Exorcism without Holy Orders

[Reformed_Rob]

Here is something I’ve been wondering about recently. When people who have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders go into great depth telling about their having performed exorcisms, did they actually perform an exorcism or would it have to be something else?

I’m thinking specifically of M. Scott Peck, the psychotherapist, who, after he became Methodist, he wrote about performing some exorcisms.

I’m thinking 2 things, and I don’t know which one or either one would be accurate.

1. He misdiagnosed the persons and his work helped them because they too thought they were possessed.
2. He, in conjunction with exorcism work, led the persons via psychotherapy to rid themselves of the demon. In which case it would be the possessed person forcing the demon out, and not the person trying to do the exorcism.

 

[fodda23]

Christians are permitted to pray with those who “feel possessed” by way of a deliverance prayer. An official exorcism involves a very extensive process with a priest designated by your local ordinary (Bishop). Those who are possessed aren’t just dealing with some personal demons, they have an abhorrence to Holy things, Sacramental or are tormented by walking into a Church or other Holy place. He would not have been able to perform an official exorcism.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Thanks fodda,

Ok so we have the canonical considerations brought up. And I realize that any priest (as a priest of Jesus Christ) can attempt an exorcism with or without the Bishop’s approval. But for it to be a Church approved exorcism then there is some red tape to go through. Which is why, as I understand, there are very few priests (one per diocese in US??) who are given the faculty of “exorcist.”

And you hit at answering my question by bringing up that any Christian can pray for someone else by something like a Deliverance Prayer.

I guess my question is dealing with what we would call the question of “Outside the Church there is no Exorcism.”

Is that a true statement or not? I’m not talking about canonically sanctioned exorcisms. I’m referring to the raw basics of someone performing an exorcism. Whether they are Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, etc.

 

[fodda23]

You’ve probably noticed that even in every Hollywood film where an exorcism occurs, or there is a dealing with evil, a Catholic Priest is involved. Even protestants know where to go when they need the real deal for protection from the evil one. The call us. I would say, then that yes, real exorcism is only done within the Catholic Church.
With that being said, I am not an exorcist of the diocese and have very little experience in dealing with people who are in need of a “real-deal” exorcism. So my scope of expertise here is very limited.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

But Eastern Orthodox priests do exorcisms too. And they are, in a common manner of speaking, not in the Catholic Church

But Eastern Orthodox priests do have Holy Orders (right?), so they would be one of the few exceptions. Wouldn’t exactly fit the title of the thread.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. It’s simply something I’ve wondered about off and on in the past.

Maybe someone more familiar with all this will see the thread.

 

[scylla]

This is my opinion, (fueled with my basic understanding of Christianity)
Exorcism is more effective with Holy Orders because not only is the name of Christ employed, which everyone can do but the person of Christ is employed as the Priest is ordained and essentially a representative of Christ.

This is why a Holy Orders is so important as it employs a man to be the person of Christ to others.

Now this does not mean that others cannot use the words of Christ but in the order of things depending upon faith, intention and the person doing the actions, the same actions can produce different results, this would result in different results with different people trying to do an exorcism.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Reformed_Rob]

This is my opinion, (fueled with my basic understanding of Christianity)
Exorcism is more effective with Holy Orders because not only is the name of Christ employed, which everyone can do but the person of Christ is employed as the Priest is ordained and essentially a representative of Christ.

God Bless
Scylla

That’s a reasonable opinion, probably running on good fuel

Thanks, Scylla

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Kind of reminds me of Mark 9:38, where someone was casting out demons in Jesus’s name, but not following the Apostles.

Jesus’s answer? “Do not hinder him”.

 

[m134e5]

Christians are permitted to pray with those who “feel possessed” by way of a deliverance prayer. An official exorcism involves a very extensive process with a priest designated by your local ordinary (Bishop). Those who are possessed aren’t just dealing with some personal demons, they have an abhorrence to Holy things, Sacramental or are tormented by walking into a Church or other Holy place. He would not have been able to perform an official exorcism.

Exactly- and someone who did not have the Sacrament of Holy Orders who tried to perform a solemn exorcism would be putting themselves in serious spiritual, emotional, and possible physical danger.

Acts 13-16 (Douay-Rheims version)

13 Now some also of the Jewish exorcists who went about, attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were certain men, seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, that did this. 15 But the wicked spirit, answering, said to them: Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?
16 And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them, and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

 

[AHapka]

I guess my question is dealing with what we would call the question of “Outside the Church there is no Exorcism.”

I guess that also depends on what type of exorcism you wish to consider. A baptism is a minor form of exorcism, and anyone can do that…even a non-believer. But for the major kinds, I would agree that a Priest is necessary.

But i’m no expert…so I hope someone with more experience chimes in.

Andy

 

[DebChris]

Only a person who has received Holy Orders can perform an exorcism. In the Acts of the Apostles, we have an attempt at exorcism by an unauthorized person and the devil attacked him, “I know Jesus and I know Paul, but who are you?”
That said, there is a difference between exorcism and deliverance. Exorcism is performed on a person who is possessed. Using the surgical analogy, only a person trained in surgery is authorized to perform that surgery. Only a priest edowed with the special charism through the Sacrament of Holy Orders can perform an exorcism.
A person being oppressed by a demon, on the other hand, may be in need of deliverance. Deliverance does not require Holy Orders. It is more analogous to somebody coming in and untying a person being held prisoner.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Here is a good resource I Googled and was found in EWTN’s library. It balances out the differences between Mark 9:8 mentioned above and the above passage from Acts. The basic differences is that in Mark, there really was no Church yet with authority. In the book of Acts, there was a Church with authority.

ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/EXORPROT.TXT

Here is an excerpt of the last two paragraphs:

Jesus accepted the sincerity of the lone exorcist, but not that of the
sons of Sceve. They were miserably unsuccessful. The lone exorcist
obviously did not know of Jesus’ restrictions (“he was not accompanying
us”). It was a good thing for Jesus to enable the man to cast out demons
and demonstrate the tremendous power of Jesus, that He is able to work
through others by the authority that He gives to them (not something
anyone else can do). This was a valuable lesson in a Christology which had
direct consequences for a proper understanding of ecclesiology: Jesus
instructs the disciples that He has direct contact with all, something
which does not undermine their authoirty, but which rather reminds them
where that authority comes from, not themselves, but from Him alone.

The authority needed for exorcism is not essential to the proper
management of the Church, although it is extremely useful. Jesus can give
this authority to anyone as He sees fit. However, in the normal course of
affairs, it is the prudence of Jesus at this time, as expressed by the
Church which He founded upon Peter, that only those who are delegated by
hierarchical authority are able to have this authority to cast out demons.
This is not necessarily prejudicial to the case of someone who, in not
knowing the need for such authority, simply goes ahead and does an
exorcism. It is not guaranteed that Jesus will grant the authority of His
name to such a person, although there is that possibility. And those who
would otherwise try to use Jesus’ authority against His will, as expressed
by the Church, are in for an unpleasant surprise.

 

[mercygate]

Here is something I’ve been wondering about recently. When people who have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders go into great depth telling about their having performed exorcisms, did they actually perform an exorcism or would it have to be something else?

I’m thinking specifically of M. Scott Peck, the psychotherapist, who, after he became Methodist, he wrote about performing some exorcisms.

I’m thinking 2 things, and I don’t know which one or either one would be accurate.

1. He misdiagnosed the persons and his work helped them because they too thought they were possessed.
2. He, in conjunction with exorcism work, led the persons via psychotherapy to rid themselves of the demon. In which case it would be the possessed person forcing the demon out, and not the person trying to do the exorcism.

I helped arrange for one of those exorcisms at the request of Dr. Malachi Martin. The priest I referred to assist Dr. Peck was an Anglican. The case involved psychiatric disorder. In the final outcome (which took years), it was apparent that the possession and the psychiatric disorder were linked.

You will note that in Scripture, both demonic possessions and illnesses may present with identical symptoms. Also in Scripture, ordinary people had the power of exorcism. It is not uncommon for a Catholic to seek the counsel of an experienced non-Catholic in this field.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Here is a good resource I Googled and was found in EWTN’s library. It balances out the differences between Mark 9:8 mentioned above and the above passage from Acts. The basic differences is that in Mark, there really was no Church yet with authority. In the book of Acts, there was a Church with authority.

ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/EXORPROT.TXT

Here is an excerpt of the last two paragraphs:

Thanks for that excerpt!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I helped arrange for one of those exorcisms at the request of Dr. Malachi Martin. The priest I referred to assist Dr. Peck was an Anglican. The case involved psychiatric disorder. In the final outcome (which took years), it was apparent that the possession and the psychiatric disorder were linked.

You will note that in Scripture, both demonic possessions and illnesses may present with identical symptoms. Also in Scripture, ordinary people had the power of exorcism. It is not uncommon for a Catholic to seek the counsel of an experienced non-Catholic in this field.

Wow, that is neat that you were involved in that and are here to share some info regarding that. Thanks for contributing to this discussion. :tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

Wow, that is neat that you were involved in that and are here to share some info regarding that. Thanks for contributing to this discussion. :tiphat:

Thanks! And THAT is ALL I ever want to do with regard to exorcisms. I believe in 'em: it’s a de fide thing. I still have a streak of skepticism about all of that which I subdue to the Magisterium.

 

[MichaelFilo]

Actually, there is a better answer to your question.

Muslims also perform exorcisms (as well as Jews as is indirectly admitted by the passage from Acts.) Neither holy orders nor baptism are necessary. What is necessary, however, is the invocation of the Spirits to be removed in the name of God.

The personal holiness of the exorcist, however, is obviously important as the demons themselves will rebuke and drive away an exorcist who is unfit (such as those in Acts.)

 

[PoliSciProf]

Don’t fool around with exorcisms! This is very serious business. If anyone doubts this read Malachai Martin’s Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans published by Harper (1992). This was a best seller and secular reviews commented that it was “controversial,” “spellbinding,” “thought provoking,” and “will set you to thinking.” SURE WILL! It will certainly make you think about the limits of secularism! Martin is serious, competent and a former prof at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute. Give it to your favorite atheist or materialist.