Did the Church used to believe this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. I was reading an essay on religioustolerance.org with the title of “Demonic Possession & Oppression; Exorcism Roman Catholic beliefs & practices”. Well, I came across a very strange statement in the very first part of of the article which says:
ReligiousTolerance.org:
In the past, the church’s beliefs about the nature of women and of human sexuality led to the belief that every newborn was possessed by an indwelling demon because of its intimate contact with its mother’s birth canal. The church routinely exorcised each newborn at the time of baptism with the following ritual: “I exorcise you unclean spirit in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Come out and leave this servant of God [infant’s name]. Accursed and damned spirit, hear the command of God himself, he who walked upon the sea and extended his right hand to Peter as he was sinking. Therefore, accursed devil, acknowledge your condemnation… and depart from this servant of God [infant’s name]…Never dare, accursed devil, to violate the sign of the holy cross which we place upon his/her forehead. Through Christ our Lord.”
“Lesser” exorcisms at baptisms, at blessings of holy water, blessings of a home or other location etc. are still performed. ** 1**
Click to expand...
That very first sentence about the newborn baby being “possessed by an indwelling demon because of its intimate contact with its mother’s birth canal.” sounds incredibly suspect and just downright strange to me. I am honestly lead to believe that this article is wrong on this supposed belief that the Church used to have.

As you can see, they do have a footnote but I am not sure if the footnote is a reference to that very first sentence in the article or the one after the quotation of the baptismal exorcism. Anyway, here is reference for that footnote:


  1. *]R.C. Brodeick, “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” Thomas Nelson (1987), Page 207.

    Also, you can find the article in question here:

    religioustolerance.org/chr_exor2.htm

    So anyway, I am posting this thread because it has me curious. Did the Church really believe this in the past? I seriously doubt that the Church did but if the Church did believe this in the past then I’d like to know.
 
vames said:
There was indeed a medieval belief about an indwelling demon that should be exorcized by baptizing the child, but I don’t know about the origin of this myth or how widespread it was.
Some traces:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_door
Click to expand...
Oh wow. Was this belief ever officially taught by the Magisterium or was it just a superstitious belief that existed back then?
 
It was also believed that if the baby didn’t cry during Baptism the demon was not successfully exorcised. A lot of people who had calm babies would pinch them to make them cry.

It was once common practice to bury the placenta away from the home (where births happened) so that demons couldn’t use it to find and harm a vulnerable newborn before Baptism…

It was also once common practice to make a mixture of animal fat and herbs to pack the new mothers vaginal canal after birth. The Church required this. And we wondered why so many women died of infection!

Also, if a woman was menstruating she was not allowed in church. Nor was a new mother allowed in church until she was done with post birth bleeding and had undergone a purification ceremony. If she gave birth to a son she had to wait less time to undergo the purification than if she gave birth to a daughter. If a woman died due to childbirth complications before she could be purified she was not buried on consecrated ground because she was seen as unclean.

The Church also forbade the use of herbs (drugs) to dull the pain during birth. It was believed that all women must suffer the pain unaided for the sins of Eve. If a woman took herbal pain killers both she and the attending midwife who either gave them to her or knew of their use could be Excommunicated.

Medieval Church practices are interesting. 🤷 Thankfully, we are now more enlightened.
 
MJJean said:
It was also believed that if the baby didn’t cry during Baptism the demon was not successfully exorcised. A lot of people who had calm babies would pinch them to make them cry.

It was once common practice to bury the placenta away from the home (where births happened) so that demons couldn’t use it to find and harm a vulnerable newborn before Baptism…

It was also once common practice to make a mixture of animal fat and herbs to pack the new mothers vaginal canal after birth. The Church required this. And we wondered why so many women died of infection!

Also, if a woman was menstruating she was not allowed in church. Nor was a new mother allowed in church until she was done with post birth bleeding and had undergone a purification ceremony. If she gave birth to a son she had to wait less time to undergo the purification than if she gave birth to a daughter. If a woman died due to childbirth complications before she could be purified she was not buried on consecrated ground because she was seen as unclean.

