On Aleteia I saw a story about the approval by the US bishops, meeting in plenary sessions now, of the English translation of the more recent, 1999 (revised 2004) rite of Exorcism. 179 to 5
It is of vital importance that we train up more exorcists and that we begin to take activity of the Enemy more seriously.
Frankly, from everything that I hear, the newer rite does not hold a candle to the older, traditional rite. I am not sure about the use of English versus Latin, but exorcists have told me that demons can from time to time correct an exorcist’s Latin errors. It seems that Latin annoys them more than the vernacular.
Food for thought.
Remember, everyone, that the rite of exorcism is a sacramental. But the absolution after a good confession is a sacrament. Reception of the Eucharist in the state of grace is THE Sacrament. They have huge effect on the work of the Enemy.
Examine your consciences and…
… GO TO CONFESSION!
Moderation queue is on.
Loading ...
I sounder if Greek or other traditional languages is also more effective than the vernacular for those priests.
*wonder not sounder
E. Christian Kopf titled his book (“The Devil Knows Latin”) after anecdote about Msgr. Ronald Knox (d. 1957). When a couple asked Msgr. Knox to baptize their baby in the vernacular, he refused, on the grounds that “the baby doesn’t know English, but the Devil knows Latin.” So much for the efficacy of English!
Vade retro me, Satana!
Our previous pastor here at the Ave Maria Parish would definitely second your thoughts on the Latin, father. He left to become the exorcist for our diocese. I had a conversation with him a few years back to prepare for my daughter’s baptism and he was the one who first introduced us to the old rite of baptism. He recommended it specifically because he believed it to be a more powerful sign, especially because of the exorcisms. He also specifically mentioned that the old, traditional exorcism rites were more powerful; interesting stuff for sure.
This kind of stuff drives me nuts, why don’t they stick with the stuff that actually works instead of trying to recreate the wheel. Wasn’t the case up in Illinois a while back a proof that the new Rite of Exorcism is a joke. The new Rite didn’t even irritate the demon enough to get him to show himself. During the second session the priest said parts in Latin and that’s when he started to see activity. Third time he used the old Latin Rite of Exorcism and finally got rid of it and sent it where it belongs. The guys that gave us standing and reception in the hand, pederastry and hide the Taberancle now have a sure fire English version of the Holy Roman Rite of Exorcism E2.0. Be sure to bring the popcorn can’t wait to see the first priest suffering from same sex attration for altar boys try and use the English version of the Exorcism on a demonically posessed individual, now that’s what I call entertainment. Mel Brooks could write the script for that! It’s kind of like sending Erkle into a Taliban training camp with a pea shooter, its not going to end well.
Roman exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth is quoted at http://www.fisheaters.com/amorth.html as saying, “This long-awaited Ritual has turned into a farce. An incredible obstacle that is likely to prevent us acting against the demon.”
The English translation of a “farce” is no doubt useless. Thankfully, the older rite has been left active, so nobody has to use the “farcical rite”.
First you convince people you don’t really exist.
Then you use specious medical/psychological theories to replace belief that demonic possession is real.
Then you turn, by whatever means, the hierarchy’s heads towards accommodating society by changing its rites to be more ‘pastoral’ (as defined by society).
That’s how you come up with a bland, barely sufficient set of rites that appear to do what they say they do. Who remembers the tap on the cheek at Confirmation to remind you that you must be ready to suffer for the Faith? Now, it’s more like the 3rd Degree for the Knights: ‘Hey, you’re fully initiated! Welcome to the club….’ with no symbolic sign of just what belonging to the club entails.
I’m not saying there is something diabolical about the constant tinkering with the rites…but, replacing ancient and proven ritual with artificially-constructed-by-committee-over-drinks-at-the-local-bistro and actually expecting them to have the same effect must be making Old Scratch chuckle at our hubris.
I watched the USCCB meeting on EWTN. When the vote was about to take place a bishop from the floor asked if the new rite was going to be printed in English AND Latin…English on one page and Latin on the opposing page. He added that someone in his diocese had suggested it be printed in Latin, too. Bishop Serratelli, the chairman of Divine Worship Committee, responded, “no”. The bishop on the floor then asked if he could make a recommendation that it be printed in Latin. Bishop Serratelli replied with something similar to, “sure, we accept recommendations” and some in the audience laughed. He never said it would be printed in Latin though. It should be noted that the approved rite must receive a “recognitio” from the Holy See before it can be used.
