Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: neocon
>>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.
20 posted on 09/23/2003 8:54:28 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: dangus
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?

29 posted on 09/23/2003 9:50:40 PM PDT by neocon (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson