Hello, A Satanist has joined you

[JMJ_coder]

The consecrated host has value only to those who believe in its “consecration”. It has no more meaning for a Satanist than a Baptist, if you get my point.

Don’t be fooled. Satan understands Who the Eucharist is - and his followers know what they are doing in a black mass. They know all too well about sacraments and sacramentals and employ their aped opposites in evil rituals. Don’t be fooled into thinking they don’t know about the sacramental principle and employ the opposite in curses and such. Father Corapi, for example, in his wild youth witnessed drug dealers bringing in satanic priests to curse the drugs and rock stars dedicating their music to the devil. Where ever and whoever those drugs or music go to, there goes the curse. The same for the sacraments. They know perfectly well that the Eucharist is Jesus and they, following the devil, plot to destroy Him and His Church.

 

[jfhh]

And in case your wondering, Father Corapi is one of the most orthodox theologians around.

Isn’t he the person who said that smoking was a sin? He reminds me a little of Sean Hannity who thanks be to God though he studied in the seminary to be a priest, chose another course in life.

This sounds very heterodox/heretical to me. Jesus IS the icon of the invisible God, as Saint Paul tells us. He is also God. We don’t just dimly see God through Jesus - we see God in and through Jesus as He is God. Jesus had the fullness of grace. Grace is a participation in the divine life - how could God have anything less then the infinite fullness of that participation in His own life.

It’s not heterodox that Jesus in his human soul possesses a finite degree of sanctifying grace. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“But the last question that arises has decidedly a theological phase, namely, can the infusion of sanctifying grace be increased infinitely? Or is there a limit, a point at which it must be arrested? To maintain that the increase can go on to infinity, i.e. that man by successive advances in holiness can finally enter into the possession of an infinite endowment involves a manifest contradiction, for such a grade is as impossible as an infinite temperature in physics. Theoretically, therefore, we can consider only an increase without any real limit (in indefinitum). Practically however, two ideals of unattained and unattainable holiness have been determined, which nevertheless, are finite. The one is the inconceivably great holiness of the human soul of Christ, the other the fullness of grace which dwelt in the soul of the Virgin Mary.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

 

[jfhh]

My posts had nothing to do with whether or not Satanists want to desecrate hosts.

I was simply responding to the previous poster who said that IF someone wants to desecrate the Host we shouldn’t try to prevent it, although we need not actively help them to do so or anything.

Which is boloney with bells on, and I was explaining why.

Lily, I think it’s fine to try to prevent it by persuasion and also be having good custody of consecrated hosts and to retrieve hosts that are stolen from churches and to make or enforce policies that make who receives a host be a more narrow list and to communicate that more effectively.

I just don’t believe in violence or going outside the law. So for example, if an unorthodox priest … some priests believe Jesus is not God as you know, some believe in open communion… gives a host to a non-Catholic and that non-Catholic walks out with the host in his mouth but decides he sees no point in completely consuming the host and happens to run across a pornographer who offers him money in exchange for the consecrated Host … and then he spits the host out and hands it to the pornographer and the pornographer makes a sacriligous movie with the host, then I am all for your making your opinions and feelings known to the pornographer, but I am also for respecting his freedom there since he obtained the host legally. It may shock you but there have been pornographic movies produced with consecrated hosts. I know of one; I haven’t seen it, but the description of what happens (if the Internet can be trusted) is probably disturbing to a traditional religious person. If you choose to find out more about it, google “Club Satan: The Witches Sabbath.” As long as you have the safe search feature on, no explicit images should come up. (This was a hypothetical thing I described earlier; I have no idea how the consecrated host(s) used in the movie were obtained; I assume they were obtained legally)

 

[LilyM]

Lily, I think it’s fine to try to prevent it by persuasion and also be having good custody of consecrated hosts and to retrieve hosts that are stolen from churches and to make or enforce policies that make who receives a host be a more narrow list and to communicate that more effectively.

