Exorcism
Exorcism
1. Origin and definition.-It is pointed out in the article Divination that man, at a very early period, came to think of himself as surrounded by innumerable spirits, many of whom could enter into and influence him. He realized that it was his duty, and for his advantage, to cultivate friendly relations with these spirits, and one of the forms which this effort took developed into divination. The coming of a spirit into close relations with a man brought on him either calamities or blessings, and from these opposite results the spirits came to be grouped into good and bad. The entrance of a good spirit-a spirit of purity or truth-caused health of body or clearness of mind. Such indwelling in its highest form is inspiration (Job 32:8). The entrance of a bad spirit-a dumb, unclean, or evil spirit-caused disease of body or disorder of mind. In its most decided form this is Possession (q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ). The spirits, and the divinities into which some of them developed, were free to enter into or leave a person, but their freedom was limited. As the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1Co 14:32), so certain persons came to know how, by a proper use of special words and acts, to make the spirits, within certain limits, obedient to them. 1 Such experts were able to bring a person into such close contact with a spirit, or the thing in which a spirit or divinity dwelt, that the spirit could deal effectively with the person. Such bringing into contact developed, (a) where the person was able or willing, into administering to him an oath; (b) where unable or unwilling, into solemnly adjuring him. 2 An expert could call up, call upon, or permit a spirit to enter another person, to work his will in him; or enter into him-self to work with him or reveal secrets to him. 3 He could compel a spirit to come out of a person or thing into which it had entered; with the result, if the spirit was an evil one, that the baneful consequences of possession immediately ceased. The expert who could do this was an exorcist, and his work was exorcism.
2. Derivation.-The word seems primarily to have referred to a spirit, or an object made sacred by the indwelling of a spirit, and so came to mean the thing that brought a spirit into effective touch with a person, hence an oath. , in the same way, came to mean to bring these two together, hence (a) to administer or cause to take an oath (Gen 50:5, Num 5:19); or (b) to adjure (Jos 6:26, 1Ki 22:16, 2Ch 18:15, Act 19:13). When the high priest said to Jesus * [Note: This, not , is the reading of D L. The reading in Gen 24:3 is .] (Mat 26:63), he thereby brought the prisoner into such effective touch with Jahweh that the latter could punish him if he did not speak the truth. , on the other hand, meant the separating of the spirit from the person, and from it comes , the Latin exorcismus, and the English exorcism.
The formula is of Oriental origin. It is absolutely unknown in Greek and Italian tabellae from the fifth century b.c. to the second century a.d.; and, when it does appear, it appears only in tablets which make mention of Oriental deities (F. B. Jevons, Defixionum Tabellae, in Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History of Religions, 1908, vol. ii. p. 138). A heathen amulet has the inscription ; and the adjective is of constant occurrence in the magic papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Lexical Notes from the Papyri in Expositor, 7th ser. vii. [1909] 376).
3. History.-As the cause of disease was the incoming of an evil spirit, so the cure of the disease consisted in its expulsion. All exorcists were not equally clever at their work; but, though a patient might, like an old Babylonian, complain that the exorcist has not handled my illness successfully (F. B. Jevons, Comparative Religion, 1913, p. 7), still failures were overlooked and forgotten, and exorcism prevailed among all the nations of antiquity, and prevails among all uncivilized peoples to-day (G. T. Bettany, Primitive Religions, 1891, pp. 20, 113, 128; The Book of Ser Marco Polo, translation H. Yule, 1871, vol. ii. pp. 71, 78).* [Note: For a psychological explanation of exorcism see W. McDougall, Psychology, 1912, p. 196; Andrew lang. Making of Religion2, p. 129; T. J. Hudson, The Law of Psychic Phenomena, 1893.] Sometimes, as in the lustratio of the Romans (W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, 1911, p. 209) and the Anthesteria of the Greeks (Gilbert Murray, Four Stages of Greek Religion, 1912, p. 30), the exorcism was national and periodic.
