The Satanic Case for Catholicism

Philipp Schumacher, Elevation of the Host (1920),
from a Catholic children’s book.

By now, you’ve might have heard all about this. As I write this,* the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club is hosting a Black Mass (a Satanic mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) performed by the Satanic Temple. They announced that they would be desecrating a consecrated Host during this “service.”

Now the group responsible for the Black Mass, the Satanic Temple, is claiming that they don’t have a Host, because “we respect all religions and don’t want anyone to feel offended. We understand the powerful role that the Eucharist plays in the Christian religion and in no way want to appear as though we don’t respect your traditions.

My first reaction was that this was a perfect image of 21st century academia: they want to perform a Satanic Black Mass without offending anyone. But upon further reflection, it occurs to me that this is a powerful case for Catholicism. Think about it this way:

1. The Eucharist is either Jesus or Evil.

As I pointed out last month, the Eucharist is either Jesus or mere bread and wine. If the Eucharist is Jesus, everyone should be at Mass, worshipping Our Lord. If the Eucharist is Jesus, there should be no such thing as Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, atheism, etc. But if the Eucharist isn’t Jesus, then for two thousand years, the would-be followers of Jesus Christ were actually idolaters. If that’s the case, nobody should be Catholic.

So those are the stakes. Everyone who encountered Jesus of Nazareth was faced with a crucial question: is this God, in some mysterious guise, or not? The early Christians called this “the aut Deus aut malus homo” (“either God or a bad man”). Everyone encountering the Eucharist is faced with the same question: either God or idolatry.

And of course, if the Eucharist is pagan idolatry, it’s demonic. As 1 Corinthians 10:20 says, “what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.” The whole world hangs on this point: is the Eucharist Jesus or an idol? Is the Sacrifice of the Mass being offered to God, or to demons?

2. Satan Hates the Eucharist

Hieronymus Bosch, The Temptation of Saint Anthony, (central panel, detail) (c. 1515)

The satanic Black Mass is a ritual inversion (and mockery) of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed by Satanists. Now, there are two types of Satanists: “LaVey Satanists,” and “theological Satanists.” The Satanic Temple folks behind tonight’s Black Mass are LaVey Satanists. In other words, they’re atheists who don’t believe in Satan, and use “Satanism” as a tool to harass and provoke Christians (unlike“theological Satanists,” who believe in Satan and worship him). This whole thing, like the satanic monument in Oklahoma, is a deliberate provocation and an attention-seeking measure. But whether the practitioners are playing at the occult, or serious, there’s no question that they’re tapping into some seriously dark spiritual forces. Satan is at work here.

And it worth pointing out that when Satanists (of both kind) want to mock a religious ritual, you can bet that it’s going to by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that they target. How often do you hear about Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (or even Protestant) services being subjected to such intense Satanic mockery? 
Nor is this Satanic targeting of the Mass anything new. As far back as the fourth century, St. Epiphanius of Salamis described a sect of Gnosticism performing a perverted mockery of Mass. I won’t go into the details, but it was graphic enough that the members of this sect became known as “Borborians” (“filthy ones”). 
3. Satan Doesn’t Drive Out Satan
So the Eucharist is either Jesus or evil (since if it’s not Jesus, it’s idolatry) and since the devil hates the Eucharist, we can cross “evil” off the list. For some additional Biblical support, consider Matthew 12:22-28:

Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-el′zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Be-el′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

This passage is important: it shows, for example, that Catholic exorcists are operating by the Spirit of God when they drive out demons. But it also means that if Satan hates the Mass, we can be sure that the Mass isn’t evil.
Of course, if the Mass isn’t demonic, if it isn’t idolatry, that really only leaves one option: that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is presenting Jesus to the Father. This (and as far as I can tell, this alone), accounts for the Satanic mockery.

Even if the only thing you knew about Catholicism was that its central form of worship, the Mass, was the target of Satanic ire, you would already have good reason to believe that Catholicism was the true religion. But taken with all of the other evidence for the truth that the Eucharist is Jesus, that the Mass is a Sacrifice instituted by God, and that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, Satan is just one more (unwitting) witness for the truth of Jesus Christ and His Church.

