Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: neocon
>>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.
31 posted on 09/23/2003 10:09:09 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: dangus
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.

34 posted on 09/23/2003 10:39:01 PM PDT by neocon (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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