Do you think Mary performed exorcisms for the church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter abdulmasih
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really seriously doubt that she did. One has to be an ordained priest and trained in exorcisms to do so and since she was a woman, she was definitely not ordained.
 
Is there anything in Holy Scripture showing any woman performing an exorcism?
 
Holly3278 said:
I really seriously doubt that she did. One has to be an ordained priest and trained in exorcisms to do so and since she was a woman, she was definitely not ordained.
Click to expand...
Pax Christi!

St. Hildegard von Bingen performed exorcisms in the twelfth century, with her bishop’s permission.

It’s possible, I guess. But what an unusual question!

God bless.
 
An exorcism is not a sacrament and it’s theoretically something any layperson could do, but it’s extremely unlikely in accordance with Mary’s office that she would be performing exorcisms and this work would be reserved to the apostles, i.e. Mary’s knights.
 
Holly3278 said:
I really seriously doubt that she did. One has to be an ordained priest and trained in exorcisms to do so and since she was a woman, she was definitely not ordained.
Click to expand...
One does not have to be an ordained priest. Saint Bridget exorcised a demoniac and my non-priest but religious uncle exorcised a demoniac with nothing but his chi (inner energy)
 
abdulmasih said:
One does not have to be an ordained priest. Saint Bridget exorcised a demoniac and my non-priest but religious uncle exorcised a demoniac with nothing but his chi (inner energy)
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

Canon Law:

Can. 1172 §1 No one may lawfully exorcise the possessed without the special and express permission of the local Ordinary.

§2 This permission is to be granted by the local Ordinary only to a priest who is endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life.

By the way belief in chi is not compatible with Catholicism.
 
thistle said:
You are wrong.

Canon Law:

Can. 1172 §1 No one may lawfully exorcise the possessed without the special and express permission of the local Ordinary.

§2 This permission is to be granted by the local Ordinary only to a priest who is endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life.

By the way belief in chi is not compatible with Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Read Revelations of Saint Bridget.
 
  1. Nobody is bound by a canon law code that didn’t exist in their own time. Canon law isn’t retroactively binding, either.
  2. The Revelations of Saint Bridget don’t have anything dangerous to faith or morals in them.
  3. The Revelations of Saint Bridget are not a history book or a filmed documentary of early Church history. They express powerful truths (like “Our Lady scares the heck out of demons”), but they are filtered through St. Bridget’s brain, like all visions. Someone having a vision sees what God wants them to see, but in his or her own way.
  4. A lot of people in the early Church who were not priests or bishops were able to tell demons to go about their business, because the Lord knew they had more need of showing signs to the world. So it’s certainly possible.
  5. The Church today is cautious about this topic because bishops don’t want to encourage anybody recklessly running off to confront a demon, or alternately, trying to exorcise people who don’t need it, or using weird occult practices that won’t help a bit. Diocesan exorcists are trained and their bishop grants them the power, so they’re the ones to go to.
 
Holly3278 said:
I really seriously doubt that she did. One has to be an ordained priest and trained in exorcisms to do so and since she was a woman, she was definitely not ordained.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that Mary, the Mother of God, could not have exorcised a demon due to the simple fact that she wasn’t ordained? If she could make Jesus help out a newly married couple who ran out of wine, then I’m sure she could tell a demon to hit the road.
 
thistle said:
Church canon law is what counts and not private revelations.
Private revelations are neither Church teachings nor Church law.
Click to expand...
Thistle - not all canons are a matter of divine law. Many canons are simply a matter of ecclesiastical law, which means they may be currently binding, but were not necessarily always binding throughout history. It would seem that at certain times in the past, the Church did authorize certain non-priests to exorcise demons. This is no longer permitted. The Church has the power to change such disciplinary matters.
 
Well, hang on there people. There is exorcism, and then there is the rite of exorcism. Unless someone can present evidence that St. Bridget specifically performed the rite, let’s hold off on the whole “well, gee it wasn’t always canon law” stuff. It might have been a special charism of the Saint without actually being the rite.
 
twf said:
Thistle - not all canons are a matter of divine law. Many canons are simply a matter of ecclesiastical law, which means they may be currently binding, but were not necessarily always binding throughout history. It would seem that at certain times in the past, the Church did authorize certain non-priests to exorcise demons. This is no longer permitted. The Church has the power to change such disciplinary matters.
Click to expand...
The Church, of course, can change canon law. What I am saying is that we are bound by Canon Law. Canon Law states only priests can perform exorcisms. We are talking about the present. Whether that may or may not change in the future is not relevant to the discussion as we are talking about what is currently in force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top