The Church also forbade the use of herbs (drugs) to dull the pain during birth. It was believed that all women must suffer the pain unaided for the sins of Eve. If a woman took herbal pain killers both she and the attending midwife who either gave them to her or knew of their use could be Excommunicated.

Medieval Church practices are interesting. 🤷 Thankfully, we are now more enlightened.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for these things?

Also, I am interested in knowing if such things were taught by the Magisterium or what. I am interested in that because from what I understand, the Church has never changed a single doctrine in her entire history. These things make it seem as though Church doctrine has changed. But then again, maybe these things could be considered disciplines?
 
Holly3278 said:
Do you have a source for these things?

Also, I am interested in knowing if such things were taught by the Magisterium or what. I am interested in that because from what I understand, the Church has never changed a single doctrine in her entire history. These things make it seem as though Church doctrine has changed. But then again, maybe these things could be considered disciplines?
Click to expand...
Many sources, actually. I do a lot of reading. I like paper books, but you can find pretty much everything with some google work. Start with something like a search for “Women medieval catholic” or swap medieval for Dark Ages.

As far as I know, the Church officially required very little, but the local authorities had their own customs and superstitions that were basically presented to the laity as Church law. If something was seen as “bad”, then the people were told the Church didn’t want you to do it. If something were seen as “good” and/or “necessary”, the people were told the Church wanted you to do it. Even if there was nothing official. Remember, very few people could read or had access to information even if they could read. They believed what they were told.
 
When I was born I was baptised at about week old. That’s what they did in 1960 and what the church expected of families. Now it’s a little looser and not many baptize their infants when the child is a week old but as soon as possible, thank goodness because that’s hard on the mom. My mom did this x10. Though that 8 day old baptism ritual came from I believe the judaic ritual where infants were circumcised at 8 days old, which many of our doctrines were built upon, Jewish women also had a cleansing ritual in pools after they gave birth (kind of sounds like what the poster was talking about).

So as we go on there are smaller practices of our faith or rituals that have gone in and out of our beliefs. Whether they’re in the Catechism I don’t know. The Catechism isnt that old.

Part of the sacrament of Baptism is the washing away of original sin of Adam so that the baptized child becomes of Child of God. The sin of Adam brought death to people who would not be brought to eternal life, whereas baptism cleanses us of the stain of original sin and brings eternal life through Jesus and makes us a child of God. The language of it baptism being an exorcism is strong, but I believe I understand it.

Maybe all this has to do with as we go forward we have better understanding of our faith. (and we’re not so extreme). In a way it’s not good today as people really took their faith much more seriously back then and often take faith for granted now.

I also think we have to be careful about websites that rebuke practices of the church in attempts to denounce our faith, because a lot of things were relative to the times and the people of the day.
 
I found this in Judiasm 101

jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Immediately after birth, a woman is considered niddah and must remain sexually separated from her husband for a period of seven days after the birth of a male child and 14 days after the birth of a female child. Lev. 12:2. This separation is the same as the regular monthly niddah separation. In the days of the Temple, when considerations of ritual purity were more important, a woman was considered partially impure for an additional period of 33 days after the birth of a male child and 66 days after the birth of a female child. No reason is stated why the period is longer for a female child than for a male child; however, one of my resources emphasizes that a female child is not more defiling than a male child, because the method of purification at the end of this period is the same for both genders.

Further on it says…

Circumcision is performed on the eighth day of the child’s life, during the day. The day the child is born counts as the first day, thus if the child is born on a Wednesday, he is circumcised on the following Wednesday. Keep in mind that Jewish days begin at sunset, so if the child is born on a Wednesday evening, he is circumcised the following Thursday. Circumcisions are performed on Shabbat, even though they involve the drawing of blood which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat. The Bible does not specify a reason for the choice of the eighth day; however, modern medicine has revealed that an infant’s blood clotting mechanism stabilizes on the eighth day after birth. As with almost any commandment, circumcision can be postponed for health reasons. Jewish law provides that where the child’s health is at issue, circumcision must wait until seven days after a doctor declares the child healthy enough to undergo the procedure.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the scriptures so Jewish belief has entered into our practices and beliefs.