*Update: Good news. See the comments.


  1. Great news: it turns out, there wasn’t a Black Mass going on while I was writing this post. After countless prayers and a Eucharist hour of reparation, the Satanists blinked, and have indefinitely postponed the Black Mass. Deo Gratias! A special thanks to Our Lady for her intercession, and for the innumerable Christians who came together in pray to combat this.

    1. does it matter that the ‘satanists’ are postmodern, theatrical, non-theistic group with no investment in dis/belief? does it matter if “21st century academia”, let alone Harvard (what – administration, faculty, staff?), can’t ‘want’ anything – simply cannot speak for every occurance that is *hosted by* every harvard-affiliated club; while being ‘satanists’ by association – which would make them Baptists, pro-Life, Muslim, pro-Choice, etc, by association – as those groups host theirs as well; so…which are they, “really”? I’m reading the first three sentences apart from your argument.

    2. AOPC,

      I address your first question in the post itself:

      “Now, there are two types of Satanists: “LaVey Satanists,” and “theological Satanists.” The Satanic Temple folks behind tonight’s Black Mass are LaVey Satanists. In other words, they’re atheists who don’t believe in Satan, and use “Satanism” as a tool to harass and provoke Christians (unlike“theological Satanists,” who believe in Satan and worship him). This whole thing, like the satanic monument in Oklahoma, is a deliberate provocation and an attention-seeking measure. But whether the practitioners are playing at the occult, or serious, there’s no question that they’re tapping into some seriously dark spiritual forces. Satan is at work here.”

      As for your second, I said in the post that it was “a perfect image of 21st century academia: they want to perform a Satanic Black Mass without offending anyone. ” By that, I didn’t mean that it was a direct reflection on Harvard’s administration,* but on academia itself: that even self-styled Satanists deliberating mocking and aping religion feel the need to recite the standard disclaimers that they don’t want to offend anyone, and that they respect all religions (when the entire point of their “Satanism” is that they don’t respect religion).



      *As for Harvard’s administration, the president called the proposed Black Mass “abhorrent,” and although she refused to stop it, she did go to a Holy Hour in reparation for it. I imagine that she was unaware of this until the situation blew up under her watch: Harvard is a big and active place.

    3. I would say (with the Wiki piece making the distinctions of ‘satanisms’), ‘ST’ are not even LaVey level. As a ‘deliberate’ provocation’, they fail like protestors who do something profane with something sacred aren’t “art”, compared with some other pretender to aesthetic integrity like Maplethorpe – they’re satire. They will, literally, do ‘whatever’ – NOT “whatever *it takes*” as LaVey, Maplethorpe, et al would likely claim about their doings.

      As a “reflection on academia”, as a university that receives public money, has limits on the public rights they can risk trampling on – as Catholics well know in protesting for/against various acts involving various other publicly-supported settings; she ‘steps in’ and says ‘no’ to something a student club hosts, the noise is just the noise they’re looking for to begin with. Kal v’homer public libraries that host effectively any group meeting that can be accomodated – where of course “our tax dollars” go.

    4. AOPC,

      I’ll stand by my original distinction. My point was simply that they’re playing with seriously dark forces, whether they know it or not.

      As for academia, again, I wasn’t critiquing Harvard’s administration. If your invoking of Harvard’s receipt of public money is a legal argument, it’s totally wrong: the university could easily have refused to host the Black Mass without fear of a loss of public dollars. Harvard is nothing like a public library, legally, and even a public library can have rules restricting what occurs on its property (much less what it chooses to host). If you aren’t attempting legal analysis, and simply mean that they risk bad P.R., that’s fine, but I’m not sure I see what it is in the post that you’re responding to.