I just don’t believe in violence or going outside the law. So for example, if an unorthodox priest … some priests believe Jesus is not God as you know, some believe in open communion… gives a host to a non-Catholic and that non-Catholic walks out with the host in his mouth but decides he sees no point in completely consuming the host and happens to run across a pornographer who offers him money in exchange for the consecrated Host … and then he spits the host out and hands it to the pornographer and the pornographer makes a sacriligous movie with the host, then I am all for your making your opinions and feelings known to the pornographer, but I am also for respecting his freedom there since he obtained the host legally. It may shock you but there have been pornographic movies produced with consecrated hosts. I know of one; I haven’t seen it, but the description of what happens (if the Internet can be trusted) is probably disturbing to a traditional religious person. If you choose to find out more about it, google “Club Satan: The Witches Sabbath.” As long as you have the safe search feature on, no explicit images should come up. (This was a hypothetical thing I described earlier; I have no idea how the consecrated host(s) used in the movie were obtained; I assume they were obtained legally)

Who mentioned using violence? I certainly didn’t. It’d be unlikely to work in a lot of cases anyway.

You do know that sacrilege (deliberately offensive treatment of religious buildings or articles) actually is against the law in a lot of places? It’s basically a form of hate speech against that religion, when you think about it.

If you don’t mind a faith, if you are tolerant towards it, then you don’t go out of your way to offend the people who practice it or to commit what those people consider to be sacrilegous acts. I don’t run through the middle of my local mosque in hotpants and singlet top with uncovered hair and with a pig on a leash beside me. Because I basically respect the Islamic faith, I have absolutely no desire to deliberately offend Muslims. On the contrary.

Someone who would use a Host in a black Mass or otherwise mistreat it knows precisely what they are doing and intends to offend - that’s the whole point, they wouldn’t bother if they didn’t. So the purpose of obtaining that host is itself illegal for the most part, being sacrilege.

Having said which, with preventing secular crime - well, don’t you have greater licence in the prevention methods you use depending on how great the crime is? To prevent a slap in the face you can slap in the face in turn. To prevent murder you can kill (it’s called self-defence).

There are very few sins greater than sacrilege, so proportionately extreme methods (not that I’d condone murder, however) would be appropriate.

 

[jfhh]

Who mentioned using violence? I certainly didn’t. It’d be unlikely to work in a lot of cases anyway.

You do know that sacrilege (deliberately offensive treatment of religious buildings or articles) actually is against the law in a lot of places? It’s basically a form of hate speech against that religion, when you think about it.

If you don’t mind a faith, if you are tolerant towards it, then you don’t go out of your way to offend the people who practice it or to commit what those people consider to be sacrilegous acts. I don’t run through the middle of my local mosque in hotpants and singlet top with uncovered hair and with a pig on a leash beside me. Because I basically respect the Islamic faith, I have absolutely no desire to deliberately offend Muslims. On the contrary.

Someone who would use a Host in a black Mass or otherwise mistreat it knows precisely what they are doing and intends to offend - that’s the whole point, they wouldn’t bother if they didn’t. So the purpose of obtaining that host is itself illegal for the most part, being sacrilege.

Having said which, with preventing secular crime - well, don’t you have greater licence in the prevention methods you use depending on how great the crime is? To prevent a slap in the face you can slap in the face in turn. To prevent murder you can kill (it’s called self-defence).

There are very few sins greater than sacrilege, so proportionately extreme methods (not that I’d condone murder, however) would be appropriate.

No one is murdered when a host is desecrated.

I don’t understand what you meant then when you said you would “interfere” with host desecration. How would you “interfere” with it?

The way I see the situation is like this.

You may have a boyfriend and then you break up. You are crushed and a few weeks later your best friend starts dating him. You feel it is wrong for her to do that and sleep with him, that that’s a knife in your heart each time they sleep together. But your best friend may disagree and feel that the feelings she has for him and he for her justify the betrayal of your strong sentiments and wishes. In a free society, this has to be allowed.

Religious sentiments and wishes can also be strong and also be based on things we greatly value. But if efforts to peacefully persuade don’t work, coercive laws or vigilante violence should not be engaged in. Laws shouldn’t make friends not in the view of many betray each other and laws shouldn’t make people outside of a religion in the view of many be callously insensitive and needlessly offensive.

I don’t know what purpose a black Mass serves. I assume people who are into that believe it serves a good enough purpose to justify the hurt feelings of Catholics.

Sometimes people are clearly wrong but in a free society we need to let people grow and learn from their own mistakes once they become adults.

