Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Excision of Exorcisms as a Prelude to Devil-Denial

Some weeks ago, the Jesuit superior general Fr. Arturo Marcelino Sosa Abascal made international news with his remarks denying the real personal existence of the devil and reducing him to a man-made symbol of evil. Ho-hum, one might say: we expect this kind of heresy from modern liberal Jesuits — even if the Jesuit who holds the papal throne seems to be orthodox on this point. Within hours, Catholics around the world had skewered the superior general, and his provocative claim, redolent of the 1970s, was reduced to a pile of smouldering ashes, having perhaps a whiff of sulphur.

When this news story hit, I began to think about a little Rituale Romanum I once saw: The Priest’s New Ritual for the Convenience of the Reverend Clergy in the Administration of the Sacraments and Various Blessings, compiled by the Rev. Paul Griffith, printed in Baltimore by John Murphy, 1927, reprinted 1941. I remember how my eyes grew wider and wider as I paged through the rite of baptism and saw how the owner of this manual had struck through with pencil all the exorcisms, probably in response to some confusing instruction from the Vatican in the tempestuous years following Sacrosanctum Concilium, when changes were coming down from on high just about every month, and nothing was certain except the uncertainty of the liturgy.

This got me thinking. Why, exactly, did we need to eliminate all those exorcisms? Because babies are not in the clutches of the Prince of This World and his ranks? Because the little innocent boys and girls do not need to be rescued and redeemed from the kingdom of darkness? Because original sin is a medieval exaggeration, and modern man can’t possibly take seriously the idea that each man is born into the enemy’s camp, estranged from God?

Whatever they were thinking, the result is obvious: the exorcisms were eliminated, and when the shiny new rite of baptism rolled off the assembly line, it said almost nothing about the devil or original sin. The one reference is narrative and not unambiguously applied to the child at hand. For decades now, Catholics have been listening to (and informed by) a baptismal rite that has almost nothing in common with the way baptismal liturgies had been conducted for twenty centuries in East and West — with the exception of the formula of baptism itself, which remains intact. “Ah, good,” you say, “the baptism is valid: that’s all that matters.” Really? That’s all that matters? This is the same pernicious neoscholastic reductionism that would reduce Holy Mass to a valid consecration. If all we need is sacramental formulas, we could reduce all the sacraments to 3-minute transactions, like an ATM machine.

Should we be so full of righteous indignation, then, at Fr. Arturo Marcelino Sosa Abascal? Or should we not redirect that indignation towards the liturgical vandals who first stripped our traditional rites of their abundant references to the devil — and towards the inadequate rites they fashioned to replace them?

I remember the first time I compared the traditional rite of baptism with its modern replacement. I could not believe my eyes. The difference is as night and day. If you have not made this comparison yourself, and especially if you are either a married person who will be bringing your children to the baptismal font, or a priest who will be baptizing (and who may, of course, freely utilize the older form of baptism as per Summorum Pontificum), I encourage you to take a little time to compare the two rites. This site conveniently gives the text of both. Some fine commentary may be found herehere (where a priest speaks of his first foray into the traditional form of baptism), and here (although the tables are not well aligned). Every Catholic has the canonical right to choose the traditional form of baptism for their children, and every Latin rite priest has the canonical duty to offer this form when asked.

My wife and I produced our own booklets when we had our children baptized in the traditional rite, and I’ve seen others do the same, but you may also purchase this very nice booklet that contains the entire rite in Latin and English, along with a number of extra ceremonies, prayers, and explanations.

Meanwhile, as a reminder of the iconoclasm we must leave behind, here are additional pages from that same pocket ritual. From demons and their dupes on earth, libera nos, Domine.

42 thoughts on “The Excision of Exorcisms as a Prelude to Devil-Denial”

  1. The Novus Ordo rite of baptism may be valid, but it certainly isn’t edifying, nor is it particularly Catholic. Virtually all the exorcisms have been eliminated. In addition, the traditional role of godparent has been all but eliminated, with the parents now speaking for the child (raising the question of just what the purpose of a godparent actually is in the Novus Ordo; hell, even such a violent, opposed-to-Catholic-values film as The Godfather portrays the traditional rite correctly in its climax).

    And people wonder why no one believes in the devil any longer. If the men running the Church and overseeing Her rites act as if they don’t believe in Satan, then why should the laity?

    Reply
    • my best friend’s step-mother makes 85 US dollars hourly on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay check was 17089 US dollars just working on the computer for a few hours. see it here ++++++++++
      ➜➜➜http://www.TopUSAGlobalJobsOnlineLife/Wage/Home….
      ✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹…

      Reply
  2. And we can see where that’s gotten us. The big picture, the decline of authentic Catholicism at the same moment in time as the ascendency of a spirit of rebellion, vulgarity, violence, and love for sin, is not accidental. The men who are just continuing the destruction of the faith are just doing the work of the men that came before them, the ones who removed the prayers for exorcism. These men don’t believe what we believe, they haven’t for a long time. They work deliberately, and now, with great success.

    Reply
    • The Ukrainian Greek Catholics have also preserved (or recovered in the case of those North American exarchies which were Latinized) the original patristic unity of the rite of initiation – Baptism, Chrismation (confirmation), and Eucharist (Holy Communion).

      Reply
      • When I was growing up, we received only Baptism and Chrismation. I was 7 when I made my First Holy Communion on the Feast of St. Athanasius 40+ years ago. Now the traditional practice has been restored in our parish and across the Archeparchy.

        Reply
  3. Where does that leave a parent that now questions the efficacy of the novus order baptisms her children received? Is it even possible to ask a Latin rite priest to do conditional baptisms on them?

