Explanation of excersisum at baptism of baby's

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cristofonia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cristofonia

Guest
It seems confusing to me the excersisum of a baby at baptism
 
Rite of Infant Baptism
This should help you to know what occurs at a baby’s Baptism.
As you see, from the text, there is nothing awful or fearful about the Sacrament of Baptism for infants. It is the Bible that tells us of the necessity of Baptism.

saintanthonynewbedford.com/pdfs/RiteOfBaptism.pdf

The parents and godparents make promise on the part of the child, as through Baptism the baby becomes a child of God. As they grow, the children freely accept or reject those promises.
 
Forget about the horror films you may have seen. Exorcism is the process where we claim something or someone for God. We exorcise a child as part of the Baptism service. We exorcise a building when we dedicate it as a church. The Missal includes a rite for exorcising salt if this is to be used when blessing holy water.
 
Thanks so it is just to make the baby Gods property that’s all the excersisum is
 
the prayer at baptism, as the prayers offered for catechumens during Lent, are Minor Exorcisms, which are simply prayers for the individual to be protected from evil. We pray a minor exorcism prayer every time we pray in the Our Father to be delivered from evil.
 
Right. There are two different kinds of exorcisms, Minor and Solemn. Minor exorcisms are usually simple prayers that can be prayed by anyone. Solemn exorcism is a full, set ritual that is prayed only by a priest or bishop (I do not think deacons can perform them) that is almost always done in a very private setting, and only to command a demon out from a possessed person.
 
Thanks for you’re comments but way call the prayer an exorcsim it just doesn’t sound good when something so wonderful like a sacrament is going on
 
YoungTradCath said:
Right. There are two different kinds of exorcisms, Minor and Solemn. Minor exorcisms are usually simple prayers that can be prayed by anyone. Solemn exorcism is a full, set ritual that is prayed only by a priest or bishop (I do not think deacons can perform them) that is almost always done in a very private setting, and only to command a demon out from a possessed person.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. In pre Vatican II days, Excorsist was a Minor Order. Entry into a Major Order ( Deaconate, Presbetery, Episcopal) include the privlidges of the Minor Orders.
 
As others have said, an Exorcism is not a casting out of the devil (though it can have that effect), it is the process by which someone or something dedicated to God.

When we moved into our house, we had a priest friend over to bless the house, the first thing he did was to perform a general exorcism.

This was not because any of us believed that the house was haunted, possessed or otherwise evil, but rather because we wanted the house to be dedicated to God.

Likewise, the exorcism at Baptism is not done to dispel a perceived evil, but to dedicate the child to God.

See the difference?
 
Brendan said:
Yes, they can. In pre Vatican II days, Excorsist was a Minor Order. Entry into a Major Order ( Deaconate, Presbetery, Episcopal) include the privlidges of the Minor Orders.
Click to expand...
Deacons cannot perform Solemn Exorcisms, nor could they before Vatican II. The only power of exorcists, that is, those men who were part of that minor order before Vatican II (and those who hold it now, as some men do), was to perform the minor exorcisms at baptisms. That is all those exorcists do.
 
Thank all of my catholic family for you’re response it has help me to learn about my faith
 
Thanks to the OP for this, I have learned something from this thread.
 
ProVobis said:
I think only certain priests can be allowed to do the exorcism rite. And I believe the Pope has now restored the 1614 ritual as well.

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0410-euteneuer
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know if he restored it or if it was just never abrogated, but the 1614 ritual seems to be used in full force. See here, for example: dioceseoftulsa.org/section.asp?secID=97

Yes, that’s a conference for current exorcists, in the USA of all places, to go learn the 1614 (1962) ritual, and it is coming up very soon. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I hear that many of the most efficacious prayers were removed from the “revision” of the rite that was released in 199(8/9?).

I’m not sure why they call that the 1962 rite. Was the Rituale re-released in 1962 as well? I thought it was only the Missal.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, I don’t know if he restored it or if it was just never abrogated, but the 1614 ritual seems to be used in full force. See here, for example: dioceseoftulsa.org/section.asp?secID=97

Yes, that’s a conference for current exorcists, in the USA of all places, to go learn the 1614 (1962) ritual, and it is coming up very soon. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I hear that many of the most efficacious prayers were removed from the “revision” of the rite that was released in 199(8/9?).
Click to expand...
Yes, according to the article I cited (I didn’t realize it was a pay-to-view) then-Cardinal Ratzinger fought to preserve the 1614 ritual when the revised ritual (with less efficacious prayers as you put it) was offered in 1999.

And it is my understanding that all liturgical books in effect in 1962 are still available to use. Furthermore, in this case according to the article, “[the priest] does not have to speak Latin fluently because he is not there to engage in a conversation with the demon. He only has to read the prayers and have intense faith in the Church’s words.”
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, according to the article I cited (I didn’t realize it was a pay-to-view) then-Cardinal Ratzinger fought to preserve the 1614 ritual when the revised ritual (with less efficacious prayers as you put it) was offered in 1999.

And it is my understanding that all liturgical books in effect in 1962 are still available to use. Furthermore, in this case according to the article, “[the priest] does not have to speak Latin fluently because he is not there to engage in a conversation with the demon. He only has to read the prayers and have intense faith in the Church’s words.”
Click to expand...
I think it’s very frightening that some people think “a prayer is a prayer,” as they put it. That scares me. If you read books by reputable exorcists (Fr. Amorth, Fr. Artea), they state in very clear terms that this is simply not the case. It has been long known that certain prayers are more efficacious than others requesting the same thing, yet it seems some people ignore that as outdated superstition or something, which is completely ignorant. By that reasoning, I could ask God for a peanut butter sandwich when I’m really wanting my cancer to go away. Seems silly, but that is that line of thinking.
 
Prayers aren’t magic. They don’t ‘work’ more efficaciously simply because you used the correct formula. The work is God’s, and he will do it when it is asked for rightly and it is in accord with his will.

What the words do make more efficacious is the subjective effect of the prayer on those who hear them. Perhaps the wording makes it easier for the pray-er or the listeners to enter more deeply into the prayer, to concentrate on it, to see more clearly what they are asking God for, to be more attuned to God’s presence and action. Perhaps even certain wordings are more painful to demons in solemn exorcisms. But it is a sort of ‘magical thinking’ to say that specific formulas are objectively more efficacious. Is it the prayer that accomplishes the task, or God acting as the result of the prayer? This is something that we Westerners need to be careful with, because our over-emphasis on formulas leads sometimes to an undervaluing of the role and work of the Holy Spirit, and can seem (even though we know it isn’t the case) to put human action in the place which is properly God’s.

On the subject of the concerns of the OP, there have historically been two types of exorcistic prayers, those which ask for evil to be removed from a person or object, and those which ask that evil be kept away from a person or object. The exorcism in the baptism of infants is currently an example of the second sort, though throughout history the other sort has been used for infants (the prayers were slightly adapted from the rite for adults) as well, up to and including the rite used before the reforms following Vatican II.

Furthermore, it is good to remember that a major part of Jesus’ ministry (and that of the apostles) was casting out evil and demons from people. This is a good and beautiful thing- freeing people from their bondage and slavery to sin and evil. This is part of what baptism is all about, and why the exorcism is included in the celebration of baptism. Even though the baby has no personal sin, and is not possessed, he/she has been born into the shackles of evil and sin which bind every human, which can only be taken off by Christ.
 
GelasianumVetus said:
Prayers aren’t magic. They don’t ‘work’ more efficaciously simply because you used the correct formula. The work is God’s, and he will do it when it is asked for rightly and it is in accord with his will.

What the words do make more efficacious is the subjective effect of the prayer on those who hear them. Perhaps the wording makes it easier for the pray-er or the listeners to enter more deeply into the prayer, to concentrate on it, to see more clearly what they are asking God for, to be more attuned to God’s presence and action. Perhaps even certain wordings are more painful to demons in solemn exorcisms. But it is a sort of ‘magical thinking’ to say that specific formulas are objectively more efficacious. Is it the prayer that accomplishes the task, or God acting as the result of the prayer? This is something that we Westerners need to be careful with, because our over-emphasis on formulas leads sometimes to an undervaluing of the role and work of the Holy Spirit, and can seem (even though we know it isn’t the case) to put human action in the place which is properly God’s.
Click to expand...
Well, I will agree to an extent. There are certain supplicatory prayers, for example, to certain saints, in the old exorcism ritual that were surgically excised (so I read from several books) from the rite when it was “revised.” If we’re praying to St. A, St. B and St. C in the old rite but we snip that out in the new rite, well yes, they technically could still be interceding for us, but do you see my point? If we don’t ask for a saint’s intercession, how likely is it that we get it? However, if we are profusely praying for intercession in an exorcism, we can be almost certain that the saint is praying for us.

I do understand your point, though. I know that it is the will of God, not some magic, that makes things happen. I understand that much. But would we pray to, say, St. Joseph of Cupertino (patron of students, my patron, in fact) for a couple to conceive a child? We could, but it probably wouldn’t be as smart as praying to the pertinent saint (and I don’t know which one that would be). Like I said, would we pray to God for a peanut butter sandwich if we are really expecting Him to heal someone’s cancer? No, that makes no sense. Stupid example, but still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top