 

[LilyM]

No one is murdered when a host is desecrated.

I don’t understand what you meant then when you said you would “interfere” with host desecration. How would you “interfere” with it?

The way I see the situation is like this.

You may have a boyfriend and then you break up. You are crushed and a few weeks later your best friend starts dating him. You feel it is wrong for her to do that and sleep with him, that that’s a knife in your heart each time they sleep together. But your best friend may disagree and feel that the feelings she has for him and he for her justify the betrayal of your strong sentiments and wishes. In a free society, this has to be allowed.

Religious sentiments and wishes can also be strong and also be based on things we greatly value. But if efforts to peacefully persuade don’t work, coercive laws or vigilante violence should not be engaged in. Laws shouldn’t make friends not in the view of many betray each other and laws shouldn’t make people outside of a religion in the view of many be callously insensitive and needlessly offensive.

I don’t know what purpose a black Mass serves. I assume people who are into that believe it serves a good enough purpose to justify the hurt feelings of Catholics.

Sometimes people are clearly wrong but in a free society we need to let people grow and learn from their own mistakes once they become adults.

Rubbish! The Black Mass is deliberately designed to be a mockery of the Catholic Mass and the Eucharist is obtained by non-Catholics for one reason and one reason alone - that is in order for Our Lord to disrespected. Kept as a curiosity or traded on ebay as an economic commodity at the very best.

Sometimes the Host is used as part of sexual rituals, or animal sacrifice, sometimes Our Lord is actually spat, pissed or defecated upon. He is NOT treated with the respect or dignity that Catholics treat Him with.

I’ll tell you what it’s REALLY like - it’s like your boyfriend or girlfriend being kidnapped by thugs and basically treated like those poor prisoners at Guantanamo - emotionally and physically abused in every conceivable way, raped, forced to participate in every sort of degradation that could be most painful him or her.

The best you could hope for would be for him or her to be kept as a pet like a monkey in a zoo, or sold to those who treat him or her as a commodity, like a boy or girl forced into prostitution or slavery.

No-one in their right mind would think that anything would justify anyone’s treating of a person this way, much less when that person is Our Lord. And of course every Catholic is obligated to do all within their power to stop such things!

 

[RubyT]

The demons will not be reconciled at the end of time. That is theological nonsense. The fall of the demons is irrevocable (which is due to their nature and not a defect of God’s mercy) and thus they cannot be in heaven - ever.

I agree the demons and satan have been permanently separated from God. They can’t utilize the forgiveness of Jesus since they have been separated from God. They will burn in Hell forever along with anyone who also knowing God exist rebukes God and sides with the devil. So if satanism is not the worship of satan it is still following the basic principals that satan himself has set up. Living to please your human(fleshly) desires more than living to please and love and worship God.

We Christians believe that we must lose our flesh(our humanly desires) in order to find and refine our Spirit. This thinking that it is okay to live for one’s pleasure is only another way of saying I don’t care if I separate myself from God, its all about me. Satanist, from what I read in this forum believe that it is okay to please oneself as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. The repercussions of that thought process actually does hurt, it hurts God who created them and loves them in spite of themselves.

The growth of the Spirit is so much more fullfilling than fleshly pleasures. But I don’t expect any satanist to understand this as they could not possibly know what spiritual growth feels like. They are too busy pleasing themselves in a fleshly manner to understand the concept of losing the flesh to grow in the spirit. I will pray for all the satanist in this forum that they may be touched by the Spirit of God and thus realize the Truth the way and the light - The Father , The Son and the Holy Spirit.

I also feel that the reason the satanist are even on this forum is because deep down in their soul they have that tiny mustard seed of faith compelling them to find the truth. To search for the reason they are so busy trying to please themselves. They say we give to the poor and do charitable things to please ourselves and it does please me. But the compulsion to do charitable acts is not driven or perpetrated by knowing that it will please me; it is because I know it will please God and help the world. Did Mother Teresa spend her life because of a dangling carrot? Certainly not the dangling carrot at all, she lived her life to help the world and thus please God. Did she find joy in that, yes, but not a carrot.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Nice post.
:tiphat:

 

[JMJ_coder]

Isn’t he the person who said that smoking was a sin? He reminds me a little of Sean Hannity who thanks be to God though he studied in the seminary to be a priest, chose another course in life.

And you don’t think smoking is a sin? Smoking is guaranteed to cause one or more of several terminal and/or life-threatening illness - including lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, heart disease, stroke, etc. We didn’t know this stuff 50-60 years ago, but a fool will deny these facts today.

We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and we are stewards of the goods (in this case, our health) that God has given us. Thus to intentionally ruin that health with a product that is 99.999% guaranteed to do so is a sin. It is a form of suicide that takes place over decades - that is you are slowly killing yourself.

In addition, smoking can cause similar effects in others via secondhand smoke, and so can become a form of homicide where we injure our fellow man (especially if we live with them - children who are still developing are most at risk).

It’s not heterodox that Jesus in his human soul possesses a finite degree of sanctifying grace. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“But the last question that arises has decidedly a theological phase, namely, can the infusion of sanctifying grace be increased infinitely? Or is there a limit, a point at which it must be arrested? To maintain that the increase can go on to infinity, i.e. that man by successive advances in holiness can finally enter into the possession of an infinite endowment involves a manifest contradiction, for such a grade is as impossible as an infinite temperature in physics. Theoretically, therefore, we can consider only an increase without any real limit (in indefinitum). Practically however, two ideals of unattained and unattainable holiness have been determined, which nevertheless, are finite. The one is the inconceivably great holiness of the human soul of Christ, the other the fullness of grace which dwelt in the soul of the Virgin Mary.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

The way you presented it, it sounds heterodox. The Catholic Encyclopedia sounds more orthodox, but I do think one part of it is still open for theological debate (I’ll come back to that in a moment).

One essential point that the Catholic Encyclopedia makes (which is lacking in your initial post), is that Jesus contains the fullness of grace.

The question that I feel is still open for debate (remember that as good as Catholic Encyclopedia is, it still isn’t a work of the Magisterium or infallible) is whether or not human nature in this life or the next can contain infinite grace. The Encyclopedia mentions grace growing to infinity - which would seem to line up with the Eastern understanding of Theosis. But can that soul ever contain the infinite fullness of God’s grace? I would say yes that the soul in heaven can have that capacity (but will defer to the Magisterium if one can find an official teaching on this point), but could see the points of others who think that the soul’s capacity is finite. I would also be less inclined to think the capacity is infinite in this present life (at least for the overwhelming majority of people - I can think of only two I’d consider an exception for).

 

[Imryl]

We Christians believe that we must lose our flesh(our humanly desires) in order to find and refine our Spirit.

Now that is a load of rubbish. This sentence smacks of the same errant thinking as the Albigensian heresy. (by it’s nature, all flesh is evil)

Catholics do not believe you must lose (shed, dismiss, ignore) your desires, or flesh. The human person is as it ought to be. What makes us human is sacred; body, emotion, intellect, and will. “The catch” as it were, is that they must be ordered toward God.

If the object of salvation is to ultimately bring human nature into harmony with itself, to bring humans into peace with each other, and also into peace with God… then to deny any of these things is to reject salvation.

*Note

• Human nature - Body and soul; body, emotion, intellect and will
• Object of Salvation - I don’t doubt that there is more to it then what I just said. That is really the point of view from an outsider looking in.*

 

[happymommy]

I stated early on in this thread to watch out for Satan, that he will try to turn those who believe in Christ against each other. Have you noticed the path this thread has taken? I can’t say that it’s turning Catholics against each other. Some I’m not sure what your faith truly is. From what I can see, and I read some of your profiles, we have some strong Catholics, a Protestant, a Catholic who doesn’t belive in church, ? what’s up with that by the way. One, let’s love everyone, who’s religion is marked “other” and my personal favorite, which is marked, N/A. Is that not available or not applicable? We have gone from praying for this young person, to fighting over every person that may or may not move into our neighborhoods! Satan doesn’t need to live next door to cause problems in your life. He’s right here on this thread! He’s taking pleasure in the fact that some say it’s okay to do horrible things to host. He’s taking pride in the people that don’t believe Christ is Lord, even if they are not Satanist. arguing with Christians and getting them upset. I pray for our young friend, that he finds the truth, before it’s too late. Do I respect his right to be on this site, yes. I don’t think he should complain about people voicing their beliefs, it is a Catholic website, if you didn’t want the Catholic view, then you shouldn’t have posted on here.

