A couple of years ago I wrote of an unusual experience I had at Mass wherein a person who was troubled by a demon had those demons manifest themselves at the consecration, causing the person to run out of the Church. More on that in a moment.Posted on 08/25/2014 2:16:13 AM PDT by markomalley
A couple of years ago I wrote of an unusual experience I had at Mass wherein a person who was troubled by a demon had those demons manifest themselves at the consecration, causing the person to run out of the Church. More on that in a moment.
I thought of that long-ago incident in relation to the current events transpiring in Oklahoma City, where a satanic cult stole the Eucharist from a Catholic parish and announced plans to desecrate it at a satanic “mass” in September. Archbishop Paul Coakley filed a lawsuit, asking a judge to stop the desecration by requiring the group to return the stolen property. He indicated in the suit that the Host was to be desecrated in the vilest ways imaginable as an offering in sacrifice to Satan.
A spokesman from the satanic group, Adam Daniels, said, “The whole basis of the [satanic] ‘mass‘ is that we take the consecrated host and give it a ‘blessing‘ or offering to Satan. We’re censoring it, [I think he means using incense], doing all things that’s [sic] normally done to bless a sacrifice, which is obviously the host body of Christ. Then we’re taking that and we’re reconsecrating it, or the Devil does …”
[The bracketed comment and the single quotation marks within the above quote are mine.]
In light of the threatened lawsuit, the group returned the consecrated host to the Church. Thanks be to God. But did you notice the satanic spokesman’s attestation regarding the host: “which is obviously the host body of Christ”?
Grave and sad though this incident was (and it wasn’t the first), these Satanists obviously consider the Catholic Eucharist to be the Body of Christ. Unless I missed it, there have been no attempts by Satanists to steal and use a Methodist host, or an Episcopal one, or a Baptist one, or a Lutheran one, etc. It is a Catholic host they seek. Here then is an affirmation of the Scripture which says, Even the demons believe—and shudder (James 2:19).
Elsewhere, Scripture says of a demon that afflicted a man among the tombs, And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him (Mark 5:6). And in Luke’s Gospel, And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ (Lk 4:41-42).
Indeed, as many who have assisted at exorcisms can attest, there is wonderful power in holy water, relics, the exorcist’s cross, the touch of a priest’s stole, and so forth in afflicting demons and urging them to leave. Yet so many Catholics and others discount these sacramentals (as well as the Sacraments), using them carelessly, infrequently, or not at all. Many people, even faithful Catholics, consider them of little significance. But demons do not. Shamefully, demons sometimes manifest more faith (out of fear) in these things than actual believers who ought to revere them out of loving faith. Even this Satanist in Oklahoma acknowledges that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and he seeks a host for that reason, although obviously for nefarious and perverse purposes.
And that leads to a story of my own that I published a long while back. Here is an excerpt from that piece:
It was almost 15 years ago. I was At Old St. Mary’s here in D.C. celebrating Mass in the Latin (Extraordinary Form). It was a solemn high Mass. I don’t suppose I thought it any different than most Sundays, but something quite amazing was about to happen.
As you may know, the ancient Latin Mass is celebrated “ad orientem” (toward the Liturgical East). Priest and people all face in one direction. What this means practically for the celebrant is that the people are behind him. It was time for the consecration. At this time, the priest is directed to bow low with his forearms on the altar table and the host between his fingers.
As directed, the venerable words of Consecration were said in a low but distinct voice, Hoc est enim Corpus meum (For this is my Body). The bells rang as I genuflected.
But behind me there was a disturbance of some sort; a shaking or rustling sound came from the front pews behind me to my right. And then a moaning or grumbling. “What was that?” I wondered. It did not really sound human, more like the grumbling of a large animal such as a boar or a bear, along with a plaintive moan that also did not seem human. I elevated the host and again wondered, “What was that?” Then silence. As the celebrant in the ancient Latin Mass I could not easily turn to look. But still I thought, “What was that?”
It was time for the consecration of the chalice. Again I bowed low, pronouncing clearly and distinctly but in a low voice, Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti; mysterium fidei; qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem pecatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis (for this is the cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith; which will for the many be shed unto the remission of sins. Whensoever you do this, you do it in my memory.)
Then, I heard another sound, this time an undeniable moan and then a shriek as someone cried out, “Leave me alone, Jesus! Why do you torture me?” Suddenly there was a scuffling noise and someone ran out with the groaning sound of having been injured. The back doors swung open and then closed. Then silence.
Realization – I could not turn to look for I was raising the Chalice high over my head. But I knew in an instant that some poor demon-tormented soul had encountered Christ in the Eucharist and could not endure His real presence displayed for all to see. And the words of Scripture occurred to me: Even Demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).
Repentance – But just as James used those words to rebuke the weak faith of his flock, I too had to repent. Why was a demon-troubled man more aware of the true presence and more astonished by it than I was? He was moved in a negative sense and ran. Why was I not more moved in a positive but comparable way? What of the other believers in the pews? I don’t doubt that all of us believed intellectually in the true presence. But there is something very different and far more wonderful in being moved to the depth of your soul! It is so easy for us to be sleepy in the presence of the Divine, to be forgetful of the miraculous and awesome Presence available to us.
Let the record show that on that day, almost 15 years ago, it was made quite plain to me that I held in my hands the Lord of Glory, the King of Heaven and earth, the just Judge and Ruler of the kings of the earth. Is the Lord truly present in the Eucharist? You’d better believe it; even demons believe that!
Sounds good to me.
from my study, Athanasius and Theodocius were against all Christian groups that did not agree with them and Theodocius as the Emporer had the political power to enforce their being declared hersey/outlawed.
The Mass was invalid throughout the world in Liberius's time?
Even in that mess, was the Church at large entirely bereft of the Holy Sacrifice, as some are claiming today?
It might behoove you to beware making a temerarious accusation of the Church's apostasy with false analogies.
Ok so Liberius approved a muddling statement. Honorius was censured by an Ecumenical Council and a successor. Great. Was their Mass invalid? Because that's what I hear being claimed about today. Not that certain Popes and many bishops screwed up this or that, but that they are completely bereft of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
“From 1578 to 1593 the English College of Douay was temporarily housed at Rheims. It was during this period that the Vulgate was translated into the new language called English. In 1582, Queen Elizabeth ordered searchers to confiscate every copy of the New Testament newly translated into English by the College of Rheims. Priests were imprisoned for having it, and the sentence of “torture by rack” was given to those who circulated it. The publication of the Old Testament was delayed until the Douay College had returned to England. In 1609, the College of Douay published the Old Testament English translation.”
www.cathtruth.com
“While a number of partial and incomplete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, the grass-roots spread of Wycliffe’s Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English—even though translations in all other major European languages had been accomplished and made available.” Wikipedia
So it would seem that the Catholic Church did try to translate the Bible into the obscure language of English. Your common man who only spoke English also usually did not read any language. Those who could read up well into the 20th century in England, learned to read Latin at a very early age (8 years). So the myth that somehow the Catholic Church wouldn’t translate the the Bible into English to keep the common man in the dark is just that, a myth.
People are shocked when I tell them that the inquisition was the first stirring in Europe of due process.
Although I try not to let it distract me, as an EME I do find myself watching whether people do consume the Eucharist. I do think I would stop someone if I saw he or she trying to take it back to the pew or sneak out with it.
Sad for you piusv.
As an EME I frequently would go to the hospital and pray a spiritual Communion with those who could not receive anything by mouth. I felt a very strong presence of Jesus in the room. He loves us so and so wants to be with us that he bridges whatever differences and flaws we have. We cannot “do the magic” perfectly so we have to rely on Jesus. I say this to those who believe that it has to be a Mass in Latin in exactly a certain form and I have to be wearing a hat and a long skirt. Give me a break. And actually Jesus does just that.
We've happily been members of exclusively traditional parishes since at least 2003. We were married in the old rite, 4 kids baptized in the old rite, oldest kid just had first Holy Communion in the old rite.
We've never seriously entertained the notion that the Novus Ordo is invalid--and neither have our fellow parishioners who sharply criticize the Novus Ordo and its culture. So if there's an implication here that steeping oneself in traditional Catholicism will lead to that sort of an "understanding", I wholeheartedly reject it.
Oh, well said. God bless you, Mercat!
Sure there was...Lots of people could read German (in the case of Luther's time) and lots of people became fluent in reading English...Latin was a dead language and the people who rejected Catholicism wanted to know what God was actually saying to them...And when they found out what God was really saying, there were massive defections from your religion...
Since he had a bible he couldn't have been a Catholic...Likely he was going to take it to a lab and have it tested...
Did you read that link I posted? The first Bible in any Germanic language was the Gothic Bible of Wulfilas in the 4th century AD--a thousand years before Luther was born. There were many Bible translations into English after that, starting with Bede in the 600s. So why wasn't there a Reformation then?
What I was describing in the quote above was the Middle Ages, where books were fantastically expensive, vernacular literature was either nonexistent or just barely catching on, and literacy was restricted to the nobility and clerics. Luther lived in a quite different time that had the printing press, an already well established tradition of vernacular literature, and presumably somewhat higher rates of literacy.
And let's not forget that the "defections" in England were enforced by the blade of a headsman's axe. Henry VIII made it a capital crime to deny his supremacy over the Church in England. There were popular uprisings in Cornwall and other places as the Book of Common Prayer was forced on the English people by law. You could be put to death for the crime of offering Mass or harboring a Catholic priest.
Is it really credible that Christ would allow His Bride the Church to fall into such grave error that everyone from the Supreme Pontiff to the pewsitter is now manifestly outside it, save for a few straggling remnants, none of whom agree with each other?
If you take that quote by itself it absolutely describes the Arian heresy and how it affected much of the Church including the hierarchy including the pope to some degree. As for questions along the lines of "do you really think *this* (what ever that might be) could ever happen to the Church?", I'm willing to bet that Catholics during the Arian heresy and the Great Western Schism, for example, would have had similar questions because those things had never happened before.
The fact of the matter is, those *things* did happen even when most Catholics would never have thought them possible. So I'm not willing to sit around and assume that, just because certain circumstances never happened in the Church before, those circumstances can't possibly happen.
The bottom line is that despite these awful things, Christ never let the gates of Hell prevail (and never will).
Again, that post had nothing to do with my doubt regarding the New Mass.
Having said that, researching the changes and differences between Paul VI’s mass and the traditional Mass would probably lead you to at least have strong reservations about the former.
I researched it as I was first discovering traditionalism, and I had no such reservations. I found Davies' arguments on that score compelling.
What's the main objection? Pro multis? The diminished references to sacrifice in the Offertory?
You are correct. My comment about Arianism had nothing to do with the validity of the Mass at that time; it was about doctrine.
My comparison is to the post-Vatican II’s abandonment of the dogma (not doctrine, this time) of EENS. Just ask Pope Francis and his various friends whom he encourages to remain outside the Church.
At some point your reading deep into the bible is going to make you Catholic.
It is going to happen for you and you will be in the true Church receiving the sacred mystery.
Read the 95 verses that support catholicism by Dave Armstrong. Catholicism is deeply scriptural. Then we can talk.
The first myth that must be broken is that Catholics do not follow sacred scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.