In private life, when a person became ill (was possessed), an exorcist was at once called in who by various means attempted a cure. David by music expelled the evil spirit from Saul (1Sa 16:14-23), though, when the spirit came mightily, he failed (1Sa 19:9; Jos. Ant. vi. viii. 2 and xi. 3). Embracing (another form of exorcism) is mentioned in 1Ki 17:21, 2Ki 4:34, Act 20:10. Solomon, according to tradition, acquired a great reputation as an expert practitioner of the art-a science, says Josephus (Ant. viii. ii. 5), useful and sanative to man. He composed incantations by which cures were effected, and also formulas by which demons could be expelled. These were used as late as the time of Vespasian, a notable instance being recorded by Josephus (loc. cit.; see also his account of the root of Baaras [Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) vii. vi. 3]). In the OT Apocrypha there are such references to the art as that in Tob 6:16-17; Tob 8:2-3. Our Lord [Note: Dearmer, Body and Soul, 1909, p. 146; T. J. Hudson, op. cit., chs. xxiii., xxiv.; G. J. Romanes, Thoughts on Religion6, 1896, p. 180 and Gores note.] accepted the beliefs of His time on this as on other matters. His words and deeds show us the evil spirits going out of a patient (Mat 17:18, Mar 5:8, Luk 8:29, Mar 9:25-26); entering into lower animals (Mat 8:32, Mar 5:13, Luk 8:33); wandering through waterless places (Mat 12:43, Luk 11:24); cooperating with other spirits (Mat 12:45, Luk 11:26); and re-entering the patients from whom they had been expelled (Mat 12:45, Luk 11:26). In contrast to the exorcists of His time (Mat 12:27, Luk 11:19), our Lord exhibited exceptional skill and unbroken success in the expulsion of evil spirits. He healed all who were tyrannized over by the devil (Act 10:38). [Note: . The word here employed is used in the papyri thus: I am being harshly treated in prison, perishing with hunger, and indicates the physical suffering arising from possession (Moulton and Milligan, loc. cit. p. 477).] Exorcism, it must be observed, is not nearly so prominent in the First Gospel as in the Third, and all instances of its use are omitted in the Fourth (J. Moffatt, The Theology of the Gospels, 1912, pp. 13, 120; J. M. Thompson, Miracles in the NT, 1911, p. 63). It is especially noteworthy that our Lord in expelling evil spirits employed no outward means (except once, the spittle [Joh 9:6]); He simply commanded and it was done.* [Note: Dearmer, op. cit., p. 168.] Perhaps the secret of His power, His triumphant and universal success, and of the failure of others, is revealed in His words, this kind cometh not out except by prayer (Mar 9:29). [Note: and B omit and along with A the whole of Mat 17:21.] Prayer is the complete opening up of ones entire personality to the incoming of the entire personality of God. Jesus was able to do this and did it; others failed and fail.
The Twelve, after being chosen, were ordained to be with Jesus in order that they might go forth (a) to preach, (b) to have power to heal diseases, and (c) (Mar 3:14-15, Mat 10:1). When He did send them forth, He gave them power to cast out all unclean spirits (Mat 10:1, Mar 6:7, Luk 9:1). St. John reported to Jesus that he and other disciples saw one casting out daemons in His name (Mar 9:38, Luk 9:49); while, on the other hand, the disciples sometimes failed in their efforts at expulsion (Mat 17:19). Our Lord sent out the Seventy (a) to heal, (b) to proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom (Luk 10:9). When they returned, they reported that the spirits were subject to them in His name [Note: See art. Name.] (Luk 10:17). Finally, Jesus bequeathed to those who should believe power in His name [Note: See art. Name.] to cast out daemons (Mar 16:17). After the death of Jesus the apostles continued to cure those troubled (or roused, , Luk 6:18) with unclean spirits (Act 5:16), and a similar power was exercised by other Christians over spirits which came out shouting with a loud cry (Act 8:7).
When the Christian missionaries penetrated into the Roman Empire, they met the victims of possession, and had to deal with them. At Philippi, St. Paul and Silas encountered a young girl, the slave of a group of masters, who was possessed by a spirit-a Python, [Note: The correct reading, according to AB, is ; see art. Python.] which enabled her to utter predictions.|| [Note: | ; see art. Soothsaying.] The girl so forced herself upon the missionaries attention that at last St. Paul, in the name [Note: See art. Name.] of Jesus Christ, commanded the spirit to come out of her, which it immediately did (Act 16:16-18). Again, at Ephesus, a city in which exorcism flourished, St. Paul seems to have cast out spirits in the name of Jesus. Further cures of a somewhat uncommon ( ) character were effected, for on certain articles of dress which had been in immediate contact with the body ( [Note: , literally the skin. See Nestle in ExpT, vol. xiii. [1901-02] p. 282, and art. Apron.] ) of St. Paul being applied to those afflicted, the evil spirits came out of them (Act 19:11 f.).
