Author Topic: Validity of satanic black mass (Read 1188 times)

PG · « **on:** June 13, 2015, 10:39:19 PM »

Canon Hesse in this video argues that in order for there to be validity of the sacrament of mass, the priest must have the intention to communicate(consume the host). The priest must have the intention to do as the church does, and the church always does all these three things: change the bread into the body, change the wine into the blood, and communicate. Start listening at minute 43:30 for about a minute.

So, my question is then, for a black mass, does the satanic priest(an ex catholic priest from what I understand) consume a host(which is required for validity according to Canon Hesse)? I ask because I understand that the satanic priest consecrates, and then desecrates. The oklahoma diocese even claimed property rites over the host of the recent black mass that nearly occurred a few months ago. That means that it would not be consumed(a necessity for validity).

I am also pretty sure that both fr. pfieffer and +Williamson have used the black mass as an example of a mass that is valid yet illicit/sacrilegious. But, if the satanic priest does not communicate, it is not valid.

Lastly, I am not recommending people go watch videos of black masses(if they even have them on youtube - which they probably do) in order to provide us with an answer. My educated guess is that they do not commune, and that means black masses are invalid.

Graehame · « **Reply #1 on:** June 13, 2015, 10:50:40 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

"...for a black mass, does the satanic priest (an ex catholic priest...) consume a host (which is required for validity...)? I ask because I understand that the satanic priest consecrates, and then desecrates. The oklahoma diocese even claimed property rites over the host of the recent black mass that nearly occurred a few months ago. That means that it would not be consumed(a necessity for validity).

The Black Mass derives its force from its intention, which is to blaspheme the Sacrament. For this reason whether or not a defrocked Catholic priest celebrates it, or a naked female witch, or anyone else, it is (nearly) equally offensive & has nearly equal force, which is basically none.

Quote from: + PG +

"...both fr. pfieffer and +Williamson have used the black mass as an example of a mass that is valid yet illicit/sacrilegious.")

I find that incredible. Since 1 of the things that must be present for a Mass to be valid is for the priest to intend to do what the Church does, a priest (or otherwise) who intends to blaspheme what the Church does would be incapable of celebrating a valid Mass, whether they consume the Host or not.

PG · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2015, 11:12:35 PM »

Graehame - I suspect you are not familiar with the concept of how something can be valid yet illicit/sacreligious. Canon Hesse explains it well at some point in the video, but I cannot give you a time mark. And, perhaps you do not have knowledge of what a black mass is. I understand that it requires a validly ordained priest. So, your naked female witch example doesn't have much worth(other than to show that you may be a troll).

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2015, 11:59:19 PM »

Correction - I think the situation with the oklahoma black mass was that it was a stolen host, and the diocese was claiming property rights. That law approach ended the potential desecration of the host, and it was returned. So, that situation doesn't apply.

Here is a link to +Williamson talking about the validity of satanic masses.

He claims that they take great care performing the rite, and that it is valid(but obviously illicit/evil). But, canon hesse claims the "church always does" communicate. So, do the satanists consume the body and blood that I understand they will soon after also desecrate? I find it hard to believe.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** June 14, 2015, 12:04:52 PM »

The priest communicating is indeed required for validity. De defectibus seems to make this quite clear. I don't know how a black Mass works, but in a holy Mass, the priest often consecrates more hosts than he consumes.

I'm not exactly sure what the point of the question is since, as Graehame points out, it's still a blasphemy.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2015, 12:31:05 PM »

tkgs - This was somewhat of a hurried thread, and I started it to learn if they actually consume consecrated hosts. The only situation I could conceive is as you said; he consecrates many hosts, so that he may consume, yet have some remaining to desecrate. Still, I find it so strange that a satanic priest would consume a host. But, I guess it is not so strange, Judas received communion, and then immediately betrayed Christ.