Well, that’ll just help possessed folks in the English-speaking world, I’m sure…because they’re not suffering enough?
exorcists have told me that demons can from time to time correct an exorcist’s Latin errors. It seems that Latin annoys them more than the vernacular.
I think the correct conclusion is that Latin instructors are of demonic origin.
Hmm, and the bishops deliberately chose not to use Latin for the synod, too….
A scholarly analysis of the new rite of major exorcism (1999/2004) in relation to the older, traditional rite was published in the liturgical journal Antiphon back in 2006 and is available online:
http://liturgysociety.org/JOURNAL/Volume10/10_1/vanslyke10.1.pdf
Check out Fr Chad Ripperger, exorcist for the Diocese of Tulsa, on this topic. Search for his website ‘sensus traditionis’. Contains a number of extremely interesting MP3s (on this topic, as well as others of interest to trads). Absolutely essential listening.
First off, it’s well-known that demons lie, and that you can’t trust anything they say, including the articles “a” and “the.” So I would not take seriously anything along the lines of “demons say they aren’t afraid of English.” That’s just messing with us and picking at the Church’s scabs in this time and place, within our hearts.
Second, I’m pretty sure that a bad translation or a dumbed-down prayer is a serious matter. However, I’m pretty sure that if the Church approved a rite of exorcism using tinfoil and a balloon, it could work, because that’s the power of binding and loosing. Jesus’ disciples and apostles managed to exorcise demons galore without the full Latin Rite exorcism of yore. So although more is better, “the prayer is wimpy” isn’t really an excuse.
Third, if anything is the problem with exorcisms today, it’s probably the fact that we laity do less prayer and fasting. Prayer and fasting were the way Jesus recommended dealing with the toughies, and desert monks managed it. If we’re not supporting the Church at large that way, and thus are not helping exorcists and people needing exorcism, of course demons will think it’s hilarious that we’ve weakened our defenses… and they’ll lie about why they’re laughing.
Fourth, it would still be a good job to have a better text and to use the psychological support of Latin and other sacred-language resources. If only because it bolsters our Catholic identity, and because people won’t psychologically take it seriously and be comforted unless it sounds like what they’ve heard in the movies. It’s a right and normal thing to do.
It may be that one of the key differences in the Rites is the use of ‘deprecatory’ in the new Rite versus the traditional imperative prayers. Deprecatory prayer in the new rite consists of asking the Lord Jesus to deliver the afflicted person. The traditional imperative prayers are more forceful, as the priest/exorcist uses commands the demon to depart by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Ego te, immunde spiritus, omnis satanica potestas, cum hostis, omnis légio, omnis cecidit et socios in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi eradicáre et effugáre a Rubro Crucis Latine hoc plasmate Dei.
There’s a big differences between a request and a command….
Great comment, Suburbanbanshee!
Astronomer: No need to speculate about what the differences between the two rites may be. Just read the article to which I linked. The differences are many—or shall I say, legion.
There’s a Portuguese exorcist (Padre Duarte Lara) who used to work with Fr Amorth.
He said on an interview (available on Youtube in Portuguese) that he actually opts to use the vernacular, in order to help the victims avoid seeing him as “just another sorcerer/wizard” (“bruxo”).
In many cases, people go to sorcerers, and then go to other sorcerers in order to cure the problems caused by the demonic activity (probably due to opening themselves to the occult in the first place). By doing the exorcism in Portuguese, it becomes clear that the power to drive out demons comes from Jesus.
He said that he din’t notice any difference in efficacy due to the language. He said, though, that he takes the rubrics of the new rite with a grain of salt.
(He also insists on Confession and leading a holy life, not only to the affected person, but to the whole family, saying this is usually a good thing that comes from the whole ordeal)
Lucchesi, my good friend who has just retired as an exorcist and who was one for 35 years, states strongly that the Latin Rite is more powerful than the English one. He switched because he learned this “in the field” as it were.
Other exorcists, like Fr. Chad Ripperger, most likely the leading exorcist in America as to teaching priests, says the same thing.