  2. I find this argument to be fascinating–I can’t stop thinking about it! God bless you!

    I have to admit that, for better or for worse, one thing that helps me to appreciate the faith better is to contrast it with the evil that is in opposition to it–as you’ve done here. I hope that’s not a bad thing (I have scruples and often second guess myself), but I do have hope because I recognize that (especially in a day and age that tells us not so much that Catholicism is evil as that it’s one option among many) in order to appreciate the Good News, you have to know why it’s Good News, and so you need to acknowledge the bad news. Hence, perhaps, all the sex and violence in Scripture?

    Anyway, thank you very much for this argument! Ever since I returned to the Church I’ve noticed how hated She is by today’s society, but I’m determined not to break–and at least intellectually, I think and hope I can safely say by now that I never will. I welcome your prayers on the rest of it.

    God be with you in your seminary!

    1. Pair O’Dimes,

      Thank you! And it’s good to contrast good from evil, light from darkness: we see it in the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:11-20), the Gospels (e.g., John 3:16-21), the Pauline Epistles (e.g., Galatians 5:19-26), the writings of the early Christians (e.g., the first chapter of the Didache), etc. You’re in good company.

      As for the rest, praise God that you are in a Church that Satan feels determined to destroy.



    2. Thank you very much for your reply! I thought so–indeed, I’m now contrasting the national curses we see in Scripture with the corresponding blessings.

      I do praise God, and thank Him. I’m still not where I need to be but I was in a much worse state before I came back.

  3. Hi Joe, great article as always. Glad that the Holy Spirit softened their hearts.

    Joe, if you can, may you please write an article on Mary, the Queen of Heaven? I am asking because passages such as Jeremiah chapters 7 and 44 are bought against us. Plus, I never saw any article from you that deals with this topic.


    1. I’ve written somewhat on this topic:

      Does the fact that some people once worshipped a pagan “Queen of Heaven” automatically mean that Mary can’t be Queen of Heaven? Over the course of history, many people have claimed to be God or the Son of God. Does that therefore automatically invalidate Jesus’ own divine claim? Of course not! It invalidates Jesus’ claim no more than the existence of counterfeit money invalidates the real deal. The same is true for Mary as Queen of Heaven.

    2. Here are some other quotes to bring up:

      “Indeed thus says the Lord GOD: I am bringing up against Tyre from the north, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with cavalry,
      and a mighty horde of troops”

      “How you have fallen from the heavens, O Morning Star, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who conquered nations! In your heart you said: “I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my throne; I will take my seat on the Mount of Assembly, on the heights of Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!” No! Down to Sheol you will be brought to the depths of the pit!”

      Do they therefore worship this kings because they worship the King of Kings and the Bright Morning Star?

  4. I don’t think that some media-hungry “satanists” make up a good reason to believe that Catholicism is the one, true religion. As you may know, lots of Protestant churches also believe in the actual presence of Christ in the Communion/Eucharist. We simply don’t claim to know “how” He is present, which is rather unnecessary speculation if you ask me.

    1. Andreas,

      Would it make a difference if we were dealing with a Black Mass done by “real” (theological) Satanists? Or if were dealing with the cases that I alluded to above, where the Mass is being mimicked and mocked by Gnostics, instead?

      I don’t see how the question of “how” could possibly be unnecessary speculation. I mean, obviously, there’s a degree that you can leave to mystery. But doesn’t it make a universe of difference to know whether or not to worship the Eucharist? I don’t see how you could possibly call it “unnecessary speculation” to determined whether Eucharistic adoration is worship of the true God or idolatry. It seems to me to be infinitely more important than nearly any of the other reasons dividing Protestants from Catholics.



    2. Andreas,

      If you mean that the term Transubstantiation oversteps our intellectual capacities and draws unwarranted conclusions about realities that we could not possibly know, then I’m afraid you are giving it too much credit. Substance a basic category of how to describe what things are, which is articulated by philosophy and relied on by everyone else for basically everything. But we do not actually know substances first hand, but only through how they appear. There’s no curtailment of the mystery of Christ’s presence by saying that what this bread and wine was has changed; what it is, is now different. Similar to the term “Trinity”: by no means does that exhaust the reality it points to, but simply gives us a faulty sign post to use so that we are all referencing the same transcendent persons.


