Please, if anyone can possbily help. This is a real genuine problem, as I have been to Rome already and gotten help but I could not stay there. If anyone knows anyone I would be forever grateful. Tom

-- Tom (sesterces77@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003

Answers

Nearly every diocese has at least one priest qualified as an exorcist. Call your local diocesan office.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

Nearly every diocese has at least one priest qualified as an exorcist. Call your local diocesan office.

actually, thats not true anymore... thats the old way. a failure of bishops to belief in the area of faith that pertains to excorcism and demons led to too many diocese not appointing an excorcist. there is now a nationwide set of excorcists. however, the only way i could think of getting in touch with them would be through your diocesan office

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.

Nearly every diocese has at least one priest qualified as an exorcist.

How can that be, if the minor orders (exorcist being one of them) were quashed by Vatican II? How does a modern priest go about getting "qualified?"

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

The minor order of exorcist (which a seminarian underwent) is no longer used (lector and acolyte are the only ones still used). Even then, this did not allow a seminarian to perform an exorcism, as he was not yet a priest. If my memory serves, at the time he became an "exorcist," he recited a type of deliverance prayer.

Even if a diocese does not have an exorcist, the bishop can appoint a priest for the task on a case by case basis. This is a necessity, for a priest does not have the faculties to perform an exorcism unless given to him by a bishop. Every case for an exorcism must be investigated before a priest is appointed to the task and empowered to carry it out.

I should also mention that Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the author of "An Exorcist Tells His Story," laments that fewer priests these days are performing this ministry. Nevertheless, he also points out that a good Confession followed by the reception of the Eucharist is a more powerful way of dealing with the devil than an exorcism. The reason is that an exorcism, although very powerful, is still a "sacramental" as opposed to a full sacrament (which, of course, Confession and the Eucharist are).

I hope this helps.

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003.

How can that be, if the minor orders (exorcist being one of them)

actually, the excorcists were never an 'order' per se... and its been a REALLY long time since excorcists were chosen from seminarians. an excorcist is a priest, selected by the bishops for character traits in keeping with those required by the job of being an excorcist. as such they fall into a national group of excorcists, although it used to be that every diocese had their own excorcist.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.

actually, the excorcists were never an 'order' per se

I refer to the minor orders leading to the priesthood (of which exorcist most ertainly WAS one; not to a religious order. It hasn't been soooo long since that was the case, but apparently long enough to stamp out any memory of the fact that minor orders existed and were quashed.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

Thank you all for your responses. It's been extremely difficult to find anyone who is willing to help in this country, its just not an accepted practice here. I was looking for a specific person, I have spoken to the Bishops office where I live, and one of the Priests I was working with in Rome actually called the office here and was told there is noone in this Diocese, I'll have to try neighboring ones. Thanks though. Tom

-- Tom (sesterces77@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Ah if only that were the case. Unfortunately its not, and thats the problem.

-- Tom (sesterces77@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Jake-1.

You wrote: "How can that be, if the minor orders (exorcist being one of them) were quashed by Vatican II?"

Actually, the "minor orders" (porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte) and one "major order" (subdeacon) were suppressed [not "quashed"] by Pope Paul VI in 1972, not by Vatican II. I was in college when it happened, and I remember it well, because, when I was in 7th and 8th grades, I used to spend time with some Benedictine seminarians who went through all the minor and major orders.

The pope published "Ministeria quaedam" (an Apostolic Letter on ministries in the Latin Church), which also suppressed the "tonsure" that marked the entrance into the clerical state. The pope kept the lectorate and the acolytate, but they became "ministries" conferred by "installation" rather than by "ordination".

The minor orders were created by an early pope who decided that they could help the Christian communities. And now a recent pope has decided that some of the minor orders and the subdiaconate are no longer needed. We don't have the smarts nor the authority to question his judgment.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Actually, the "minor orders" (porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte) and one "major order" (subdeacon) were suppressed [not "quashed"] by Pope Paul VI in 1972, not by Vatican II.

Thank you for the clarification.

We don't have the smarts nor the authority to question his judgment.

I realize we differ on this but I feel that it's possible (in most circumstances) to question someone's judgement without explicitly, or even implicitly, claiming to be smarter or have higher authority.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 17, 2003.

Hello, Jake-1.

You correctly quoted me as having stated: "We don't have the smarts nor the authority to question [Pope Paul's] judgment."

Your response was, "... I feel that it's possible (in most circumstances) to question someone's judgement without explicitly, or even implicitly, claiming to be smarter or have higher authority."

Well, it is certainly "possible" to question a pope's every judgment (since we are "capable" of it). {_8^D)
My point was not that it is impossible, but it is not morally permissible for a person to question a pope's decisions -- except (1) in cases of prudential judgment wherein (2) we are in an equal or better position to know the wisest choice of action.

And so, in this case [minor orders, etc.], I said that we are not permitted to question the pope's judgment, because neither you nor I are in a position equal or better than his to judge the circumstances that existed in 1972. Instead of criticizing his judgment, we (who know less than he did) must trust his judgment.

