucifer which is based on a translational/historical fallicy.
I am going to be converting to Catholicism soon, but being a Protestant I obviously spent a LOT of time doing deep biblical research. Obviously a lot of it is not correct in light of the Churches interpretive teachings, which is fine, but this particular idea does not seem to be a matter of interpretation so much as history and translation.
This stuff (mostly the possession stuff) has been bothering me a lot lately, so any help is appreciated. Thanks!