Such success roused a competitive spirit in the minds of other exorcists and revealed to them the power which lay in the use of the name of Jesus. Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, who formed a company of strolling exorcists, determined to utilize the new power. Over a man afflicted with an evil spirit they pronounced this formula: . The effort proved more than futile, for the recitation of the formula, instead of bringing Jesus into such effective touch with the man that the evil spirit had to yield possession to Him, roused the spirit to stir into activity that abnormal muscular strength often possessed by those mentally deranged (cf. Luk 8:29), and, leaping on the exorcists, the man assaulted them and drove them out of the house stripped and wounded (Act 19:13-16). The men who had become Christians realized the incompatibility of loyalty to Jesus and the practice of such magical arts, and they publicly burned their copies of the famous (Act 19:19).
That this did not mean the absolute abandonment of exorcism the subsequent history of the Church all too clearly proves. The reference to doctrines of daemons (1Ti 4:1) and the spirits of daemons performing signs (Rev 16:14) shows how exorcism still lingered in the Church. The words which shed light on the struggle from the higher Christian standpoint are those in Jam 4:7 : resist the devil, and he will flee from you-words which were an exhortation to the Christians not to resort to exorcism, but to rely on the successful resistance which sprang from a strong exertion of their sanctified wills aided by the power of God. The means employed by exorcists differ in different times and countries. Four only are referred to in the Apostolic Age-hands, cloths, the name of Jesus, and shadowing.
When we pass to the literature of the Fathers, we cannot help being struck with the almost total absence of references to exorcism. This is possibly to be accounted for by the fact that the work of these writers forced them to think more of evangelism and apologetic than of combating the evils of the heathen world. In the spurious Ignatian Epistle to the Philippians (ch. v.) Christ is by way of honour called this magician ( ), and in the spurious Epistle to the Antiochians (ch. xii.) we find the exorcists () mentioned among the Church officials.
The practice of exorcism continued in the Church. The ordinary Christian practised it, Gregory Thaumaturgus even casting out devils by sending letters to the person possessed. As a rule, however, the practice was confined to the clergy, and by a.d. 340 the constituted a special order, some of whom were ordained, others merely recognized. The rescripts of the Emperors granted to them, as well as to the other orders of clergy, exemption from civil offices. Their work was the care of the possessed, the , the catechists, heretics, and schismatics, the exorcism being in each case connected with the rites of exsufflation and insufflation (see J. Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticae, 1843, vol. i. p. 362ff. and vol. iii. p. 277ff.; Smith and Cheetham, Dict. of Christian Antiquities , 1875, vol. i. p. 650; Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , article Abrenuntio, vol. i. p. 38). The office of exorcist continued to be important: we read, e.g., of St. Patrick landing in Ireland with a number of officials among whom were skilled exorcists (A. R. Macewan, History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i., 1913, p. 36).
Literature.-See the Literature mentioned in the foot-notes of article Divination, and in addition W. M. Alexander, Demonic Possession in the NT, 1902; H. A. Dallas, Gospel Records interpreted by Human Experience, 1903, p. 201; Andrew Lang, The Making of Religion2, 1900, p. 128; R. C. Thompson, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, 1903-04, vol. i. p. liii; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough3 The Magic Art, 1911, i. 174ff.; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture3, 1891, ii. 124ff.; articles in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , i. 438ff., and Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , iv. i 565, 578, 612, with the Literature there mentioned.
P. A. Gordon Clark.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
EXORCISM
The expelling of devils from persons possessed, by means of conjuration and prayers. The Jews made great pretences to this power. Josephus tells several wonderful tales of the great success of several exorcists. One Eleazer, a Jew, cured many daemoniacs, he says, by means of a root set in a ring. This root, with the ring, was held under the patient’s nose, and the devil was forthwith evacuated. The most part of conjurers of this class were impostors, each pretending to a secret nostrum or charm which was an overmatch for the devil. Our Saviour communicated to his disciples a real power over daemons, or at least over the diseases said to be occasioned by daemons.
See DAEMONIAC. Exorcism makes a considerable part of the superstition of the church of Rome, the ritual of which forbids the exorcising any person without the bishop’s leave. The ceremony is performed at the lower end of the church, towards the door. The exorcist first signs the possessed person with the sign of the cross, makes him kneel, and sprinkles him with holy water. Then follow the litanies, psalms, and prayer; after which the exorcist asks the devil his name, and adjures him by the mysteries of the Christian religion not to afflict the person any more; then, laying his right hand on the daemoniac’s head, he repeats the form of exorcism, which is this: “I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ: tremble, O Satan, thou enemy of the faith, thou foe of mankind, who hast brought death into the world; who hast deprived men of life, and hast rebelled against justice, thou seducer of mankind, thou root of all evil, thou source of avarice, discord, and envy.” The Romanists likewise exorcise houses and other places supposed to be haunted by unclean spirits; and the ceremony is much the same with that for a person possessed.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
exorcism
(Greek: ex, out; horkizo, solemnly command )
The act or ceremony of driving out demons from possessed persons, places, or things, or of protecting them from the influence of evil spirits. The practise is based on teachings of the Bible. Certain things are exorcised in blessing them, as holy water. In the prayer used in blessing holy water, God is besought to protect those who use it against the influence of the devil. Exorcism is part of the ceremonies of baptism . The Roman Ritual contains the ceremony of Exorcism proper.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Exorcism
(See also DEMONOLOGY, DEMONIACS, EXORCIST, POSSESSION.)
Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice; (2) the means employed for this purpose, especially the solemn and authoritative adjuration of the demon, in the name of God, or any of the higher power in which he is subject.
The word, which is not itself biblical, is derived from exorkizo, which is used in the Septuagint (Genesis 24:3 = cause to swear; III(I) Kings 22:16 = adjure), and in Matthew 26:63, by the high priest to Christ, “I adjure thee by the living God. . .” The non-intensive horkizo and the noun exorkistes (exorcist) occur in Acts 19:13, where the latter (in the plural) is applied to certain strolling Jews who professed to be able to cast out demons. Expulsion by adjuration is, therefore, the primary meaning of exorcism, and when, as in Christian usage, this adjuration is in the name of God or of Christ, exorcism is a strictly religious act or rite. But in ethnic religions, and even among the Jews from the time when there is evidence of its being vogue, exorcism as an act of religion is largely replaced by the use of mere magical and superstitious means, to which non-Catholic writers at the present day sometimes quite unfairly assimilate Christian exorcism. Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion, however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may be, with a legitimate religious rite.
IN ETHNIC RELIGIONS
The use of protective means against the real, or supposed, molestations of evil spirits naturally follows from the belief in their existence, and is, and has been always, a feature of ethnic religions, savage and civilized. In this connection only two of the religions of antiquity, the Egyptian and Babylonian, call for notice; but it is no easy task, even in the case of these two, to isolate what bears strictly on our subject, from the mass of mere magic in which it is embedded. The Egyptians ascribed certain diseases and various other evils to demons, and believed in the efficacy of magical charms and incantations for banishing or dispelling them. The dead more particularly needed to be well fortified with magic in order to be able to accomplish in safely their perilous journey to the underworld (see Budge, Egyptian Magic, London, 1899). But of exorcism, in the strict sense, there is hardly any trace in the Egyptian records.
In the famous case where a demon was expelled from the daughter of the Prince of Bekhten, human ministry was unavailing, and the god Khonsu himself had to be sent the whole way from Thebes for the purpose. The demon gracefully retired when confronted with the god, and was allowed by the latter to be treated at a grand banquet before departing “to his own place” (op. cit. p. 206 sq.).
Babylonian magic was largely bound up with medicine, certain diseases being attributed to some kind of demoniacal possession, and exorcism being considered easiest, if not the only, way of curing them (Sayce, Hibbert Lect. 1887, 310). For this purpose certain formulæ of adjuration were employed, in which some god or goddess, or some group of deities, was invoked to conjure away the evil one and repair the mischief he had caused. The following example (from Sayce, op. cit., 441 seq.) may be quoted: “The (possessing) demon which seizes a man, the demon (ekimmu) which seizes a man; The (seizing) demon which works mischief, the evil demon, Conjure, O spirit of heaven; conjure, O spirit of earth.” For further examples see King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London, 1896).