The Law and the Prophets

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
 
There is a Rite of Exorcism in every Rite of Baptism. At least in the Byzantine Rite. But no, it has nothing to do with contact with the birth canal. The belief is that prior to baptism we are susceptible to being possessed at any point. Also that prior to baptism, we are under the clutches of Satan.
 
i believe these were superstitions of the time. there were many superstitions surrounding women, their sexuality and menstruation in ancient times. i think men were (some still are) terrified of women and what we can do to them. 😛
 
 
MJJean said:
Also, if a woman was menstruating she was not allowed in church. Nor was a new mother allowed in church until she was done with post birth bleeding and had undergone a purification ceremony.
Click to expand...
This is still a preserved tradition in the Orthodox Church, so probably it was the same in the East and in the West before the schism. This corresponds to the Jewish conception about “involuntary sins” (pollutions in men, “uncleanliness” in women related to menstruation and childbirth). Also, a woman can’t take Communion while she is “unclean” (menstruation, childbirth) and men who have wounds and cuts that bleed can’t take Communion either. I understand that local traditions do vary nowadays, though. And the reasons given for the interdictions were changed (sweetened) too: I have read, for example, that the interdictions for women are more like a sort of dispensation, so as to allow them to rest.
40.png
MJJean:
As far as I know, the Church officially required very little, but the local authorities had their own customs and superstitions that were basically presented to the laity as Church law. If something was seen as “bad”, then the people were told the Church didn’t want you to do it. If something were seen as “good” and/or “necessary”, the people were told the Church wanted you to do it. Even if there was nothing official. Remember, very few people could read or had access to information even if they could read. They believed what they were told.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it seems it has continued until the 20th century - example:
independent.ie/opinion/letters/first-tampax-3358327.html
 
Karen107 said:
Jesus is the fulfillment of the scriptures so Jewish belief has entered into our practices and beliefs.

The Law and the Prophets

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Click to expand...
Karen,

JesusIf*** is ***the fulfillment of the prophets and the Law. So, then, if we are “in Him”, we have acquired His fulfillment as well, being part of His Body.

We need only follow His Commandments. (And the authority of those to whom He left His authority, that is, the Apostles and their appointed successors.)

peace
steve
 
1ke said:
Holly, NO the Church did not teach this.
Click to expand...
Oh okay. That’s good to know. Also, just to confirm, you’re saying the Church did not teach the belief the newborns were possessed via contact with the mother’s birth canal and so that’s the reason why an exorcism was done at birth, right?
 
Holly3278 said:
Oh okay. That’s good to know. Also, just to confirm, you’re saying the Church did not teach the belief the newborns were possessed via contact with the mother’s birth canal and so that’s the reason why an exorcism was done at birth, right?
Click to expand...
Correct. The Church did not teach that.
 
thenobes said:
Karen,

JesusIf*** is ***the fulfillment of the prophets and the Law. So, then, if we are “in Him”, we have acquired His fulfillment as well, being part of His Body.

We need only follow His Commandments. (And the authority of those to whom He left His authority, that is, the Apostles and their appointed successors.)

peace
steve
Click to expand...
Steve, This is how I have come to understand it. Jesus did not abolish the law but fulfilled it.

Matthew 5:17* "Do not think that I have come to abolish* the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Jesus completed the law he did not do away with them so all the laws and the prophets are held within Jesus who completed them with the spirit of the law. So when Peter (a Jew) and Paul and the apostles began the church traditions they looked to the scriptures and jewish traditions and so began our traditions, a melting of the two with Jesus the completion of them. We see their debates written in the scriptures. Peter clinging more to Jewishness, and Paul bringing that back to Christ. Paul won over Peter as Peter acknowledge Pauls wisdom.

We believe in the ten commandments, we celebrate feasts like the jews do, we honor our Mother like the Jews do, 🙂 so many rituals we practice are born from the Jewish traditions, including the ones I spoke of. The tabernacle which held the covenant (tablets) that the Isrealites carried across the desert. Now the tabernacle holds the covenant we are faithful to (the body and blood of Jesus). Jesus took the best of Judiasm and entered it into Christianity through the work of the apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top