 

[Layman]

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Politically correct to people try to turn this into:

'Love the sinner and if he loudly and publicly proclaims his sinfulness as good you musn’t be ‘prejudiced’ against him but keep silent or applaud his ‘bravery’.

What rot.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Another favourite of the politically correct.

Judges judge as a matter of course. Otherwise we’d have anarchy. Parents judge their children. We judge when we have enough evidence of innocence or guilt. Otherwise the first conman we meet will bilk us of all we own.

Here’s what’s likely to happen: The world is going to get a series of progressively harder slaps until sufficient numbers of people return to righteousness in the eyes of God.

For evidence: Consider the general prior moral climate of countries and areas which have been hardest hit by disaster recently.

If you want a clue as to what God considers righteous: the New Testament, Catholic Church tradition, the lives of the Saints and the Philokalia give a good idea.

My opinion: Assume Jesus is a stern judge and not the easy-going guy you’ve been told about post Vatican II. Better safe than sorry.

Homosexuality?: Listed in the Bible as one of the four sins that cry out to God for judgement.

Satanism?: Ha, ha, ha.

 

[Nepenthe]

Also, I may register a plea for Arno? He seems like a very nice fellow, and was rightly concerned about entering into this partctular section of the CAF fora, Right now, he’s likely busier than the proverbial onelegged man in the buttkicking contest, what with exams and who even knows what? He may be young, but he’s bright and pleasant, but we all know this is a hard time to be johnny-on-the-spot for posting, most especially for students, and doubly if they’re working students!

Imryl has been great at holding down the fort though, especially considering the utter drownload of conversional and condemning (many of which I feel can be ignored, since they are often overtly hostile and insulting- ah well, Welcome to the Non-Catholic Religions form, I guess ) to the OP posts given by Catholics and other Christians, although with several notably accepting and loving welcomes which really warmed my dry, ashen little nontheist heart!

 

[jfhh]

I re-edited my post. Go back and read it.

The Apostles treated Jesus’ body with the greatest possible respect once His hour of self-willed sacrifice was done. They mourned over it, buried it with honour and dignity, and the women went back on Sunday to do more honour to it. We can do no less to His presence in the Eucharist than treat it with utmost respect and never allow ANYONE to disrespect it.

We can no more sit idly by and permit people to sin than we can idly sit by and permit them to commit crimes. It’s our duty to try to stop crime when we know it’s going to happen, likewise it is our duty to try to stop people committing sin if we can. Otherwise we’re complicit in it.

You gloss over Jesus’ rebuke of Peter by saying things were different after it was finished. But remember when Jesus’ body turned up missing? Jesus’ friends didn’t contemplate violence then; they didn’t shake anyone up. They just “plead” and “begged.” Such was there humility and love of peace. So I would commend on to you to follow the example of these women and if you should ever learn that your neighbor may be desecrating Jesus’ body, to instead of going with power and might, go with as these women of the Bible did, “pleading” and “begging.”

Not by might, nor by power, but by spirit shall I work
~God in OT~

 

[LilyM]

You gloss over Jesus’ rebuke of Peter by saying things were different after it was finished. But remember when Jesus’ body turned up missing? Jesus’ friends didn’t contemplate violence then; they didn’t shake anyone up. They just “plead” and “begged.” Such was there humility and love of peace. So I would commend on to you to follow the example of these women and if you should ever learn that your neighbor may be desecrating Jesus’ body, to instead of going with power and might, go with as these women of the Bible did, “pleading” and “begging.”

Not by might, nor by power, but by spirit shall I work
~God in OT~

For about half a minute, Mary thought the body had POSSIBLY been removed (‘IF you have taken Him …’). In as much as we can have any guess as to her thoughts, one presumes she thought that He had been simply moved to another tomb within the garden. Since she was asking someone she presumed worked there and would have no reason to take the body outright. Possibly she simply thought other of His friends had been before her and moved it - we just dont’ know enough abou her thoughts to say that she was convinced beyond doubt that the body had gone missing.