    Reply
    • Talk to a SSPX priest or a good canon lawyer about that. They probably will counsel against it unless it’s something truly blatant (e.g. baptizing in the name of the Creator, Redeemed and Sanctifier – don’t laugh; then-Cardinal Ratzinger issued a CDF directive on that).

      Reply
      • Yes, our FSSP priest will re-baptise – or rather give conditional Baptism, to those who MAY have had a compromised one.

        Reply
    • There is no question of the validity of any baptism that has this form: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In that sense, it is quite right to say that every baptism is of equal validity — and considering the necessity of the sacrament (also routinely denied today by the modernists), our Lord has made it extremely easy to confer. As you know, anyone can confer baptism in an emergency.

      However, all the theologians teach that more grace may be received in the sacraments depending on the fervor of their recipients, and baptism is no different in this regard. That is why St. Thomas says that baptism should be done as solemnly as possible, except in emergencies.

      Reply
      • Would you think it prudent of a parent like me to consult with a traditionalist priest about a conditional baptism since the modern rite is woefully deficient? Is validity enough here? You seem not to think so in your article.

        Reply
        • I was baptized in 1971, when things were at an all-time low. What’s done is done, and we should not look back and second-guess. Our work today is to see to it that future parents and children will have access to the beautiful rite of baptism of Catholic tradition. This is indeed better — but it is not “more” of a baptism, only a fuller expression of the mystery of baptism.

          Reply
    • I received a Supplemental Baptism 3 months ago from a Thuc line priest.
      I received all the exorcisms and prayers from the Traditional rite that were omitted in the new rite.

      Reply
  4. It is articles like this that show the extent of the wreckovation. Nothing, but nothing, was to be left unchanged. Thanks to Dr. Kwasniewski for continuing the education of the Faithful. My only quibble with the article is that it should have been twice the length and given concrete examples.

    Reply
    • Thank you. There needs to be a full comparison written of old and new rites of baptism, but that is a BIG project. For now, one can just look at the two rites side by side, and weep, and make a firm resolve never to have anything to do with the new one if possible and only to use the old one.

      Reply
  5. If the devil is to summon up a perfect, (or near-perfect) storm against the Church and the faithful, there is, from a strategic perspective, no more suitable a starting point than baptism. Thus the gathering intensity of the storm then derives from a near-fatally defective liturgy, a priestly formation that in many cases is seriously lacking, woefully inadequate catechesis and erroneous instruction of the young, inasmuch as they receive any instruction at all that is worthy of the name, and a fierce determination on the part of far too many, all the way to the top, to conform the Church to the pernicious philosophy and attitudes of the modern world.

    Reply
  6. Though the Foundation Stone of the Church is Christ, and can therefore never be undermined, the foundation, as it were, of the Body of Christ on earth is the company of the baptized faithful, and this edifice is built upon foundations that are increasingly undermined and crumbling, threatening the structural integrity and unified-whole of the Church. Yet more unmistakable evidence of this is presented to us at this link” magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/06/20/another-letter-from-the-four-cardinals-to-the-pope-this-too-with-no-response/

    Reply
  7. Since the council VATII the ongoing trend never changed. Everyone acts as if the Devil doesn’t exist or as if he is much less powerfull as before. Speaking of the Devil, of Hell , of sin during homilies is forbidden lest the attendants be scared.
    I would be very interested knowing which pretext Paul VI invoked when he banned forever the end-of-mass prayer to St Michael his predecessor Leo XIII established.

    Reply
    • The Last Gospel also removed because, “He came unto His own and they received Him not”. In regards to the Leonine Prayer the 100 years were just about up so Satan could come and collect His own.

      Reply
  8. Jesuit numbers in 1965 – 36038.

    Jesuit numbers in 2017 – 16378.

    Heresy leads to apostasy which leads to extinction.

    Francis the Destroyer will only accelerate the auto-demolition.

    St Ignatius Loyola (if possible in Heaven) must be weeping (and has been for a long time!)

    Reply
    • No, St. Ignatius is not weeping. He is rejoicing because he is witness to those who hate God and who love the demons getting the punishment they deserve – for the Glory of God. This seems harsh but to witness Justice Himself acting for His own Glory is part of Heavenly joy.

      Reply
  9. In the baptisms I have attended, as the author states there is no mention of original sin. It seemed the emphasis was on membership in the Church …you are now a member -of -the -club sort of thing…not on the life of divine grace in the soul.

    Reply
  10. I think we need to be reminded that those who do not understand and have been led astray need our prayers and yes, our love as this is in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, love for their souls . I agree that many have strayed but our attitude toward sinners is and always should be love in order to bring these souls back to Him. ( Sadly I’m hearing some self- righteous comments????) The problem is clear, the remedy is our love and prayers as any one of us could be where they are but for the Grace of God.

    Reply
  11. “Every Catholic has the canonical right to choose the traditional form of baptism for their children, and every Latin rite priest has the canonical duty to offer this form when asked.”

    Really? I’m having a hard time picture how this would work at my typical NO parish.

    Reply
  12. Thank you for an informative article and discussion. My remark is OT, but consider the ramifications of an invalid new rite of Episcopal Consecration.

    Reply
  13. An enlightening contribution.
    Believers and atheists alike flee from realities that frighten them.
    It appears that 90% of the clergy class are hiding under the bed along with 75% of the laity.

    Reply
  14. This is a shocking, and amazing post. Something definitely worth re-reading.

    Would someone elaborate on this: “….every Latin rite priest has the canonical duty to offer this form when asked.”

    Is this really true?

    What about entire dioceses where the traditional forms are not known, not taught, and even frowned upon by clergy?

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...