AMONG THE JEWS
There is no instance in the Old Testament of demons being expelled by men. In Tobias 8:3, is the angel who “took the devil and bound him in the desert of upper Egypt”; and the instruction previously given to young Tobias (6:18-19), to roast the fish’s heart in the bridal chamber, would seem to have been merely part of the angel’s plan for concealing his own identity. But in extra-canonical Jewish literature there are incantations for exorcising demons, examples of which may be seen in Talmud (Schabbath, xiv, 3; Aboda Zara, xii, 2; Sanhedrin, x, 1). These were sometimes inscribed on the interior surface of earthen bowls, a collection of which (estimated to be from the seventh century A.D) is preserved in the Royal Museum in Berlin; and inscriptions from the collection have been published, translated by Wohlstein in the “Zeitschrift für Assyriologie” (December, 1893; April, 1894).
The chief characteristics of these Jewish exorcisms is their naming of names believed to be efficacious, i.e., names of good angels, which are used either alone or in combination with El (=God); indeed reliance on mere names had long before become a superstition with the Jews, and it was considered most important that the appropriate names, which varied for different times and occasions, should be used. It was this superstitious belief, no doubt, that prompted the sons of Sceva, who had witnessed St. Paul’s successful exorcisms in the name of Jesus, to try on their own account the formula, “I conjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth”, with results disastrous to their credit (Acts 19:13). It was a popular Jewish belief, accepted even by a learned cosmopolitan like Josephus, that Solomon had received the power of expelling demons, and that he had composed and transmitted certain formulæ that were efficacious for that purpose. The Jewish historian records how a certain Eleazar, in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian and his officers, succeeded, by means of a magical ring applied to the nose of a possessed person, in drawing out the demon through the nostrils — the virtue of the ring being due to the fact that it enclosed a certain rare root indicated in the formulaæ of Solomon, and which it was exceedingly difficult to obtain (Ant. Jud, VIII, ii, 5; cf. Bell. Jud. VII, vi, 3).
But superstition and magic apart, it is implied in Christ’s answers to the Pharisees, who accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, that some Jews in His time successfully exorcised demons in God’s name: “and if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” (Matthew 12:27). It does not seem reasonable to understand this reply as mere irony, or as a mere argumentum ad hominem implying no admission of the fact; all the more so, as elsewhere (Mark 9:37-38) we have an account of a person who was not a disciple casting out demons in Christ’s name, and whose action Christ refused to reprehend or forbid.
EXORCISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Assuming the reality of demoniac possession, for which the authority of Christ is pledged, it is to be observed that Jesus appealed to His power over demons as one of the recognised signs of Messiahship (Matthew 12:23, 28; Luke 11:20). He cast out demons, He declared, by the finger or spirit of God, not, as His adversaries alleged, by collusion with the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 19); and that He exercised no mere delegated power, but a personal authority that was properly His own, is clear from the direct and imperative way in which He commands the demon to depart (Mark 9:24; cf. 1:25 etc.): “He cast out the spirits with his word, and he healed all that were sick” (Matthew 8:16). Sometimes, as with the daughter of the Canaanean woman, the exorcism took place from a distance (Matthew 15:22 sqq.; Mark 7:25). Sometimes again the spirits expelled were allowed to express their recognition of Jesus as “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24) and to complain that He had come to torment them “before the time”, i.e the time of their punishment (Matthew 8:29 sqq; Luke 8:28 sqq.). If demoniac possession was generally accompanied by some disease, yet the two were not confounded by Christ, or the Evangelists. In Luke 13:32, for example, the Master Himself expressly distinguishes between the expulsion of evil spirits and the curing of disease.
Christ also empowered the Apostles and Disciples to cast out demons in His name while He Himself was still on earth (Matthew 10:1 and 8; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1; 10:17), and to believers generally He promised the same power (Mark 16:17). But the efficacy of this delegated power was conditional, as we see from the fact that the Apostles themselves were not always successful in their exorcisms: certain kinds of spirits, as Christ explained, could only be cast out by prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:15, 20; Mark 9:27-28; Luke 9:40). In other words the success of exorcism by Christians, in Christ’s name, is subject to the same general conditions on which both the efficacy of prayer and the use of charismatic power depend. Yet conspicuous success was promised (Mark 16:17). St. Paul (Acts 16:18; 19:12), and, no doubt, the other Apostles and Disciples, made use of regularly, as occasion arose, of their exorcising power, and the Church has continued to do so uninterruptedly to the present day.
ECCLESIASTICAL EXORCISMS
Besides exorcism in the strictest sense — i.e. for driving out demons from the possessed — Catholic ritual, following early traditions, has retained various other exorcisms, and these also call for notice here.
(1) Exorcism of the possessed
We have it on the authority of all early writers who refer to the subject at all that in the first centuries not only the clergy, but lay Christians also were able by the power of Christ to deliver demoniacs or energumens, and their success was appealed to by the early Apologists as a strong argument for the Divinity of the Christian religion (Justin Martyr, Apol., 6; P.G., VI, 453; Dial., 30, 85; ibid., 537, 676 sq; Minutius Felix, Octav., 27, P.L., III; Origen, Contra Celsum., I, 25; VII, 4, 67; P.G., XI, 705, 1425, 1516; Tertullian, Apol., 22, 23; P.L., I, 404 sq; etc). As is clear from testimonies referred to, no magical or superstitious means were employed, but in those early centuries, as in later times, a simple and authoritative adjuration addressed to the demon in the name of God, and more especially in the name of Christ crucified, was the usual form of exorcism.
But sometimes in addition to words some symbolic action was employed, such as breathing (insufflatio), or laying of hands on the subject, or making the sign of cross. St. Justin speaks of demons flying from “the touch and breathing of Christians” (II Apol., 6) as from a flame that burns them, adds St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat., xx, 3, P.G., XXXIII, 1080). Origen mentions the laying of hands, and St. Ambrose (Paulinus, Vit. Ambr., n. 28, 43, P.L, XIV, 36, 42), St. Ephraem Syrus (Greg. Nyss., De Vit. Ephr., P.G., XLVI, 848) and others used this ceremony in exorcising. The sign of the cross, that briefest and simplest way of expressing one’s faith in the Crucified and invoking His Divine power, is extolled by many Fathers for its efficacy against all kinds of demoniac molestation (Lactantius, Inst., IV, 27, P.L., VI, 531 sq.; Athanasius, De Incarn. Verbi., n. 47, P.G., XXV, 180; Basil, In Isai., XI, 249, P.G., XXX, 557, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., XIII, 3 col. 773; Gregory Nazianzen, Carm. Adv. iram, v, 415 sq.; P.G., XXXVII, 842). The Fathers further recommend that the adjuration and accompanying prayers should be couched in the words of Holy Writ (Cyril of Jerus., Procat., n. 9, Col. 350; Athanasius, Ad Marcell., n. 33, P.G., XXVII, 45). The present rite of exorcism as given in the Roman Ritual fully agrees with patristic teaching and is a proof of the continuity of Catholic tradition in this matter.
(2) Baptismal exorcism
At an early age the practice was introduced into the Church of exorcising catechumens as a preparation for the Sacrament of Baptism. This did not imply that they were considered to be obsessed, like demoniacs, but merely that they were, in consequence of original sin (and of personal sins in case of adults), subject more or less to the power of the devil, whose “works” or “pomps” they were called upon to renounce, and from whose dominion the grace of baptism was about to deliver them.
Exorcism in this connection is a symbolical anticipation of one of the chief effects of the sacrament of regeneration; and since it was used in the case of children who had no personal sins, St. Augustine could appeal to it against the Pelagians as implying clearly the doctrine of original sin (Ep. cxciv, n. 46. P.L., XXXIII, 890; C. Jul. III, 8; P.L., XXXIV, 705, and elsewhere). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procat., 14, col. 355) gives a detailed description of baptismal exorcism, from which it appears that anointing with exorcised oil formed a part of this exorcism in the East. The only early Western witness which treats unction as part of the baptismal exorcism is that of the Arabic Canons of Hippolytus (n. 19, 29). The Exsufflatio, or out-breathing of the demon by the candidate, which was sometimes part of the ceremony, symbolized the renunciation of his works and pomps, while the Insufflatio, or in-breathing of the Holy Ghost, by ministers and assistants, symbolised the infusion of sanctifying grace by the sacrament. Most of these ancient ceremonies have been retained by the Church to this day in her rite for solemn baptism.
(3) Other Exorcisms
According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in the consequence of the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in regard to them is nothing more that a prayer to God, in the name of His Church, to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.
The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, oil, and these in turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g. churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces no new principle, and it has been used in the Church from the earliest ages. (See also EXORCIST.)