All in all the episode with Mary - thinking that a body might have been moved, as likely by friends of the deceased as anybody else - is an entirely different beast to knowing for a fact that a body - anyone’s body - has been or will be taken out of mere disrespectful scientific curiosity, or for purposes of display, sale or desecration.

Remember, Mary was a lone woman. NO-ONE else was there at the time to think as she thought - the others, including the other women, all saw the angels who announced His rising, and so knew what had happened. As a lone woman, she naturally would’ve not thought of fighting the armed guards she knew had been there, or even the gardener as a lone man and presumably a fairly healthy and strong one for such physical labour, even if she suspected some abduction. Not because violence would’ve been wrong, but simply because it wouldn’t have worked.

Of course His other ‘friends’ never contemplated violence - simply because it would seem they never for a moment thought that His body had ‘turned up missing’! (What a terrible mangling of English that choice of words is!) The first they heard of the matter was when they were told that He was risen, some of them didn’t believe at first, but it doesn’t appear that they seriously thought His body had gone missing at all.

Especially they wouldn’t have thought that it had been taken by His or their enemies for nefarious purposes - since those enemies were the same ones who took such pains to guard the tomb so that the body WOULDN’T be taken, and who were made to look fools and had to cover their butts when the empty tomb WAS found!

So again, their situation was akin to Mary’s and was an entirely different kettle from ours when we know for fact that His body has been or will be taken in order to be desecrated.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Actually I did get it checked out with my priest. We tested the spirits and they checked out. With all due respect, perhaps your way of thinking is somewhat close minded.

Checking it out with priests is good. But I was referring to a psychologist or a doctor. More than one perspective is always a big help.

 

[Gatell]

For about half a minute, Mary thought the body had POSSIBLY been removed (‘IF you have taken Him …’). In as much as we can have any guess as to her thoughts, one presumes she thought that He had been simply moved to another tomb within the garden. Since she was asking someone she presumed worked there and would have no reason to take the body outright. Possibly she simply thought other of His friends had been before her and moved it - we just dont’ know enough abou her thoughts to say that she was convinced beyond doubt that the body had gone missing.

All in all the episode with Mary - thinking that a body might have been moved, as likely by friends of the deceased as anybody else - is an entirely different beast to knowing for a fact that a body - anyone’s body - has been or will be taken out of mere disrespectful scientific curiosity, or for purposes of display, sale or desecration.

Remember, Mary was a lone woman. NO-ONE else was there at the time to think as she thought - the others, including the other women, all saw the angels who announced His rising, and so knew what had happened. As a lone woman, she naturally would’ve not thought of fighting the armed guards she knew had been there, or even the gardener as a lone man and presumably a fairly healthy and strong one for such physical labour, even if she suspected some abduction. Not because violence would’ve been wrong, but simply because it wouldn’t have worked.

Of course His other ‘friends’ never contemplated violence - simply because it would seem they never for a moment thought that His body had ‘turned up missing’! (What a terrible mangling of English that choice of words is!) The first they heard of the matter was when they were told that He was risen, some of them didn’t believe at first, but it doesn’t appear that they seriously thought His body had gone missing at all.

Especially they wouldn’t have thought that it had been taken by His or their enemies for nefarious purposes - since those enemies were the same ones who took such pains to guard the tomb so that the body WOULDN’T be taken, and who were made to look fools and had to cover their butts when the empty tomb WAS found!

So again, their situation was akin to Mary’s and was an entirely different kettle from ours when we know for fact that His body has been or will be taken in order to be desecrated.

Hi LilyM:

I always thought that the missing Body of Christ had a lot of implications. I agree with your assesment that Mary’s initial reaction was placid due to the logical thinking. I don’t think His disciples would have reacted as calmly, remember the episode int he garden with the sword.

However, the missing body would have posed a very difficult obstacle for the twelve, if indeed they were making the whole thing up (as critics of Christianity often claim). They woudld not have gone about spreading the Gospel so confidently not being sure as to the location of the body. For example, the Romans could have easily quelled the whole movement were they to provide a body at a later time.

Unfortunately, with my apologies to our young Satanist, this is not the place for such discussions. I find it very interesting.

Victor

 

[LilyM]

Hi LilyM:

I always thought that the missing Body of Christ had a lot of implications. I agree with your assesment that Mary’s initial reaction was placid due to the logical thinking. I don’t think His disciples would have reacted as calmly, remember the episode int he garden with the sword.

However, the missing body would have posed a very difficult obstacle for the twelve, if indeed they were making the whole thing up (as critics of Christianity often claim). They woudld not have gone about spreading the Gospel so confidently not being sure as to the location of the body. For example, the Romans could have easily quelled the whole movement were they to provide a body at a later time.

Unfortunately, with my apologies to our young Satanist, this is not the place for such discussions. I find it very interesting.

Victor

As a real-life analogy - last year I went to visit a cemetery. My uncle is buried there, and so (or she had been a decade before when I had last been there) was the mother of a family friend.

I had no problems locating my uncle’s grave. Then I went looking where I remembered my friend’s mother’s grave to have been. Nothing. I looked carefully over all the rows of graves in that section of the cemetery. Nothing.

My first thought was not ‘the body’s gone missing!’ Nor my second, third, fourth or fifth thoughts.

My first thought that either a) I had the location of the grave wrong, and she’d been in, or been moved to, another part of the cemetery altogether or b) her family, none of whom lived in the area, had had her moved to another cemetery (it happens sometimes).

As it happened I didn’t see a staff member anywhere around, but if I had I just would’ve politely asked ‘do you know where So-and-So’s grave is?’ - again, not presuming that any body-snatching had gone on.

If I HAD, on the other hand, seen a staff member who had said ‘oh, her - funny thing, a bunch of Satanists came and asked me if they could take her body, so I’m just about to dig it up for them’, or ‘oh, someone asked me for it because they want to sell it on e-bay’ or something, you can bet there would be extreme if not violent reaction on my part!

And rightly. Desecration of a body is a heinous moral wrong, whether it’s Our Lord’s or anyone else’s - and like I said, the greater the moral wrong the more important to prevent it, and the greater the force that you are entitled to use in its prevention.

 

[Swan]

We can see from the previous posts (indeed, posts all over the forum) that Catholics do not agree on everything. This is natural - yet there seems to be an assumption that anyone on any Left-hand path must believe the same things: namely the mish-mash of stuff Hollywood had dished on the occult. Rosemary’s Baby comes immediately to mind. No one appreciates being told what they believe, or having their comments dismissed, especially by folks who only know superstitious hearsay right out of a horror novel or a B movie. Are there nuts out there who buy into the Black Mass, animal sacrifice nonsense? Sure. There are nuts of every persuasion. But they are, thankfully, a small minority who generally have no idea what they are doing and who quickly lose interest when the devil doesn’t appear before them or they don’t win the lottery.

 

[RubyT]

QUOTE=Imryl;4439996]Now that is a load of rubbish. This sentence smacks of the same errant thinking as the Albigensian heresy. (by it’s nature, all flesh is evil)

Catholics do not believe you must lose (shed, dismiss, ignore)

your desires, or flesh. The human person is as it ought to be. What makes us human is sacred; body, emotion, intellect, and will. “The catch” as it were, is that they must be ordered toward God.

You are way off base with this comment.

If the object of salvation is to ultimately bring human nature into harmony with itself, to bring humans into peace with each other, and also into peace with God… then to deny any of these things is to reject salvation.

Hogwash, to the above quote. Who said that salvation is to ultimately bring human nature into harmony with itself and where in the world did you find that in the Bible. Jesus Himself said we must lose the flesh to gain the Spirit.

The object of salvation is to become closer to God as much as humanly possible that means to shed the flesh and grow in spirit. Has nothing to do with human nature being at peace with humanity. The word Salvation actually means to save ourselves from ourselves - not to become harmonious with ourselves but rather to become harmonious with God. God is not human He is Spirit. God created man in his image this does not mean God is human.

Clearly if you don’t understand this than you know little about the teaching of Jesus. Your rebuttal is rubbish. I stand by what I said and feel sorry for you that you don’t get it. Who told you what Catholics believe ?? You are making up what Catholics believe because that is what you believe. Could you be open minded enough to see the error of your thinking? I am not saying Catholics should lose all their humanly desires; I am saying lose the desires that are not in line with God to grow in Spirit. Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I am saying.