    3. I had the same reaction as Andreas to this post. This Protestant church believes in the real presence (page 37) and even calls it Mass (page 40). If you doubt this, then please feel free to read the official teaching on this topic, which can be found here How can the Roman church be the true church based upon the real presence and the Mass if other churches also believe and hold such things in faith?

    4. Rev. Hans,

      So what’s your view on Catholics worshipping the Eucharist? And on the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Mass? When I kneel in adoration before the Host, is that Jesus in front of me that I’m worshipping? When the priest presents the Host, along with the prayers of the faithful, to the Father, is this idolatry or the re-presentation of the Son to the Father? Or do you take some third position?



    5. Joe, you are taking it in a different direction than I intended. Your post made a claim of exclusivity to the Roman church for the mass and for the real presence. Other churches believe in the real presence and in the mass. If you believe that Christ is present, then I trust you and take you on your word of faith.

      “Don’t put words in my mouth…unless those words are Pizza and Beer!”

    6. Rev. Hans,

      I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just draw out what your position is. My argument is that Catholics are either right or wrong in their Eucharistic views and praxis, and this is an enormous difference… And that Satanic Black Masses give us a good sense of whether Catholics are right or wrong here. The fact that Lutherans and others have something they call “Masses” or the “Real Presence” (while meaning totally different things by those terms) strikes me as irrelevant. Even if Christ is spiritually present in a Lutheran worship service, it doesn’t tell us whether the Catholic Mass (the one being mocked by Satan) is worship of God or of idols.



    7. Dear Joe, the Eucharist in its exact form belongs exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church.due to the words of consecration and apostolic succession. The real question we should ask Rev Hans is whether he thinks Salvation belongs exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Does he believe that God is present all the time? We Catholics do! Can we find God in all things, We Catholics can! Does he need to call himself a Catholic if he believes in all these things? No. Is he a true Catholic? Yes! He is indeed wrong to call us the Roman Church where in fact we are called the Roman Catholic Church. Am very curious to know where his church was when the Holy Roman Catholic Church was established? Similarly there would not be Atheism if God does not exist. If Atheists do not believe in God, why bother to be against the concept of God? Lets not try to make public what is something private and personal. Let each man make his own choice and respect what the other chooses without judging who is right or wrong. It is pointless to argue on such things as it takes us away from our mission which is to make disciples of all nations. Aren’t we all falling into the trap of satan? every minute spent on such divisive talk is one minute spent less on evangelizing.

  5. Hi Andreas,

    Belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist is really the only intellectually honest way to read Sacred Scripture and understand 2000 years of Christian teaching and tradition. The problem then becomes who is authorized to consecrate the bread and wine? We know that not all bread and wine is already consecrated and that this needs to be done by an authorized priest, as an authorized priestly offering. Can any one make this authorized offering? Absolutely not. Some 10 year old kid has no claim to making the Sacred offering in his moms basement. Also, no other faction (other than the Catholic Church) no matter how well organized has this right either. So who has this authority? Well we again can look to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Everything had to be handed down by someone appointed by an apostle.

    Act 1:20-26

    20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate,
    and let there be no one to live in it’; and
    ‘His office let another take.’ 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

    So scripture doesn’t tell us whether Barsabbas tries to or not, but Barsabbas doesn’t then get to go start his own church.

    John 17:21
    John 10:1-2
    2 Tim 2:1-2

    There is only one church that meets all of scripture and Christ’s demands. “Well what if The Church went afoul?” Well then that would make Jesus Christ a liar.

    Matthew 16:18-19

    And if He were a liar then we could just throw all of this away, but we know He is the Christ.

    So this represents a big problem if one isn’t in The Church. This is why Evangelical Protestants try with all of their might to discredit the Real Presence. They realize that if the Real Presence is true then they’d have to be Catholic. God bless Andreas! That was a good point you made.

  6. I think your argument is a very interesting one (and I mean that in a genuinely complimentary way), but I think it is either spurious or superfluous. Either the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, or the conclusion does follow from the premises but it becomes unnecessary.

    I’m speaking as an Anglican-ish protestant (long story). My view on the Eucharist is that the presence of God is in there in some mysterious way, a way that might be transubstantiation or might not be. It seems like there is an unstated premise in your argument that if the Eucharist is Jesus, the Catholic church is correct, and that doesn’t seem to follow.

    Now it could be that my whole worldview is historically indefensible or something, I’m open to that argument. But if you can prove the truth of the Catholic church through a historical argument, you don’t need the point about black mass and Satan hating the Eucharist to show the truth of Catholicism.

    Am I misunderstanding something?

    1. Tim,

      Thanks for engaging the argument, and I think that you’re right to an extent: proving that the Eucharist really is Jesus, and that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really is offered to the Father (and is pleasing to Him, to the dismay of Satan), gets us 99% of the way there. As I said in the post, it shows that “there should be no such thing as Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, atheism, etc.”

      That leaves the question of Orthodoxy and perhaps Anglo-Catholicism. Let’s consider each in turn.

      Orthodoxy: the Eastern Orthodox still have valid Eucharist, and still offer a valid Eucharistic Sacrifice, so merely proving the truth of transubstantiation doesn’t prove or disprove Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Catholicism. That said, there are Orthodox who deny the existence of the Catholic Mass (either because we use unleavened bread [the so-called azymes controversy], or because they think our priests are heretics for not going into schism from the pope). The fact that Satanists mock the Mass, not the Divine Liturgy, would seem to disprove that extreme position. (None of this, of course, is to deny that the Divine Liturgy is as valid as the Mass.)

      Anglo-Catholicism: the situation with Anglo-Catholics is stranger. Many of them declare a belief in transubstantiation (or at least an agnosticism on whether or not transubstantiation is true). But you can’t have the Eucharistic Sacrifice without a valid priesthood, and you can’t have a valid priesthood without Apostolic Succession.

      The Anglican communion quite deliberately cut off that succession. Article 28 of the 39 Articles says “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Instead of ordaining priests, the decision was made to ordain mere ministers instead. Once severed in this way, there simply ceased to be that Apostolic lineage necessary for the priesthood, and in turn necessary for the Eucharist.

      At the very least, perhaps we could put it in probabilistic terms. What the original post shows is that the Mass of the ages is a Sacrifice pleasing to God. An Anglo-Catholic, as I understand it, wouldn’t actually deny this. But that puts his own position into serious question, because we Catholics would deny the Anglo-Catholic’s ability to offer such a Eucharistic Sacrifice. So Anglo-Catholicism, in comparison to Catholicism, is at best a gamble: perhaps there are valid orders, perhaps Christ is fine with the “Branch Theory” rather than what He called for in John 20:17-21, etc.

      I hope that blunt assessment doesn’t seem needlessly harsh: I really like Anglo-Catholicism, and agree with Tom about it being a healthy staging ground for later Catholic converts. But intellectually, I think it’s ultimately unsustainable.



    2. Joe
      Thanks for the knowledge and clearing up my complete disregard for addressing Orthodoxy, the Divine Liturgy and the Mass. Although to be honest I am glad you did, because I certainly wouldn’t have done it justice as you always do.

  7. Hi Tim

    I tried to address your point to an extent above. Does that help at all? I know there are volumes more that can be written and I am sure that Joe, and many others can do so much more extensively than myself. Also, there are many other posts on this website which help on this issue, but (I don’t want to speak for Joe) the current events of the satanic temple do provide an interesting perspective on the topic in general, but in no way is this the resting foundation of why the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ. Once again, there is only authorization from Christ, then his Apostles, then anyone lawfully appointed for succession….aka Matthias and…Pope Francis. Anything else is against reason (for a house cannot stand if divided amongst itself), and a claim to be able to have this authority which rises after 1500 or 1600 years doesn’t make sense.

    1. By the way, some amazing converts have come from Anglicanism who started to realize exactly this point and wound up being some of the most profound contributors of Catholic theology.