———————————–
P.J. TONER Transcribed by Listya Sari Diyah
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VCopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Exorcism
(See DEVIL; DIVINATION.) Practiced with spells, as the name of Solomon, magic charms, and incantations among the Jews. Act 19:13-16; the profane use of Jesus’ name as a mere spell was punished by the demon turning on the would be exorcists; these “vagabond Jews” were pretenders. But our Lord implies that some Jews actually cast out demons (Mat 12:27), probably by demoniacal help; others in the name of Jesus, without saving faith in Him (Mat 7:22; Mar 9:38). He gave the power to the twelve, the seventy, and to other disciples after His ascension (Mat 10:8; Luk 10:17-19; Mar 16:17; Act 16:18). The term “exorcise” is never up. plied in Scripture to the Christian casting out of demons. In the end of the 3rd century “exorcists” were made an order in the Christian church, much to the fostering of superstition, especially in connection with baptism.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Exorcism
EXORCISM.See Demon.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Exorcism
EXORCISM.The word may be defined as denoting the action of expelling an evil spirit by the performance of certain rites, including almost always the invocation of a reputedly holy name. An anticipation of the later methods occurs in Davids attempt to expel Sauls melancholia by means of music (1Sa 16:16; 1Sa 16:23); and in the perception of the benefit of music may possibly be found the origin of the incantations that became a marked feature of the process. A more complicated method is prescribed by the angel Raphael (Tob 6:16 f., Tob 8:2). In NT times the art had developed; professional exorcists had become numerous (Act 19:13; Act 19:19), whilst other persons were adepts, and practised as occasion needed (Mat 12:27, Luk 11:19). An old division of the Babylonian religious literature (cf. Cuneif. Texts from, Tablets in Brit. Mus., pts. xvi., xvii.) contains many specimens of incantations; and the connexion of the Jews with that country, especially during the Exile, is an obvious explanation of the great extension both of the conception of the influence of demons and of the means adopted for their treatment. Exorcism was a recognized occupation and need in the Jewish life of the first century, as it became afterwards in certain sections of the Christian Church.
In the procedure and formul of exorcism, differences are traceable in the practice of the Jews, of Christ, and of His disciples. An illustration of the Jewish method may be found in Josephus (Ant. VIII. ii. 5), who claims Solomon for its author, and describes a case that he had himself witnessed. Other instances occur in the papyri (e.g. Dieterich, Abraxas, 138ff.), and in the Talmud (e.g. Berakhoth, 51a; Pesachim, 112b). The vital part of the procedure was the invocation of a name (or a series of names, of a deity or an angel, at the mention of which the evil spirit was supposed to recognize the presence of a superior power and to decline a combat, as though a spell had been put upon him. Christ, on the other hand, uses no spell, but in virtue of His own authority bids the evil spirits retire, and they render His slightest word unquestioning obedience. Sometimes He describes. Himself as acting by the finger of God (Luk 11:20) or by the Spirit of God (Mat 12:28), and sometimes His will is indicated even without speech (Luk 13:13; Luk 13:16); but the general method is a stern or peremptory command (Mat 8:16, Mar 1:25; Mar 9:25, Luk 8:29). He does not require any previous preparation on the part of the sufferer, though occasionally (Mar 9:23 f.) He uses the incident to excite faith on the part of the relatives. His own personality, His mere presence on the scene, are enough to alarm the evil spirits and to put an end to their mischief. In the case of His disciples, the power to exercise was given both before and after the resurrection (Mat 10:1; Mat 10:8, Mar 3:15; Mar 16:17, Luk 9:1), and was successfully exercised by them (Mar 6:13, Luk 10:17, Act 5:16; Act 8:7; Act 19:12); but the authority was derived, and on that ground, if not by explicit command (cf. in my name, Mar 16:17). the invocation of the name of Jesus was probably substituted for His direct command. That was clearly the course adopted by St. Paul (Act 16:18; Act 19:13-16), as by St. Peter and the Apostles generally in other miracles (Act 3:6; Act 4:10, Jam 5:14). The name of Jesus was not recited as a spell, but appealed to as the source of all spiritual power, as not only the badge of discipleship but the name of the ever-present Lord of spirits and Saviour of men (Mat 28:19 f., Joh 14:13).
R. W. Moss.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Exorcism
Casting out evil spirits by sorcery.
Sorcery