“This is the birthright of every legitimate child of God.”
Yes. If someone is born again, the Holy Spirit lives in him. A legitimate child of God has the power to rebuke Satan and his demons. It’s important to “fight” including verbiage of Jesus’ blood as a weapon. The demonic world can’t tolerate the blood of Jesus.
Evangelical missionary friends of ours cast out demons frequently on the foreign field.
I’m thinking that the idea that only priests have some special power to exorcise probably rose as a revenue generating scheme, along with indulgences, etc.
M&M, you said: “I’m thinking that the idea that only priests have some special power to exorcise probably rose....”
that may have came later, but the need for training and understanding had to have come first. One needs to know how to deal with such matters, they are not to be taken lightly, otherwise, the exorcist can also become possessed by the demon.
Any believer can rebuke a demon, but a formal exorcism is more than a rebuke. For example, it usually involves demanding that the demon identify himself, which is a dangerous thing to do for the novice.
Also, real demons quite frequently will taunt exorcists and quite often know things that people would rather not have revealed. They're not to be trifled with. While some of the special effects in the movie "The Exorcist" were bogus, the scene of the demon taunting "Fr. Damien" with his deceased mother's voice, and laying a guilt trip on him for his treatment of her, was pretty accurate.
What yous said about the power of the blood of Jesus was very good, and I thank you for this and similar comments. However, it is mistaken to suppose that"revenue generating" has ever been associated with exorcism, even in times of clerical corruption. Selling indulgences, that did happen (and it was rightly denounced by its critics as the sin of Simony, which it is) --- but exorcisms, no.
Exorcism in a case of true possession is a frightfully dangerous thing. Fervent but poorly prepared persons, outside the Catholic Church, have done grave harm to themselves and to others in botched attempted exorcisms that ended in even worse voodou-type infestations and, even, murder.
I don't think there has been any time in history when a Catholic cleric would attempt a real exorcism for money.
You are thinking wrong and thinking quite disrespectfully. As others have pointed out, no one is EVER charged any sort of fee for an exorcism or any other spiritual service including indulgences. When Luther complained of the sale of indulgences, he was right and Church authorities who sold indulgences were clearly wrong. The sin was long recognized as simony. Church leaders are fallen men as are we all and they, like each of us, fall far short of the glory of God. Shall we now tear down St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and the Sistine Chapel with its magnificent ceiling by Michelangelo because their financing was tainted by simony?
As to expertise in exorcism, there have been priests who have served admirably and successfully as exorcists. There ought be no exorcists who are not prepared to so serve.
There was an exorcism in Bethlehem, Connecticut, about 25 years ago. A teenaged church going Protestant girl was possessed by a demon upon moving from Bridgeport to the much nicer town of Bethlehem. The possessing demon appeared to her in her bedroom as an elderly man and only the upper half of his body appeared. She was terrified. Her family consulted with their (Baptist?) minister who referred the family to a Lutheran minister who failed in his attempt at exorcising the offending demon and, in turn, referred them to the diocesan exorcist of the Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, who had training but no actual experience in the Catholic ritual of exorcism.
The priest made the error of allowing the girl's family and boyfriend to be present during the exorcism which was successful as to the girl. The boyfriend, having seen the movie, The Exorcist, blurted out "Take me! Leave her alone!" The young man then, a few weeks later encountered his landlord walking on a road in that peaceful town and stabbed him to death claiming "The devil made me do it!" unsuccessfully as a defense. He is serving a very long sentence. A friend of mine, a life-long atheist and GOP state chairman, attended the trial and, though still atheist, told me that he believed the attempted defense of demonic possession.
The presence of the young man at the exorcism was amateur hour and should never have been allowed by the exorcist.
I would agree with you that it is not the priest who exercises power over the possessing but God Himself via the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. The priest is only a pipeline, part of the furniture in the room, but the prayers of the exorcism ritual are simply designed to invoke God's authority over the demon. First comes the command that the demon identify itself (or themselves in cases of multiple possession) and then the command, in God's name, that the demon depart from the possessed. The Church debriefs the exorcist after an exorcism and keeps central records in the Vatican as to each exorcism over many centuries.
You are also correct in suggesting that there is nothing that Satan and his demons fear and hate more than the crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It forever represents the victory of Jesus Christ over Satan and his minions.
You and I quite likely disagree on much theology but we agree on much of what you have posted.
OTOH, your statements about my Church are uncharitable, unsubstantiated, wrong and not worthy of you.
Nonetheless, may God bless you and yours!