  8. My two pieces of circular-shaped copper:

    These attention-whores would run at full speed back home, jumping over any obstacle in their path, crawl back into their beds, hide under the covers, stick their thumbs into their mouths, and weep tears of disgustingly-pure fear while crying for the embrace of their mothers if they ever came in contact with genuine satanists.

    “disgustingly-pure” — There’s really no descriptors in any language that can fully capture the feeling; It’s in a category all its own.

    You know that feeling when you fully understand, and appreciate the Eucharist and what it is?

    It’s the polar-opposite of that.

    The Eucharist looks like a simple cracker, one of probably hundreds of millions around the globe at any given moment, no more, no less, but you KNOW that beyond what you can see and taste is something wonderful and amazing, and you want it.

    Now on the other side: Imagine being hungry, starving, no food in days, nothing to drink. You’re totally alone in scorching hot desert. You’re almost insane with hunger. As the madness almost overtakes you and you’re about to collapse and become food for scorpions, you come over a sand-dune and see a magnificent palace, right in the middle of the desert. You don’t know if you’ve really gone insane, or if this is really happening. You walk through the green gardens, overflowing with beautiful plants and flowers, there’s the sound of running water in the background. You open the doors and before you is a table full of delicious food. You pick up a piece of food, and bite into it, and you see under the surface that it’s totally rotten, with maggots and worms and mold. You don’t mind, because what’s even worse, is that the food tastes fantastic! There’s a slight “under-taste” of the disgusting part, it’s there, you know it, but you can ignore it with a smile, and you want more of this food despite what it really is. Those worms, maggots, and mold from this food will enter into you and get to work on you. You’ll sit down at that table of rotting food, and never want to leave.

    And that description doesn’t even come close to the feeling, but it’s a start. It’s a balancing-act somewhere between sanity and madness, and below you is a dark, silent abyss that is urging you down.

    These “LaVey Satanists” are a joke. They want the attention. They just want to be counter-cultural and make people uncomfortable. They care more for LaVey than for Satan. “Let’s piss off these Catholics!” is their motto.

    The ones you really want to look out for are NOT “LaVey Satanists”. “LaVey Satanists” don’t really know or care what they are doing. Genuine Satanists know exactly what they are doing, and they’re all the more dangerous because of that fact.

    We should pray for these “Satanists” who wanted to perform a black mass, they need it the most.

  9. It still happened by the way, albeit in a characteristically medieval way: in a facility which they were not given permission to use for this purpose (Hong Kong Lounge), and in a sparsely-attended manner. Also, if one looks up more about this group, I think they are actually anti-LaVeyan, as they say they value compassion. One can actually make another blog post about how one can make a Greaves-Satanic case for Catholicism along these lines.

  10. This is a fine article! Well-themed! Very skillful how you propose the unavoidable choice–true worship or idolatry, good or evil, God or lunatic–and then use the hatred of Satanists for the Holy Mass and the reference to the divided kingdom to support your belief that Christ is God.
    A great many secularists are paid millions of dollars to write with much less skill. (Perhaps more proof that Satan imitates God, in this case by offering his own “blessings”, which only serve to corrupt and degrade further.)

  11. Satanism is dangerous.
    Comes to my mind a case of the seventeenth century, that of the French noblewoman Catherine Deshayes, widow of Montvoisin, known as La Voisin(1640-1680). did she celebrate black masses. In these black masses also collaborated Abbot Guilbourg. these celebrated black masses, wearing a hanging depicted with pine cones and using the black belly of a naked woman as an altar. He used the hosts (perhaps consecrated) and, during the celebration sacrilegious , slaughtering a newborn baby, who was brought there. ‘s blood was placed in a cup. was clearly the desecration of the Eucharist.La Voisin had a key role in these masses, as was also occult practices. Satanism today has become a dangerous problem. With the spiritual crisis that is there and with the use of internet has made ​​this danger is real. We have to be careful and be united in this fight.

  12. Hi M, Catholicism, as proved by objective history, is the Origional Christianity. All other Christian groups are off-shoots of Catholicism (or off-shoots of off-shoots of Catholicism).

    I would recommend for further answers to what I am sure is a mirad of questions.

    God Bless,
    PoorKnight for Christ and His Church

  13. With respect, I think you’re overdoing the “the Eucharist is either Jesus or evil” thing.

    The Eucharist or communion is taken to honour Christ and partake in his sacrifice. That stands regardless of how Jesus is understood to be present in the taking of bread and wine. Even if there was some error in that understanding, the fact it is done to honour Christ covers that misunderstanding. Nonetheless, as others have pointed out, while perhaps there is some disagreement in exactly how Jesus is present in the Eucharist, most non-Catholic denominations also agree that in taking the bread and wine we are, in some sense, partaking in the body and blood of Christ.

    It is that degradation of the communion that non-Catholic Christians also find offensive in these pseudo-Satanists. I myself find them quite ridiculous, children playing games with things far above their comprehension.

  14. First The Satanic Temple is not comprised of “LeVey Satanists” If you look into it you will find Peter Gilmore, the current leader of The Church of Satan does not like the actions of The Satanic Temple. He, like you, thinks that it’s all for attention or just because we just wanted to mess with religious people for fun. That isn’t the case. There is a clear favoritism for the Christian religion represented by the 10 commandments at the OK state capitol. That shouldn’t be okay with anyone. Would you be comfortable if there was a monument to guys named Ted? Wouldn’t guys named Ted feel a little different and be treated a little different in a building representing guys named Ted? I know this is too complicated for most of you but really it shouldn’t be that tough to grasp. Religion isn’t needed in a government that represents and works for everyone. It’s just asking for trouble. If someone wants to invite that trouble by putting up a monument to a certain type of belief system then they should be called on it. You should have learned about this part in kindergarten, share. If you can’t bring enough for everyone then don’t bring any cause if you leave someone out then they aren’t going to feel like they are part of the group and they likely won’t be treated as part either. So if OK doesn’t have enough space/tolerance for everyone to be represented then no one should be. See? It’s easy if you try. The black mass thing is just stupid. Since when do we not allow reenactments? You said “They announced that they would be desecrating a consecrated Host during this “service.” That is a total fabrication as anyone who follows the link can see. The author is posting gossip and assumptions. I know for a fact it was never a claim made by The Satanic Temple. Between this fact and the event was no different than actors performing in a movie you have blown this way out of proportion. I won’t even bring up the fact that it took 12 years for the pope to form a task force looking into abuses by the Catholic Church and no one was signing petitions and marching over that. Those actions caused real harm to people but no one is offended by the lack of action? Instead we get a demonstration of how a large number of people have not managed to progress from the same type of thinking used 2000 years ago. Really is sad to see.

  15. Joe,

    Very interesting argument, and one I’ve been thinking about since you first posted it. I’m in the process of returning to the Catholic Church after being away for 20 years (I’m 31 now), with most of that time spent in two Southern Baptist churches. When I tell my church friends about my decision, the reaction is fairly typical: they think I’m regressing, to say the least, in my spiritual life.

    Which got me wondering: would it be fair to say that the same spirit behind the black mass could possibly be behind those churches that oppose the Catholic Church? Because now that I’m becoming Catholic, I’m paying attention more to what the world says about the church, and much isn’t very positive. And then I hear the same thing coming from Protestantism, or some thing very similar, and wonder if both come from the same source.

    What do you think? I don’t want to paint a broad brush or anything as to people’s motives, as I’m sure much is due to ignorance, but wouldn’t we kind of expect something like this to happen if Catholicism is the true church?

  16. It’s an interesting argument, but there is nothing proven here other than Satanism (as a specific denomination of devil worship) being an inversion of Catholicism, thus their interest in profaning the Eucharist and other specifically Catholic images and sacramentals. Catholics do not have a monopoly on the concept of battling demonic entities though. The reality of demons including the need for exorcism is something found all over the world in many religious traditions, including Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, animist traditions, and so forth. Even within Christianity exorcism is performed by protestants as well as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. If a Buddhist monk drives out a demon, does that mean Satan is being driven out by Satan? Likewise with an Imam or a Shinto priest? For a basic overview of the topic, this is a good source:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *