New document on Eucharist delayed by debates within Vatican

CWNews.com ^ | Sep. 23

[nickcarraway]

A new Vatican document on the Eucharist has been delayed by internal debate within the Roman Curia. According to Italian press reports, an early draft of the document has been set aside because of complaints that it was too "conservative."

In April, when he released his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II reported that he had directed the Roman Curia to produce "a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature," to address abuses in the Eucharistic liturgy. That second document has not yet appeared, despite occasional rumors that its publication is imminent.

The monthly magazine Jesus, in its upcoming October issue, will reportedly publish the entire text of the first draft. The magazine also will report that its publication is now expected near the end of 2003 or early in 2004.

(It is highly unusual for a magazine like Jesus-- which is not an official Vatican publication-- to have the entire text of a Vatican document, in advance and in complete form. So the publication of the draft in itself is cause for surprise.)

The daily newspaper Il Messagero carried a substantial portion of the text in its September 23 issue. Il Messagero reported that the text has been rejected by the cardinals and bishops who were asked to review the proposed document; the prelates were said to have found the document excessively harsh.

The document was drafted by a committee composed of four officials from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and four from the Congregation for Divine Worship. The document's working title is Pignus Redemptionist ac Futurae Gloriae ("A Pledge of Redemption for Future Glory"). According to Jesus, it is a 200-paragraph text, which covers 37 abuses against the Eucharist.

Four major sorts of abuse are discussed: the sacrilegious use of the Eucharistic species (bread and wine); the celebration of Mass by someone who does not have proper faculties; concelebration with ministers of other Christian communities; and the consecration of bread and wine for inherently sacrilegious purposes (as in a Black Mass).

The document calls upon priests, deacons, and the faithful to alert their bishops when they encounter liturgical abuses in their parishes. It stresses that "pastoral assistants" who serve in parishes are not to replace ordained ministers, and in fact should encourage vocations to the priesthood and diaconate. The text clearly disapproves of "liturgical dance." And it also frowns upon the practice of encouraging applause from the congregation during the Eucharistic liturgy-- a practice that is common even in St. Peter's basilica.

According to Il Messagero the members of the committee that prepared the text were fully aware that their disciplinary norms could apply to the liturgical celebrations within the Vatican, and the draft document could be seen as a criticism of some papal ceremonies. The Vatican officials charged with planning the pontifical liturgies have avoided comment on this story.

Il Messagero reports that the draft version of the document was summarily rejected by the prelates who reviewed it. The paper reports that the text has been sent back for revision, and its appearance has been significantly delayed. Earlier in September, Vatican officials had suggested that the new document would be published in October. Il Messagero says that date is now unrealistic.

[dangus]

>> According to Jesus, it is a 200-paragraph text, which covers 37 abuses against the Eucharist. >>

And who says Jesus doesn't work in the world today. *chuckle* Of course, this appears like this because reposts don't always include sufficient formatting.

[dangus]

>>and the consecration of bread and wine for inherently sacrilegious purposes (as in a Black Mass). >>

Wow! So this isn't just a tinfoil-hat accusation!

Question: if this is really going on, what good would a recommendation against it do? Isn't this sorta like saying, "it's nice to chop people up into little bits and make stew out of them, Mr. Lecter."

[sinkspur]

The daily newspaper Il Messagero carried a substantial portion of the text in its September 23 issue. Il Messagero reported that the text has been rejected by the cardinals and bishops who were asked to review the proposed document; the prelates were said to have found the document excessively harsh.

If the "draft" as recounted in "Jesus" was the same one, then it was readily apparent it would not fly, especially sections on restricting communion in the hand and under both kinds.

The trial balloon against applause in Church is ludicrous, and would have banned a practice common at Papal Masses for the last hundred years!

[ahadams2]

interesting point. The article *appears* to imply that the elements were legitimately consecrated (otherwise it wouldn't work, right?) which paints an even weirder picture if one stops to think about it. Not that as an Anglican I'm in any sort of superior position, since some of the stuff done by the radical homosexual episcopalian clergy here in the United States are even more grotesque if stories I've heard are even only partially true.

[Domestic Church]

It's a declaration that it is a major problem if it is even being mentioned. This is a specification, not just a mention. This is a red alert. Even if this document gets dumped by the insiders, the evil cat is out of the bag.

[neocon]

The article *appears* to imply that the elements were legitimately consecrated

I believe a validly consecrated Host, ordinarily reserved in the Tabernacle, would have to be stolen for use in the profanation of the Black "Mass".

BTW, my sympathies for the troubles you're experiencing in the ECUSA.

[xzins]

When do they applaud in a Catholic mass?

I agree with the "liturgical dance" idea. Girls in tights and tutus are in place only at "Lady Janes Dance Studio of Des Moines."

And even there, the invited neighbors snicker.

[nickcarraway]

I don't know how common it is, but such people do attend Mass to steal the Eucharist for such purposes. To some extent, it may not be completely preventable. But some places may not even take the minimal precautions.

[nickcarraway]

Sorry. I think I italicize publications more than most freepers, but I occasionally miss one.

[nickcarraway]

The trial balloon against applause in Church is ludicrous, and would have banned a practice common at Papal Masses for the last hundred years!

Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's either right or that it must continue. Are you saying that Mass should return to Latin from the vernacular?

[sinkspur]

Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's either right or that it must continue. Are you saying that Mass should return to Latin from the vernacular?

Uh, no. What does that have to do with applause at St. Peter's?

[nickcarraway]

Well, you claimed that it shouldn't be halted because it's been a common practice for over a hundred years. Masses were almost exclusively in Latin for over 1400 years, so by your logic, it shouldn't be changed. My point is that because a practice is common, even if it has been around for a while, doesn't mean it's right.

[ahadams2]

Honest - this isn't 'pick on xzins day!' :-) Just wanted to point out that it *is* possible to do worshipful liturgical dance. If you want to see an interesting example that is not at all erotic but is in fact worshipful get hold of a copy of the "New Young Messiah" video and fastforward to the very last song. I would note, however that the piece in question is done entirely by professional dancers and every other case I've seen where liturgical dance was done *right*, at the very least all of the lead dancers were professionals.

Which means that trying to do liturgical dance run by a bunch of church ladies using primarily adolescent girls does NOT cut it. *sigh* so I guess given the circumstances it's better to simply forbid it, though they might consider allowing a bishop to provide a waiver for a specific instance, said waiver to include in writing exactly who, what, when, where, why, and the exact description of the performance being authorized. Still wouldn't completely stop the wackos but could at least put a hitch in their getalong as they say in the southwest.

[ahadams2]

interesting. At the large (very conservative)ecusa parish we belonged to back east I was one of the Lay Eucharistic Ministers (roughly equivalent to your Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, I think?) anyway we always watched to see that the person actually put the wafer in their mouth, but quite frankly this reason for doing so never even occurred to me.

[xzins]

I agree that professionals would be better than amateurs.

I'm thinking, though, that the ban is in place because they find little or no place for dance in church tradition or scripture.

I'm not sure about the applause idea.

[nickcarraway]

I've never seen it myself, but I know it goes on. I suppose the individual could hold the Eucharist in their mouth until they could can take It out discretely.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I don't know how common it is, but such people do attend Mass to steal the Eucharist for such purposes. To some extent, it may not be completely preventable. But some places may not even take the minimal precautions.

I watched someone attempt this in St. Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. The then pastor, Fr. Leo Vanyo, all 6'-9" or so of him, ran the man down once he realized what he was doing (pocketing the host), and, while still holding the ciborium in one hand, grabbed the man by the arm with the other and forcibly detained him to retrieve the Host.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Here's the articles in Il Messaggero.

http://ilmessaggero.caltanet.it/successiva.php?data=20030923&pag=1&ediz=01_NAZIONALE&grpag=pagine/INTERNI&vis=G&ps=0&tt=

---

http://ilmessaggero.caltanet.it/view.php?data=20030923&ediz=01_NAZIONALE&npag=13&file=CHIERICHETTE.xml&type=STANDARD

Martedì 23 Settembre 2003 Chiudi

Santa Sede/La bozza è stata fermata dai due dicasteri incaricati di esaminarla. Nel testo venivano vietati anche applausi e danze
Chierichette, bufera in Vaticano

«Alt alle ragazze nella Messa». Ma il documento viene bloccato: troppo conservatore

di ORAZIO PETROSILLO

CITTA’ DEL VATICANO - Non capita sovente in Vaticano che un testo curiale riceva una radicale stroncatura. Un documento che doveva respingere gli «abusi» nella celebrazione della messa in varie parti del mondo e preannunciato in aprile dal Papa nell’enciclica sull’Eucaristia, è stato bloccato come troppo severo e... abusivo. Per punire abusi di natura progressista (aggettivo improprio ma comprensibile) si stava preparando un testo repressivo in senso conservatore. I 200 paragrafi che prendono di mira 37 «abusi principali» contro l’Eucaristia sono stati respinti a grande maggioranza dai cardinali e vescovi dei due dicasteri della Dottrina della fede e del Culto divino che dovevano approvarlo. Questa bozza incoraggiava la delazione per gli abusi liturgici, stigmatizzava l’«eccessivo protagonismo» dei laici durante le celebrazioni, sottilizzava su termini come «comunità concelebrante» o «assemblea concelebrante» quasi ad attaccare piuttosto una sensibilità liturgica post-conciliare. Ed entrava arcignamente in minuzie come il divieto delle chierichette (l’uso di ragazze ministranti è ammesso a giudizio del vescovo, ma va evitato «senza una giusta causa pastorale»), escludendo la possibilità di «applausi e danze nell’edificio sacro, anche al di fuori della celebrazione eucaristica». Prescriveva di rimettere i cancelletti alle balaustre del presbiterio, laddove sono stati eliminati. Ovviamente, nessuno contesta le giuste preoccupazioni per certe celebrazioni degradate o per un’inconsulta «ospitalità eucaristica» tra cattolici e protestanti, frutto di enorme superficialità.
Tuttavia, il tono del documento e una mentalità ristretta che affiora qua e là, hanno fatto dire ad un liturgista che la bozza proponeva «stupidaggini folli tali da suscitare paura». E qualcuno, più dietrologo, ha avanzato il sospetto che si siano voluti lanciare dei strali contro le attuali celebrazioni liturgiche papali. La bozza di documento, consegnata il 5 giugno scorso ai cardinali, vescovi e teologi consultori dei due dicasteri - presieduti dai cardinali Ratzinger e Arinze - viene anticipata dal mensile ”Jesus” dei Paolini (stesso gruppo di ”Famiglia cristiana”). Il testo ha ricevuto, secondo nostre informazioni, «una stroncatura radicale» nella riunione congiunta dei due dicasteri svoltasi alla fine di giugno. Quindi è difficile pensare che il documento possa uscire alla fine dell’anno o all’inizio del prossimo. E soprattutto con lo stesso tono e nella stessa ottica repressiva. Anche se si sta lavorando in gran segreto per riscriverlo. Ne sono autori tre esperti dell’ex S. Uffizio con il sottosegretario Di Noia e tre del Culto divino sotto la guida di padre Ward. La ”Istruzione” (testo con norme direttive circa il modo di osservare determinate leggi ecclesiastiche) era stata preannunciata nel n.52 dell’enciclica del Papa sull’Eucaristia: «Occorre purtroppo lamentare che, soprattutto a partire dagli anni della riforma liturgica post-conciliare, non sono mancati abusi».

---

http://ilmessaggero.caltanet.it/view.php?data=20030923&ediz=01_NAZIONALE&npag=13&file=N.xml&type=STANDARD

Martedì 23 Settembre 2003 Chiudi

LE CRITICHE

CITTA’ DEL VATICANO - La bozza di documento contro gli abusi nelle celebrazioni eucaristiche, secondo le anticipazioni del mensile ”Jesus”, si compone di nove capitoli di errori e rimedi. Come abbiamo appurato, la bozza è stata bocciata e deve essere riscritta. Il principale elemento di novità è probabilmente quello del paragrafo 197 in cui si afferma che «ogni cattolico, sacerdote o diacono o fedele laico, ha il diritto di sporgere querela circa gli abusi liturgici», in via preferenziale al «proprio vescovo diocesano» ma anche al pastore equiparato o alla Santa Sede. Con riferimento soprattutto al Nord Europa viene criticato l’eccessivo protagonismo dei laici che assumono compiti nelle celebrazioni. Alle Conferenze episcopali si vieta ogni sperimentazione, a meno che non si sia ottenuto il consenso del dicastero vaticano. Tra i vari problemi particolari, vengono citati il tipo di vesti liturgiche, il lavaggio del purificatoio, il divieto di copricapi non previsti dalla liturgia durante la celebrazione all’aperto, in caso di sole o di pioggia (ma questo avviene sempre con le messe papali). Tra le altre cose, si scoraggia la distribuzione dell’Eucaristia sotto le due specie (ostia e vino dal calice) e si proibisce la comunione «self-service», ossia presa dal fedele e non data dal sacerdote o ministro. Si chiede di evitare l’espressione «ospitalità eucaristica».
O. Pet.

[dangus]

>>I believe a validly consecrated Host, ordinarily reserved in the Tabernacle, would have to be stolen for use in the profanation of the Black "Mass".

Apparently not. The passage says consecrated *for* inherently sacreligious *purposes.* Stolen Eucharists would have been consecrated for holy purposes, and had those holy purposes subverted.

[dangus]

>> I don't know how common it is, but such people do attend Mass to steal the Eucharist for such purposes. To some extent, it may not be completely preventable. But some places may not even take the minimal precautions

Nuh. This says they were *consecrated* for sacreligious purposes. We're dealing with Satanic priests, and an exhortation for people who discover them to report them directly to the Vatican. The tinfoil-hats people were correct!

[ahadams2]

Wow! Go Fr. Leo! (...and then my intel analyst training kicked in...) I wonder if anyone keeps a record of these events? If so one might be able to identify areas which might require further investigation (i.e. at least cities where such things occur - obviously the perps would most likely go outside their own neighborhood). Patterns, people always function in patterns, it's part of what makes us human. If someone started looking at the patterns and, say, overlaying the same areas with known sex abuse cases, known areas of drug peddling and so forth, one could start to get a look at the spiritual geography of a threatened area and discover ways to take action to remedy the situation. hmm... I hope that didn't get too Charismatic for anyone, but you'd think if the Office of the Inquisition was still functioning it, or something like it would try to track this sort of thing.

[ahadams2]

er, that is pretty tinfoil hat, y'know... maybe Hermann or someone else in the know could ask for a clarification?

[dangus]

Woo-Hoo! Go Pittsburgh!

[sitetest]

Dear Hermann,

"I watched someone attempt this in St. Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. The then pastor, Fr. Leo Vanyo, all 6'-9" or so of him, ran the man down once he realized what he was doing (pocketing the host), and, while still holding the ciborium in one hand, grabbed the man by the arm with the other and forcibly detained him to retrieve the Host."

Wow. Sometimes I feel very sheltered.

Gotta pray for folks who would do that.


sitetest

[dangus]

When do they applaud in a Catholic mass?

They don't applaud the Word, or the Eucharist. Unfortunately, they do applaud announcements.

I've been to Easter vigils and Christmas masses where, during the announcements, they thanked the people who helped them put it together. The appplause was the polite and thankful response of tired, happy people, and I had no major problem with it. I have seen abuses where people seeking glory detracted from overshadowed the mass, however, and it demonstrates that while the former applause was human, decent, and harmless, it is not a justified practice.

[dangus]

About my sentiments: Rome is cracking down, not because dance and applause are inherently evil, but because they are so badly abused. If bishops and priests would use discretion, Rome wouldn't need to do this.

[dangus]

About my sentiments: Rome is cracking down, not because dance and applause are inherently evil, but because they are so badly abused. If bishops and priests would use discretion, Rome wouldn't need to do this.

[neocon]

Stolen Eucharists would have been consecrated for holy purposes, and had those holy purposes subverted.

You're certainly right if the language is intended to be taken with that degree of precision. But how could a Satanist confect the Eucharist, since he would not have valid orders? Unless, of course, the Satanist is, God forbid, also a Catholic priest. Or, God also forbid, if a Catholic priest who is not a Satanist nevertheless performs the consecration, intending that it be used sacrilegiously.

I surmised therefore that it referred to theft, since that is sometimes given as a reason for having someone always present during Eucharistic exposition or adoration, such as the 40-hours devotion.

I plead ignorance as to the details of the Black "Mass". Do you have any further information?

[neocon]

The appplause was the polite and thankful response of tired, happy people, and I had no major problem with it.

I've been on the receiving end of this sort of applause, and found it rather embarrassing.

But there's one truly memorable occasion when I'm sure I would have participated myself. During the Requiem Mass for Cdl. O'Connor, there were many dignitaries present, e.g., the Clintons and their Leftist pals. Cdl. Law was giving the homily, and mentioned that Cdl. O'Connor wished that the Church always be "unambiguously pro-life." There was a standing ovation from the congregation that lasted 2 or 3 minutes! And the Clintons looked very sheepish indeed. Truly a "Catholic moment".

[dangus]

>>You're certainly right if the language is intended to be taken with that degree of precision. But how could a Satanist confect the Eucharist, since he would not have valid orders? Unless, of course, the Satanist is, God forbid, also a Catholic priest.>>

Uh, yeah; that's why my reference to the tinfoil-hat crowd being correct: it's a damned scary idea. Apparently there are also guidelines for people who witness Satanic priests to contact the Vatican directly... maybe even we've got some distrust that the bishops would properly deal with the situation. There were some seemingly wild accusations that Cardinal Bernadin coddled a ring of black-mass-celebrating priests.

I can't believe the word "consecration" is used so sloppily. It's one of those distinctly Catholic words, so I doubt its an invention of the reporter.

>> Or, God also forbid, if a Catholic priest who is not a Satanist nevertheless performs the consecration, intending that it be used sacrilegiously.>>

Well, here's a really horrifying thought: It's only consecrated if the priest intends for it to become the Body of Christ. We're not dealing with some adolescent rage mixed with ignorance, like the AIDS activists of the '80's, but with seriously spiritual intent.

No, when the Pope said that Satan had enterred the Church, he didn't mean weak, sexually perverted clergy. Looks like he meant actual Satanic priests.

[saradippity]

I read an article about 5 years ago that kind of spoke to this. It was written by a mother who went to see the bishop to complain about a priest who abused her son or a neighbors son. She stalked out of the bishops office when after asking a few questions,he asked her if she thought there might be some Satanic rituals going on. She was incensed and felt the question was a diversionary tactic.

I remember filing her comments in my head and feeling sympathy for the bishop. I did think he was trying to get at the bottom of something he suspected was going on in his diocese. The woman,I believed ws probably the product of post Vat II catechesis and recent psychology and psychiatric theories,any thoughts of the devil quite possibly seemed absurd. I think he was right on.

[saradippity]

I think this thread is the one I mentioned to you in an earlier freep to you today. Please read it and let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

[neocon]

it's a damned scary idea

It's a thought I truly hate to think.

It's only consecrated if the priest intends for it to become the Body of Christ.

Yes, you're right. I can't imagine such deliberate wickedness.

Pope Paul VI said, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." I'm sure there's been much speculation as to what he might have meant, but I always connected it with the mysterium iniquitatis of 2 Thess. 2:7-8, which phrase, interestingly enough, Pope John Paul II had used in connection with the scandal. The passage certainly does have an apocalyptic air about it in any event:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of His coming.

So I always thought Pope Paul was referring to the general disobedience to the intent of the Council (lawlessness) which arose late in its implementation, viz., the so-called "period of experimentation" which the Vatican never authorized, and which the present Pope declared ended in the early years of his pontificate.

[nickcarraway]

Good for him!

[saradippity]

I remember reading the Pope's letter to the priests issued on Holy Thursday,2002. He said the "mystery of iniquity" had burrowed into the soul of the Church. I thought he was sending a very clear and alarming message to the clergy,I expected a focus on evil and a concerted effort to pray and get serious about honoring God. But all I noticed was a bunch of baffled and babbling bishops and their lay minions kind of pretending that the Pope didn't appear too concerned about the scandal.

I just heard on the radio that the Pope cancelled his audiences today due to sickness,pray for the Pope.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Nuh. This says they were *consecrated* for sacreligious purposes. We're dealing with Satanic priests, and an exhortation for people who discover them to report them directly to the Vatican. The tinfoil-hats people were correct!

The sort of behavior being mentioned here (use of hosts for Satantic purposes) reminds me of what allegedly transpired in Deggendorf in 1338.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"Gotta pray for folks who would do that."

The funny thing is, I saw the man at Mass before on an infrequent basis before he was finally caught and subsequently vanished. After I saw what he did, I then realized he'd spent a fair amount of time "casing" the Mass and the Cathedral during previous Masses.

I wonder how many other Hosts he pocketed without it being known before finally being caught.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." (Paul VI, Homily on June 29 1972)

I'd love to see this entire homily.

[dangus]

O please, you're not going to leave a vague allusion and then leave it at that, are you?

OK, OK, OK... you got my attention, what happened at Deggendorf? (A seriously Tolkeinesque name, I might add!)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Allegedly at Deggendorf in Bavaria, some Jews stole a host and tortured it, pricking it with nails and like which caused it to bleed.

The miracle was memorialized in the Church there, but since 1992, the Bishop has been trying to supress the cultus around this miracle as "anti-semitic".

[dangus]

IN that case, I think we're *way* past Deggendorf.

Whaddayathink of that "miracle?" It *does* sound similar to blood libel, and I'm not sure why it would've happened. Usually, miracles help call people to conversion. Did any of the Jews who allegedly did this to repent and become Christian (a blessed fruit)*, or did it simply inflame Christians to go on a pogrom (an evil fruit)?

*Sorry to offend any Jewish onlookers, but clearly you'd admit this would be a sign of depraved spirituality, if it were true.

[Unam Sanctam]

Applause in church has gotten totally out of hand. In the churches I have been to, any particularly noticeable solo or choir song is applauded. The Liturgy is NOT a performance or a concert, it is the worship of the transcendental God, and applause is a distraction from that. The only applause should be at baptisms to welcome the neophytes.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Its difficult to find any objective information on this event today, which is why I say allegedly, because most Catholics are silent about it, and most Jews claim it is part of the Catholic Church's guilt for the Holocaust, which supposition I utterly reject. I couldn't tell you if any of the Jews converted because of this, although I think there have been such occurances in the Host Desecration literature (how truthful I wouldn't know). Apparently the result of this famous allegation was the massacre of most of the Jews of the area. (Interestingly, a crypto-Jewish community at Deggendorf that had practiced their rites secretly for hundreds of years came out into the open in 1991 - somewhat like the ones in Portugal who popped out into the open around the same time.)

What seems important to me is that people of the Middle Ages believed this was something Satanists would do (the anti-Jewish popular mind linking Satanists with Jews at that time), and this belief in Satanic attraction to and abuse of the Host obviously persists. This is why I mentioned it.

As far as the blood libel goes, I don't think anyone would deny that there are Satanic rites involving child sacrifice. The pagans reveled in it, the Old Testment knows of this as offering children to Moloch, and abortion is certainly our modern parallel. I think the problem obviously lies in the automatic accusation during the Middle Ages and later of Jews as the perpatrators, starting with William of Norwich, and the use of this to justify pogroms, frequently for economic gain. There are however a couple of singular and well documented instances of this phenomena which the Church has recognized with canonization - even while debunking and rejecting the rest - St. Simon of Trent being the most famous. We read in the Roman Martyrology for March 24:

At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says under St. William of Norwich (rumor of whose murder started the medieval myth):

This has been well named "one of the most notable and disastrous lies of history". The story is the foundation of the blood accusation or accusation of ritual murder against the Jews, which has found currency and gained popular credence from that date to the present day. In the "Jewish Encyclopedia", III, 266, may be found a list of the cases of this ritual murder, beginning with William of Norwich. There are 5 other cases given for the twelfth century, 15 for the thirteenth, 10 for the fourteenth, 16 for the fifteenth, 13 for the sixteenth, 8 for the seventeenth, 15 for the eighteenth, and 39 for the nineteenth, going right up to the year 1900. There have been more recent cases still in Eastern Europe. Ritual murder as a Jewish institution has been learnedly and conclusively disproved, e.g. by Strack, op. cit. below, and in the case of St. William the evidence is totally insufficient. It seems, however, quite possible that in some cases at least the deaths of these victims were due to rough usage or even deliberate murder on the part of Jews and that some may actually have been slain in odium fidei. In this connection we may notice the first case of all, and the only one before St. William, in which Jews are known to have been accused of murdering a Christian child. In 415 at Inmestar in Syria some Jews in a drunken frolic killed a Christian child in mockery of the death of Christ (Socrates, VII, xvi). Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it (Strack, op. cit., 177 and v).

That last statement does not seem to be correct. You might be interested in reading Pope Benedict XIV's Beatification Bull "Beatus Andreas", which unfortunately is located on an otherwise thoroughly detestable site. It would seem that only the cases of Bl. ("St.") Simon of Trent and Bl. Andreas of Rinn were then accepted by the Church as authenticated, to which were possibly (I cannot confirm this), later added the cases of Dominguito del Val of Saragossa (of the family of Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val) and Christopher of Toledo on 24 November 1805 by Pope Pius VII, and Laurentius of Marostica in 1867. Historian William T. Walsh generously covers the case of Christopher of Toledo in his book on Isabella of Spain and claims the case was one of the chief factors in the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. I can't say what sort of authority lies in these permissions from the Church (although Simon of Trent certainly seems to have the most backing, since he is in the universal Roman Martyrology), but it seems most of them were withdrawn since Vatican II as an ecumenical gesture.

As I mentioned to a Jewish fellow on FreeRepublic once, the combination of the facts that most of these alleged cases are probably false, along with the fact that there would appear to be Satanists hiding among every religion, even the Jews (as the Old Testament certainly witnesses), I apply the where there is smoke there is fire principal. While the bogusness of most of these cases is clear in reading about them, the ensuing controversy they created was the perfect cover for a Satanist to perform his wicked acts. By no means should Jews or Judaism be accused of a crime they utterly reject and which is so foreign to their religion; but just as there have been Pagans, Communists, so-called Christians, and others who have sacrificed children to Satan, so there have probably been so-called Jews. If Catholics can fall and worship Satan, certainly there is little reason to believe the members of other religions cannot do likewise.

Its not hard to follow the newspapers crime blotters for long to come across cases of obvious Satanic ritual murders, as with Fr. Alfred Kunz, who is probably the most well known victim among Catholics here on FreeRepublic.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Another though regarding Satantic Ritual Murder. The infamous Marc Dutroux case in Belgium is a clear link between the Pedophilia cult and Satanic Murder, as are similar cases such as Jeffrey Dahmer.

[NYer]

But how could a Satanist confect the Eucharist, since he would not have valid orders? Unless, of course, the Satanist is, God forbid, also a Catholic priest. Or, God also forbid, if a Catholic priest who is not a Satanist nevertheless performs the consecration, intending that it be used sacrilegiously.

You are right. A Black Mass requires a validly consecrated host. I found this "gem" while researching a related topic. This is from ...

Fr. Terry is a RC priest from the Diocese of Sacramento. He has posted the rubrics from the mass on his web site, including the Eucharistic prayer. He notes the following:

"Notice the Lord didn't say; "this looks like my body, this could be my body, this represents my body or this is a symbol of my body." He says very clearly, "This is my body!" That is the real presence and that is what distinguishes us from most Protestant communion services. We celebrate the real presence of Christ in our midst every time we celebrate eucharist and have been doing this for two thousand years. That is what makes us Catholic. A side note: no Protestant communion wafer has ever been known to be stolen by a satanic group in order to desecrate it. Satanists have purposively schemed to steal ours. And now you know why!"

[NYer]

From the KolbeGroup web site, one of their members submitted the following item to their section: Enemies of the Church ...

Enemies of the Church VI
 
We have a church of Satan only 5 streets away from my parish........about 4 years ago they made a mess of the tabernacle trying to get the hosts, but they only managed to get the first door opened you see we have a double door....We keep our eyes open ever weekend at mass for those that receive and spit it out or hide it, it is starting to get bad, I had to approach a few men over the last month or so.......I took a host off one man because he refused to eat it.......Keep watch people....
 
You know I spoke to a man once that was in the Church of Satan, and he said if we put 100 hosts on a table with 1 consecrated host  THEY are able to pick the host out.....you can see hope smart the devil is!!!!

KOLBE GROUP

[neocon]

I thought he was sending a very clear and alarming message to the clergy,I expected a focus on evil and a concerted effort to pray and get serious about honoring God.

The response to the mysterium iniquitatis is the mysterium fidei (1 Tim 3:1,2,9):

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher ... [refering to deacons: T]hey must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

I'm morally certain that the decline of the scandalous priests began with a graduale abandonment of their prayer-life, in particular the recitation of the Divine Office [or the Liturgy of the Hours], which St. Benedict calls the Opus Dei, the Work of God. I'm dubious that any disciplinary, structural, or bureaucratic solution proposed to the problem will have much effect unless the spiritual dimensions of it are addressed first. This passage from T. S. Eliot's "Choruses from 'The Rock'" comes to mind:

Why should men love the Church? Why should the love her laws?
She tells them of Life and Death, and of all that they would forget.
She is tender where they would be hard, and hard where they like to be soft.
She tells them of Evil and Sin, and other unpleasant facts.
They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.

pray for the Pope

V/.  Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Joanne Paulo.

R/.  Dominus conservet eum,
    et vivificet eum,
    et beatum faciat eum in terra,
    et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus.

[Aliska]

I searched the internet and the google usenet archives, and am unable to find confirmation that it was actually said (incidentally a Goldhammer used to post here):

Link to Moderated Catholic Newsgroup

The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary" This quote, attributed to Pope Paul VI, has been circulating for years, but where can we find a reliable reference for it? I have encountered many versions ranging from hysterical to dubious, e.g.,

"The smoke of Satan has entered the very sanctuary of St. Peter's basilica."

or this version, supposedly said by Paul VI at a homily by Paul VI on June 29 1972,

"We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God."

or this, which perhaps comes from Cuneo (can anyone verify that? What was Cuneo's source?),

"We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. [Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation]

So what's the real story? Does anyone know? Or is this just another bogus quote tacked on to a Pope, like the famous "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us"?

-- Goldhammer (goldhammer@softhome.net), June 29, 2003

Answers Response to What is the truth behind the "smoke of satan" quote? Jmj Hello, Goldhammer. The "jury remains out" on this one -- and I believe that it will have to remain out unleess and until the good folks at the Vatican finish placing all the writings and allocutions of Pope Paul VI online at www.vatican.va. (As of now, only selected items are available online. Not even all of Pope John Paul II's words going back to 1978 are posted online.)

I have searched strenuously in an attempt to determine if any "smoke of satan" phrase can legitimately be attributed to Pope Paul VI. My searches have been fruitless up to now. In my opinion, there is not a single dependable online Catholic info source that attributes that three-word phrase to the Pope. The phrase can be found at countless undependable sites, almost all of which are (at best) schismatic. The alleged context changes ["smoke ... into the Church" ... "into the temple of God" ... "into the Vatican", etc.]. The alleged date changes ["1972" ... "mid-1970s" ... "1968"]. The alleged event changes ["homily" ... "audience" ... "speech at a college"].

I will not believe (and I recommend that no one else believe) that the pope used those three words until they can be seen at www.vatican.va. I want to see the entire document/speech, in the original language, and/or an official Catholic Church translation. Only then, if it ever happens, would we be able to know exactly what the pope said and why. Until then, all is undependable speculation, a complete waste of time. Ironically, the very chatter about this subject is, in my opinion, an example of the "smoke of satan" in operation. If the "smoke of satan" is anywhere, it is in the minds of schismatics, dissenters, and heretics -- who are not "in the Church," but are now outside it (though their "envoys" like to pester this forum).

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

[redgolum]

Not exactly true. They have been a few cases of breakins of non RC churches where the communion wafers were stolen. However it isn't as common or reported as often. Typically vandalism happens as well, and many other articles are stolen.