Exorcism by non priests and occult "exorcists"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatima-Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Minor+Orders.jpg

The Exorcist seems rather low down on the totem pole here. I first saw this picture in one of Sensus Fidelium’s videos featuring Exorcist Fr. Ripperger as the lecturer. It seems that Acolytes, Subdeacons, and Deacons (and of course Priests) outrank Exorcists in this picture.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that what I knew as an Acolyte as a boy would outrank an Exorcist, since what I remember is that Acolytes were just sort of high ranking Alter boys (and if memory serves, I actually was an Acolyte myself, or at least that’s what we were all called - that would have been back in the '60s).

My impression of this picture is that it is instructional in nature, and meant to be taken literally. Comments?
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this is off topic but does anyone remember the recent story of that family where the 9 year old was crawling on the wall backwards?! When I read the details of that story I was surprised it wasn’t more popular because secular people witnessed this including I think the police department. They finally called a Catholic priest I believe who said he had to read the exorcism prayer from google based on another priests recommendation. The details are fuzzy in my memory but for some strange reason whenever I have doubts about faith in some way I think about the reality of that story. The way the mind works right?
 
Last edited:
You’re confusing clerics in the minor order of exorcist, who perform laying on of hands at certain traditional Catholic ceremonies, with the mandated exorcists who drive out demons. The exorcists in your picture are members of the old minor order. Note that they aren’t priests and can’t drive out demons.

Wikipedia has a good discussion of the two functions here, see under Catholic section.

Exorcist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Ignore the “options,” get a Catholic priest trained to perform exorcisms.
 
edwest211 said:
Ignore the “options,” get a Catholic priest trained to perform exorcisms.
Click to expand...
A person cannot just get a Catholic Priest trained to perform exorcisms, it doesn’t work that way.
As Catholics, firstly we consult our parish priest who then decides what path to take. And if he does see anything in it, the first path is to rule out mental health issues.

Please do not infer that we can just get a Catholic priest trained to perform exorcisms. They are not in the phone book or in the local Diocese Directory, and for good reason.
 
Thank you for that. I see I have some research to do. I read the Wiki article, but I think I will have to read more and from different sources in order to feel comfortable with the distinction between the minor order of exorcist and a mandated exorcist.

You are absolutely right, I was indeed confusing those two things, and I still feel somewhat puzzled, although now that I know that that which I thought was one thing is two things, I will probably get it before long. I had never even considered this possibility before.

When one works a crossword puzzle, the hardest mistake to fix is to root out a word which is actually wrong but which one is satisfied is right. This is where I have been with the concept of exorcists for, well, for my entire life! This is actually quite interesting! Thank you!! 😄
 
I read that long article and it didn’t say anything I didn’t already know, probably because the article came out in 2000 and I was living in the DC area before that so every now and then somebody would revisit the story. It seems like the author is mostly interested in establishing Cottage City rather than the Mount Rainier address as the place where the family lived.

Most of the past articles on the real-life case that I have read also said the kid didn’t spider walk around the house or spit pea soup like Linda Blair or do other Hollywood-type things. And of course the demon didn’t kill off a bunch of people including 2 priests. They pretty much all report furniture shook and moved, and that during the exorcism welts appeared on the kid and he growled, broke restraints etc. There is a fairly recent (1990s) Washingtonian article that discusses the exorcism in the Catholic hospital in great detail and I believe had (name removed by moderator)ut from one of the younger priests who was there. Unfortunately it’s not online but I remember reading it in the magazine when it came out. Sources are divided over whether anything happened to Fr. Hughes (the first priest involved who was a parish pastor). The story I read in Washingtonian said that the diocese apparently suggested Fr. Hughes, who was not a trained exorcist, just perform the exorcism himself, which if true would seem to be a serious lapse on the part of the diocese and they would have an interest in covering up the fact that the exorcism did not go well.

What I find most interesting about the article is that the author concludes at the very end based on precious little evidence about the kid himself and the case itself, except getting enough info to show there was obviously something very wrong with both the family and the kid, the author concludes the kid wasn’t possessed. It seems like a rather big leap of opinion given that about 50 percent of the article has to do with whether the family lived in Mount Rainier/ Bunker Hill or Cottage City (a fact that is probably of great interest to those wanting to party at the true site of the haunting but pretty boring to most of the rest of us) and the interviews he did manage to get with the kid’s best childhood friend and the one priest definitely suggest some phenomena of possession (the shaking desk, the welts). Whatever.
 
Last edited:
I read the whole thing. I still don’t think this author is qualified to determine on the basis of his “research” that the kid wasn’t possessed.

If the Church thought he was possessed enough to do an entire exorcism in a hospital, which based on all sources actually did happen, then whose judgment am I going to trust? The holy priests? Or some author who is likely a non-believer and is writing about it decades down the road, based on who is still alive/ who he can get to talk to him? The subject of the exorcism refused to talk to him or cooperate in any way.

The answer is pretty clear. I’m actually surprised that you yourself would put such credence in this author’s “judgment”. It seems like you are undermining the Church’s own judgment here.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the author can’t definitely say whether or not the boy was possessed. Because it’s such a huge cultural phenomenon, and because so many Catholics seem to put so much stock in it, I think it’s a very interesting and revealing read.
How many possessions were Catholic priests doing in the late 1940s? Is it possible they figured “well, it can’t hurt” and just tried it?
There bare bones details are so different than what the general public thinks happened as part of the “true story” that I think it’s worth a read.
When I read any of these popular exorcism books, I think about the list of signs that someone is demon-possessed, and I’m just not seeing much “there” there. Not to say that there are no possessions, it’s just that the accounts I read in those books are not convincing to me. Maybe there is no way to convey that in a book.
***I wanted to ask what are the classic signs of possession and how they’re distinguishable from mental illness.***
The classic signs. One would be the rolling of the eyes, and that’s usually because of an aversion to the sacred. So if someone was to walk into a church or even the parish center—this has happened a number of times—walk into the parish center and they cannot stand to look at the crucifix. Or if they walk into a church and cannot stay or can only stay with great difficulty because of the presence of the Eucharist or a crucifix or another sacramental, or a statue of the Blessed Mother or something.

A knowledge of hidden things can be a sign. So people who know something they have no reason to know, either about me or a situation or to predict the future.

Another sign would be being able to speak in a language they have no competency in. This would usually occur either in a deliverance prayer or a formal exorcism.

The person possessing inordinate strength—that will often come out in an exorcism in cases where the demons are very violent.

The person can have very extreme facial contortions and a change in the voice. Sometimes their whole body language, including their face, can take on the look of a reptile or a snake, and I’ve had that happen a number of times…
In general, the animation of legs and arms during the prayers, where their using their limbs to either intimidate me or put their hands in the form of fists with every intention of using them to injure me or the people around them.
Click to expand...
In how many cases of exorcisms do the people have a knowledge of language(s) that they have never studied? Everything else seems extremely subjective, and could be due to a number of other causes. What if someone was a victim of abuse by a religious authority? Is it possible that that person would roll their eyes at the sight of holy things? There are plenty of explanations for the other signs, especially “supernatural strength” which is usually demonstrated by “she knocked over some furniture”, or “he struggled violently against us as we tried to hold him down”.
 
Last edited:
The point is, you and I are not making the determination. The Church is.

Could the Church possibly make a mistake in some cases? Yes. It would seem a mistake may have been made in the “Emily Rose” case in Germany. But if we weren’t there, and didn’t know the person, the family or the situation, who are we to say?

I don’t sit around dwelling on the details of purported exorcisms. I trust our priests and bishops to know what they’re doing, though, and don’t put much credence in journalists playing Monday morning quarterback with very limited source material decades after the fact.

And if the Exorcist film scared anyone into going to the Catholic Church, then that’s good that came out of it, regardless of whether Roland Doe was really possessed or not.
 
I think “The Exorcist” book and movie are a steaming pile of horse dung, and have done more harm than good.
To each his own!
 
Exactly – it’s like the fox saying “let me show you how to guard the henhouse!”
 
Last edited:
“In the name of Satan I command you to stop, in the name of Satan I command this stops immediately.”

Good Grief…
 
I guess I should have made clear that I didn’t think most of those people know who they work for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top