I suspect that, if you were to put this dependable principle [see the bold type, above] into action with respect to many other matters having to do with popes and Catholicism over the last 40 years, you would receive the grace to abandon schismatic traditionalism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.

I said that we are not permitted to question the pope's judgment, because neither you nor I are in a position equal or better than his to judge the circumstances that existed in 1972.

I was 2 years old in 1972, so I concede this point. :D

However, I can't see how one could not judge the current disastrous state of the priesthood as the result of a string of failures. I think one can objectively say that the priesthood was in far better shape before the reign of Paul VI. A quick glance at the enrollment books will confirm that, but numbers aren't the only issue, by far. Formation of priests has been abyssmal since the early 1970's.

I suppose if you were to apply that logic to the countless other ways the Church has suffered in the wake of the Council, you would abandon the Novus Ordo altogether and get back to the practice of the True Faith.

God bless you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 19, 2003.

This comes a little late, Tom, as I have been away from the Catholic forum for a bit, but I do know that the Archdiocese of New York has an exorcist.

His name is Father James LeBar. He is the author of Cults, Sects, and the New Age. He presently serves the archdiocese as the chaplain of a psychiatric hospital in that archdiocese. One of his cases was televised by 60 Minutes some years ago.

May God Bless and Keep you.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), April 20, 2003.

First of all, let's GET RID OF THESE ITALICS! THEY'RE DRIVING ME NUTS.

There.

Jake-1, I urge you not to descend again into the kind of abusive language that caused you to be banned from the forum at one point.

and I urge you not to engage in or encourage carelessly tossing around the word "schismatic." Extend me that much good will, and I will lower my thermostat which, admittedly, rises out of control every now & again.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Jmj

Jake, I don't "carelessly toss around the word 'schismatic.'"
I use it for these reasons:
1. While you don't go to an SSPX chapel (where the Church has formally declared that schism exists), you do attend illicitly celebrated Masses (that are tantamount to SSPX Masses).
2. You openly recommend SSPX periodicals and have praised the SSPX organization. That is, you have the SSPX "mentality."
3. You do not submit to the full authority of Pope John Paul II in areas of discipline -- the essence of schism.

I don't know if you think that you can avoid the label, "schismatic," by not formally joining the SSPX, SSPV, PNCC, OCC, etc., but only by acting as a sort of "de facto" member of SSPX. My belief is that honesty and justice require you to weir that label. If I stop using it, people will think that I consider you a Catholic-in-good-standing, which I do not do.

To be honest, Jake-1, you should not have complained and made me write this post. You should instead be pleased that I have not gone beyond calling you "schismatic" to the point of calling you (and most of your colleagues here) "dissenter" or "protestant" or "heretic." I don't have the time -- and this is not the place -- to find out for sure, but I have a suspicion that, on at least one point of dogma (and on several points of less formally taught doctrine), you do not believe as the Church teaches. That would make you a "dissenter" or "protestant" or "heretic," depending on how much of my suspicion is true. Because I cannot find out about these things with certainty, I am "cutting you a break" by limiting the label to "schismatic."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

I'm a little disappointed (but not al ALL surprised) at your refusal to grant me a gesture of good will.

So be it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Call this number to inquire about exorcisms. I believe this diocese currently has an exorcist.

-- Friend (Notrealaddress@notrealaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

These are the contact numbers that should have been in above message.

Archdiocese of Baltimore Catholic Center, 320 Cathedral Street Departments may be reached direct or by dialing 410-547-5555 for directory assistance: Cardinal-Archbishop 410-547-5437 Chancery 410-547-5446

-- Friend (notrealaddress@notrealaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

Intercessors of the Lamb in Omaha Nebraska (approved by local bishop for deliverence and intercessory prayer working with excorcists!

-- a catholic friend (coldwater1234@yahoo.com), July 28, 2003.

Also check out a Benedictine Abbey nearby. They may not have an excorcist but might be able to locate a Benedictine one for you. I am pretty sure you will still need permission from your Bishop to utilize their services though.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), July 28, 2003.

It seems to me that the only time a Pope cannot be "challenged" is when he has spoken ex cathedra, in my understanding everything emmanating from the lips of any particular Pope is considered official Catholic doctrine as if it is coming directly from God.

-- William Mayer (willaim@pipelinenews.org), February 22, 2004.

That should have been "...not everything emmanating from the lips..."

BTW are any of you at all concerned with the radical direction groups like Pax Christi have taken?

-- William Mayer (william@pipelinenews.org), February 22, 2004.

Dear Tom,

My sincerest sympathies to you for what must be a serious problem in that it would lead you to ask in a public forum for such services. I feel bad that it seemed to provoke more arguments in dogma and doctrine rather than offerings of prayer intentions for you. I find it difficult to accept sometimes that these types of arguments arise, overlooking someone's hour of need. I will pray for you Tom. Remember that nothing happens unless God wants it to happen and that faith, albeit a sometimes difficult path, is your solution - especially in the type of problem you are enquiring about. Above all we must never forget the power of prayer. You will definitely be remembered in mine. Should you like to share your problem feel free to email me.

James

-- James Sweeney (james_sweeney@hotmail.com), February 22, 2004.