Black Masses

[Bruce S]

I have read Windswept House and several other of Fr. Martin's books. They are fanscinating tales. He is a gifted storyteller.

However, he requested laicization. He broke his promises and his vows. I don't know the reasons for this, and I'm sure that to him the reasons were noble and good. However, it does induce a level of scepticism about his agenda.

I got turned on to Fr. Martin about 10 years ago. His insightful glimpses of the REAL Vatican, behind the mask they want the world to see, is fascinating.

I know he opted out of his order, I think it was in revulsion to what he learned while inside the church. He was NOT anti-catholic. In fact, just the opposite, he is the MOST catholic of any author that I've ever read in novel form.

I strongly suggest that others of his books be read too:

A former Jesuit professor and author of the national bestsellers Vatican, The Final Conclave, and Hostage to the Devil, Malachi Martin unravels the hidden politics and alliances of popes and cardinals, bishops and priests.

Great stuff, all true, WOW, if you think your denomination is what it always purports to be, these books will certainly open some eyes around here.

Edited January 13, 2004 by Bruce S

[willguy]

So, lemme get this straight Bruce, there's some hiden truth that's been known about but covered up for hundreds of years, and then Joe Schmoe with a questionable motive comes along and unveils it. Wow, sounds like the same arguement used for Luther. No wonder you like this guy so much. Honestly, you think we buy any of this? I've seen so many anti-Catholic conspiracy theories and "hidden agendas and alliances" it'd make your head spin.

[Anna]

Great stuff, all true, WOW, if you think your denomination is what it always purports to be, these books will certainly open some eyes around here.

All true?!!

You wish that were so, Bruce.

Even Martin himself calls his work "faction," part fact, and part fiction. It's meant to entertain, not inform.

And entertain it does, particularly when it points a finger negatively at Christ's Church, now doesn't it Bruce? Grin.

Pax Christi. <><

[PedroX]

Bruce,

I have read all of the novels you listed. I've even read Martin's book (non-fiction) on the Jesuits (talk about a weighty tome)and his history of the popes (The Decline and Fall of Rome). While (as I've stated previously) was enourmously entertained, and did ponder some of the points he raised, he obviously had an agenda. According to his book on the popes, there hasn't been a single "good" Pope since Constintine. He obviously had an axe to grind. Should he be dismissed out of hand? No. Should his writings be taken as gospel? NO.

peace...

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There is nothing wrong with the Church disbanding an order that was previosuly approved. It is a matter of Church legistaltion, not infallible decree. It has happened a few times in Church history, in fact, the Jesuits were once disbanded.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I'm wondering if when the priest consecrates the bread and wine and his heart is contrary to God (intending to desecrate the Eucharist afterwards) if God will actually allow Himself to be present. I mean, doesn't intent affect whether or not the priests words are actually valid?

[willguy]

There was a heresy called donatism that said that the character of the celebrant determined the validity of the sacrament. This was opposed, meaning that just if the priest is a sinner the sacrament is still valid. However, I'm not sure if this includes intent.

[Anna]

I believe that all the priest needs to intend is for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

[willguy]

I believe that all the priest needs to intend is for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even if the plan is to desicrate it afterwards?

[Donna]

My opinion: yes, because these Black Masses do exist. Which would be impossible, if the purpose after ward cancelled out "proper intent". That being the intention of the priest to do just as Anna said.

Valid matter, form, and intent. And priest.

Edited January 15, 2004 by Donna

[Donna]

Quote, The Dude:

"Priests can be excommunicated. That Bishop who approved the Society of St. Pius X was."

Just clarifying information is why I posted this:

"The SSPX was canonically approved by the Vatican, not by a bishop".

However, I will add:

* Good thing Brother Ignatius Mary likes Fr. Martin.

* Vatican is the way better than Windswept House.

* Put me on record: I am grateful for Malachai. I pray for him. He's helped me sort certain things out. However, he is great with a story as well. God bless him!

* I agree with Bruce in precisely this way: that what was once revered (some examples: the missal of st. Pius v; the formation of priests; scholasticism, and esp. the dotrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ) is at the very least not fostered at this time.

Jake, I haven't the heart to look at that satanic link. I've enough trouble as it is.

Edited January 15, 2004 by Donna