New Excorcism Doctrine


I have a question, and since I don’t really like to mince words, here it is, why did the Church change the Excorcism ritual from what it had been since the 1500’s at least, when the new one is no where near as potent or effective as the old one, from what I understand. The only logical reasons I can think of would be that Satan has infiltrated the Vatican and has taken away our claws with which we used to be able to drive him out with, or that many higher ups in the Church no longer believe there is a devil. Any thoughts would be appreciated,

Your bro in Christ,
Mr. Browne


My thoughts, in no particular order:
*]Are you asking about doctrine or ritual?
*]“from what I understand” – How can you ask a sensible question if you do not have first hand knowledge?
*]And *whatever *question you wish to ask, and *however *poorly or well informed you may be, can you please ask it without innuendo, scandalous speculation, and pandering?



Don’t you just hate it when people try to fix things when they aren’t broken? :shrug:


I didn’t even know the old one was done away with. Who/what group made this decision? Is the old one still an option?


Speaking only for myself (and hopefully more charitably than my initial and now deleted response), *hate *is a strong term, but I am *unimpressed when people who appear to not know what they are talking about post innuendo and scandalous speculation. :nope:

(* “from what I understand”; failure to distinguish between doctrine and ritual)



What is your source that the form changed?
What is your evidence that the “new one” is not as potent?
Satan has infiltrated the Church and taken away our claws? Have you been smoking something?? My thoughts are that what you said is rubbish!


Be careful. With this statement you are flirting dangerously with blasphemy. Perhaps you should look at the plank in your own eye.


How Malichi Martin of you…:smiley:


do you even know what the alleged old and alleged new rituals are? have you studied them? are you an exorcist appointed by your bishop who has experience with the efficacy of the rituals? if not, on what basis are you making these statements?


I’m guessing that his source is likely Father Amorth himself, who is the Senior Exorcist of the Vatican. He was not very pleased with the redrafted Rituale Romanum of 1999 and 2000, which had not been altered since 1614.

It was not that he did not want any changes, he gave some indications that he did wish to see more appeals to the Blessed Virgin in the ritual. His problem was that the group of Bishops that oversaw the changes did not include any expert opinions from him or his exorcist colleagues, which up until that time had been the protocol of Vatican II (that is to include experts and generally follow their advice). That is why he has made statements against the new ritual. Also, he tends to be a man of outspoken opinions - but also a very highly respected exorcist (and authority on Our Lady).

Luckily, there was a clause inserted that exorcists could still use the old text if the local bishop approves.

I do not believe that this has anything to do with satan influencing the Vatican. I think (and Father Amorth hints at this as well) that the real issue here is that exorcism is a touchy issue for the Church. In highly modernised western democracies it is considered “out of date” and a relic of medieval times. I think the revised Rituale Romanum is an example of the Church possibly trying to hide something that she believes, but does not want advertised too publically.

But is that fair to the exorcists of the Church? Clearly not, hence the outspoken statements of Father Amorth. Exorcists in general have little support and many Bishops simply quit appointing them.

I suggest doing a search for Father Gabriele Amorth and some reading on exorcisms, but make sure the sources are worthwhile. Perhaps a poster or moderator could give us some good sources to read on this topic?


That makes sense, more sense than the devil infiltrating the vatican, but I had posted right after reading Malichi Martin, who claimed that satan had actually been crowned in the vatican by some Bishops. Scary stuff. Heres a good site on it, for those questioning whether or not it actually happened (the changes to the excorcism ritual, not satan being crowned in the vatican, although I will post that at a later time, probably tonight.)

As for me flirting dangerously with blasphemy, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion as even Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests are human and can be tempted by the devil. Blasphemy is a pretty big word to be throwing about when we know that Church leadership has been corrupt in the past. History repeats itself. I’m not saying that it actually has happened, but it is a (remote) possibilty. I however, am going to ammend my view to Vaclav’s, that it was most likely done so that the Church can escape ridicule, which is sad, but understandable due to the current state of affairs in the world.


Tell me how it can be when Jesus tells us it can not be.


It is not even the slightest of remote possibilities. Have there been fallable men in the office of the vatican? yes, of course, every day, all day, and every one of them. Does that mean that Satan could ever, much less could already, infiltrate the vatican to affect the magisterium of the church? NO (<- that’s a very emphatic no). Christ promised us that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against His Church.

It is one thing to allege that cardinal x, or bishop y, is under the influence of satan… that’s an allegation to which there might be merit, but to state that the entire vatican has come under the influence of Satan is to deny the very promise that Christ made to His church. That is why your original statement dances so closely with blasphemy.


OK, I see what your saying, and you’re right. I thank you for saying close to the edge, and not outright blasphemy. On the other hand many people hold to the belief that Vatican II was wrong and they aren’t accused of blasphemy, just holding to very traditional Catholic teachings. Of course, latin masses are still available, and, when I read further into the subject, I’ve found that the old excorcism ritual can still be performed as long as the priest recieves special approval from the Bishop. But I still don’t like the fact that it was changed to begin with. I have that link to what I was talking about earlier, if any of you want to check it out.

(I decided to throw more than one in there, and they are all interesting. The ewtn one is very close to what you said, promethius.)


Hello HD,

Thanks for the links. Keep in mind that there needs to be a clarification on “thinking Vat II was wrong”

People can say they dont like it, but they must accept it.


But they can not say it is not to be adhered to.

I dont like a lot of several things (no biggies really, small stuff) about the faith, but I must accept it, and follow the Church’s decisions.


To be honest I’d say it’s all the exact opposite. Exocism got very little respect in the Church. The new rite was created in conjunction with a new push from the Vatican to take a more aggressive position to Evil in the world. Each Diocese is eventually supposed to have at least one exorcist and training for the rite is supposed to be taken more seriously.

I don’t see how the Devil would want the Church to be more actively aware and aggressive in fighting him. While I haven’t seen the new right I would be surprised if it wasn’t an improvement over the old one since it is accompanied by a generally more combative attituded by the Church.


You would think that, but the truth of the matter is that the Chief excorcist in the Vatican, whom Vaclav mentioned, Fr. Amorth, does not like the new rite. In fact, the old ritual was very clos to being completely abolished had Pope John Paul II not stepped in and made clear that it was still a valid option.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit