Talk:Black Mass

How to add the cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.249.171.76 (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Protection due to high risk of vandalism by christians

Request for Protection for Black Mass due to high risk of vandalism by christians http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.17.112 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

More accurate information?

Unfortunately I can't state a source, maybe someone can look up the appropriate sites and compile a more Wiki-suitable article.

But from what I read/heard from Satanists before is that Black Mass isn't so much a deliberately evil thing (ie. no orgies). But rather a deliberately hosted defilement. It's usually done for the benefit of those quitting from Christianity, the concept is that they basically do the diametric opposite of a Christian mass, blaspheming and breaking every rule in the bible as a means of giving self confidence to the departing Christians. A way of beating their fear of god so to speak by staring into the source of that fear, and showing to themselves they have nothing to fear from it.

I don't doubt some satanism religions who're in it for shock value may well have orgies, blood sacrifices and whatnot, but I know of at least one satanist group who uses it as outlined above, in a far less "evil" way. --88.12.182.253 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my oppinion here, but this just doesn't seem like anything a Satanist would do. I know for a fact that the Church of Satan doesn't do these, except when a few independent members organise one as a prank. It seems, if anything, more like a Traditional Luciferian ritual, or possibly (though it seems unlikely) a Setian Satanic ritual, which can HARDLY be considered "satanic" since Set worshippers are so different from Modern and Philosophical Satanists. Either way, If I'm right about this, I think someone should change it. I looked through both "sources" and found no evidence either way. – — … ° ≈ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Lettuceclock: --Lettuceclock 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Chicken Nugget!

The Church of Satan performed them in their early days, partly for shock and mental liberation, though they soon got past them and organized newer and bigger rituals. Some still do though its not as widespread. WerewolfSatanist 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dubious history

Surprising as it may seem, in spite of the huge amount of French literature discussing the Black Mass (Messe Noire) at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s, no authentic Black Mass or set of instructions for performing one existed until the 1960s, and appeared not in France, but in the United States.

It is not at all clear to me that this is the case. Most of the rituals that I've seen described as "Black Masses" (with elements such as a spat-upon wafer, a naked "altar", and various forms of ritual sex) are mightily similar to Crowley's Liber LXVI. That was published in 1912 in The Equinox, and clearly refers to earlier writings, since in order to decipher it, the reader must be already acquainted with the notion. --FOo 07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the books mentioned for references? No one who has actually researched and written about the Black Mass (Cavendish, Rhodes, Zacharias - or LaVey or Melech for that matter) mentions much besides the French sources - and their research and sources are extensive. It is very doubtful that they missed something. Who else besides French Roman Catholics wrote so much about an inverted form of the Latin Roman Catholic Mass - a "Messe Noire", "Missa Nigra", or "Black Mass" - which took the Roman Latin rite word for word and inverted it to Latin phrases which said the opposite of their original intention? An actual document of this type of inverted Latin, Roman rite, did not begin to appear in any extent until the 1960s. Jimhoward72 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused by your response. The only point that I am disputing is specifically the claim that "no authentic Black Mass or set of instructions for performing one existed until the 1960s".

The claim is contradicted by other points below it in the article; specifically "The two Church of Satan Black Masses also use the French text of the Black Mass in Huysmans' "La Bas" to a great extent."

However even if Huysmans (and other sources, such as de Sade) are considered to have described a Black Mass in fiction rather than given instructions for it, Crowley's 1912 Liber LXVI is specifically a coded set of instructions for a ritual which closely matches the lore or motif of the Black Mass. --FOo 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to actually look at the sources, and the research done. It's also important to desribe what a "Black Mass" is - historically, it is described as an inversion of the Latin, Roman catholic Mass, for parody, blasphemy, or other reasons. This implies that it is in Latin, and follows the wording and instructions of the Roman Catholic mass somewhat closely (albeit, in a distorted or "inverted" way). Huysmans' "Black Mass" "liturgy" (in Ch 19 of La Bas) is actually a long *French* text, which is not similar to the Roman Mass, but instead resembles French poets like Baudelaire - who damn Jesus and praise Satan. LaVey and West used some of Husymans' material, Coven and "Aubrey Melech" did not. Aubrey Melech's material (in Latin) actually comes closest to a word for word inversion of the Latin Roman Rite and ceremony. No actual Latin Black mass that actually followed the Roman Rite, and had substantial amounts of Latin in it, (in imitation of the Roman Rite), existed until the 1960s. If you take Wayne West's "Missa Solemnis" (1970) for example, and put it side by side with the Roman Rite, you will see that it matches up very closely - the actual *liturgy* and order of prayers is similar. This is similar to what the Black Mass has historically been described as - an inversion of the Latin Roman rite. And the vast amount of literature that actually described or mentioned it, comes from France (however, without detailed instructions - just literature or sensational descriptions, as in De Sade, Huysmans, or newspaper articles). This can be seen by looking in the bibliographies of the books I mentioned - the source material for their discussions of the history of the Black Mass comes almost entirely from France, and is written from a Roman Catholic background.Jimhoward72 09:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're getting at (I think). A few thoughts:

Black Mass as text vs. Black Mass as ritual. If by "a Black Mass" we mean a text based closely on the text of the Latin (Tridentine presumably?) Mass, then we come up with different set of works than if by "a Black Mass" we mean a magickal ritual with certain components and motifs. Liber LXVI is clearly not in the first set, but is the second set.

Recently written Latin text vs. fictional French (or other) texts. It is probably more accurate to say that the 20th-century Latin texts are (or may be) the only extant Latin Black Masses, rather than declaring definitively that they are the only ones that have ever existed. After all, if the Black Mass originated in actual occult practice rather than in French fiction, it was presumably first done in Latin ... since prior to the 20th century, all Masses of the Roman rite were performed in Latin.

It is important that we (Wikipedia) should not make the claim that only a Latin Black Mass is a real Black Mass. That would be original research, after all. After all, the Catholic Church itself performs its Masses in the vernacular these days; it's somewhat illustrative of the conservatism of some Satanists that as the Catholics were moving away from Latin, the Satanists were writing new Black Masses in Latin. :) --FOo 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be an additional section on this page discussing the possibilities you mention. For example, a section about "The Debate on the Origins of Modern Satanism and Black Masses", or something similar. When Rhodes wrote his book on the "Satanic Mass", he could not find an original source by a "Satanist" group that actually performed a "Black Mass". A lot of the arguments of "Traditional Satanists" is that LaVey's Church of Satan cannot claim to represent all of Satanism, as Satanist groups existed before LaVey. However, if they claim this, they have to demonstrate it, thus resulting in the debate. There is also a debate whether there were authentic Black Masses before the 1960s. (And also, there may be a debate on whether or not LaVey's and Melech's Black Masses existed prior to them, or if they wrote them themselves). The Catholic Church did not abandon the Latin Rite until the middle of the 1960s, thus any Black Masses that appeared or were discussed in literature up to that time, were assumed to be in Latin (and have the traditional defrocked Catholic priest, naked woman on altar, black candles, etc - this is the traditional depiction in literature). All these topics maybe could be discussed in a new section, or even a "criticism" section.Jimhoward72 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Associated Concepts"

I am removing "Objectivism" from the "concepts associated with" Satanism. Presumably its inclusion was a joke, or perhaps it reflects some LeVey rhetoric about libertarianism. In any case, it's silly. As anti-supernaturalists, Objectivists neither worship Satan nor waste their time desecrating hosts. Equally bonkers is the link to Spencer's notion of The Survival of the Fittest. Presumably this is really just a redundant reference to the Ragnar Redbeard book "Might Makes Right," which uses the phrase as a subtitle. But the usual and Spencerian sense of the term is not associated with Satanism even if some Satanists make use of the phrase. (Satanists also recognize the law of gravity, supply and demand, and many other commonplace notions that are not therefore commutatively "associated with Satanism.") Finally, the concept "Might Makes Right" exists independently of Satanism and is of much greater scope; what someone intended here was to reference the concepts in one book by that name, which should be made clear in the link label. Cleaning all this up now.

Later: okay, I have now learned a little more about the structure of Wikipedia, but not enough. What I called a sidebar is an infobox, perhaps associated with the Satanism page, which has a similar embarrassing overemphasis on LeVey; and I still haven't figured out how to track it to the place where I can edit it. I will remove the whole of this comment when I can find the right place to put it; if it is still here in a week, feel free to kill it yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Latin

I have a degree in Classical Civilisation. You can also see my talk page the responses where I'd asked two people who know their Latin and Classics, some with post graduate qualifications in it, what the correct term is. See Latin nouns. If you are addressing Satan, as in Hail Satan! -Ave Satana you need to use the vocative case, which, even if you use the Greek-derived endings as in Vade retro satana, is as in that example, Satana. I think those in Mediaeval times would know how to say it with those endings.:) The reason this is not the same as the phrase in Matthew 4.10 is because Latin verbs have declension. This is explained well here [1] which might be basic-looking page, but is useful. The reason it's different in Matthew is because of its place in the sentence/idea. It might happen to say 'vade satanas'- those two words together- but the sentence is "tunc dicit ei Iesus vade Satanas scriptum est Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies" I think, although you'd have to ask someone with better knowledge of Latin to be sure, that it's because it is in indirect speech [2] that the form is different here. "Then Jesus said to him, go away Satan".[3] You see it is Matthew reporting what Jesus said, rather than someone actually saying it themselves, which would be in the vocative as with Vade retro satana. Merkin's mum 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your version said, the Vulgate said "Ave, Satan", which is clearly nonsense. If you want to take issue that these Satanist writers made a grammatical error by copying Matthew 4 and should have used the above expression instead, please make your point clearly. Errors by other people are hardly relevant here. Deposuit (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a degree in Classical Civilisation is not the relevant issue. The issue is that LaVey clearly states (as does Melech), that their sources are Medieval Church Latin, specifically the Roman Missal and the Vulgate. The Vulgate has for Matthew 4:10: tunc dicit ei Iesus vade Satanas scriptum est Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies. You linked to the English translation, which is not accurate. You should have linked to the Vulgate original, which is the topic of discussion in the article. In the New Testament Vulgate, Satan is declined this way:

Nominative: Satanas

Genative: Satanae

Dative: Satanae

Accusative: Satanan

Ablative: Satana

Vocative: Satanas

The Vulgate is available online, and searchable, so this is easily verifiable. There are other Middle Age examples of "Vade Satanas". You can find it in the Carmina Burana, for example. The reason that "vade retro satana" exists, Mark 8:33: vade retro me, satana, is because Jesus is talking to Peter, and calling him "a satan". When talking to Satan directly, (as in Mat 4:10), Jesus says "Vade, Satanas". That, in fact, is the only place where Satan is spoken to directly in the New Testament, hence, the only case of the Vocative "Satanas".Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The link you supplied, which supposedly explains the vocative of Latin, only shows the author's ignorance of Medieval Latin and the Vulgate in particular. According to him, there is no Latin form such as "Satanas". Once, again, LaVey clearly states that his sources are from Church Latin. A search of the Latin Vulgate will turn up numerous instances of "Satanas", including the case when Jesus speaks to him in Mat 4:10. "Satanas" is found twice in Matthew, and "Satanan" is found once: Book of Matthew Here is another example, from the Medieval Carmina Burana, "Vade retro, Sathanas, quia non sapis ea que sapiunt nummi" and also another spelling "Vade retro, Satanas, quia non sapis ea que sapiunt nummi". Google searchJimhoward72 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, that LaVey, Melech, or the Church of Satan in general, never decline Satan. They just use "Satanas" as the name for Satan, and even in their Latin texts, where Satan should be declined, they leave it as "Satanas". That is not so important, they can choose not to decline it if they want (just as the Old Testament Vulgate, as opposed to the New Testament Vulgate, doesn't decline "Satan"). But any way you look at it, the phrase "Ave Satanas" is correct Vulgate and Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And if you are going to try to explain "Satanas" in Mat 4:10 as "indirect speech", then you have to explain Satan's words in Mat 4:9 - "et dixit illi haec tibi omnia dabo si cadens adoraveris me" - as "indirect speech". Clearly, this explanation doesn't work, and "Vade, Satanas" indicates that "Satanas" is the vocative.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a moment here; you have clearly misunderstood the translation of Vade Satanas in Mark 8:33. Jesus is addressing Peter here, not Satan, and he is calling Peter "a deceiver" which is precisely what the Hebrew word Satan means. In that context it can be declined. When using the word Satan to refer to the Satan then as a Hebrew name it is not declined. The phrase Ave Satan is therefore correct (i.e. 'Hail Satan', not 'Hail a deceiver'). Coldmachine^Talk 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, as far as it concerns the article the matter is simple: provide a published source that takes LaVey to task for his grammatical mistake and we will include it. If not, it is OR and stays out - regardless of whether your observation is correct or not. There is no harm in leaving it out as it is not very relevant to the topic. Especially if either by ignorance or carelessness, such nonsense like "Vulgate says Ave, Satan" enters the article. BTW, Satan does not mean "deceiver" but "opponent", "enemy". Deposuit (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then in that case this entire paragraph The Latin of Melech and LaVey is based on the Roman Catholic Latin Missal, reworded so as to give it a Satanic meaning. There are some errors due to typographical and grammatical errors. The French sections that LaVey published were quotations from Huysmans' La Bas. Both Black Masses end with the expression "Ave, Satanas!", a reversal of Jesus' statement to Satan in the Latin Vulgate Bible, "Vade, Satanas!" (Matthew 4:10) constitutes WP:OR and should be removed. There are no sources cited to verify the opening sentence, the second sentence on grammatical and typographical errors stands unsupported since attempts to clarify this, with what we have been discussing here, are reverted, and only the last sentence is "directly related to the topic of the article". I'll therefore tag for now, and remove later, if this is not corrected. BTW, I only have a Bachelors and a Masters degree from Oxford in Literae Humaniores so excuse my lack of knowledge when it comes to Satanic practices and Hebrew. Coldmachine^Talk 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ave Satanas is the correct vocative, as I already clarified above. Your saying that "When using the word Satan to refer to the Satan then as a Hebrew name it is not declined" is absurd. You made that up, just as you made up that "Satan" is not declined in the Vulgate. And the vocative is "Satanas". There is no "Satan" declension by itself in the New Testament Vulgate, It has nothing to do with Hebrew - "Satanas" is following the Latin declension for foreign words. You seem to think that your Bachelors and Masters is supposed to give you the authority to lie about historical truth. And what do you require for sources verifying the opening sentence? The sources are two - the Latin Lavey published, and the Latin Roman Missal. Both are available online - and any scholar (or intelligent person) can compare them and see that the Latin Lavey published came straight from the Roman Mass - beginning with the words "In nomine ... introibo ad altare .... et cetera". Your asking for proof is like asking someone to provide sources to verify that the White House is actually white. If you were competent in your field, you would admit when you were wrong, as anyone can see that you are by what you have posted so far (ie. "Satan is not declined in the Vulgate", "Satan as a name is not declined", "Satanas" is not a correct vocative") - any one who can read the Latin Vulgate will see that you have been wrong in your arguments. It's unfortunate that pseudo-scholars like yourself try to damage valid Wikipedia articles. Jimhoward72 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with reliable sources being used to verify the claims made in this article, and my citation request tagging in the article - which, I hasten to add is the only editing I have performed to the article proper despite your erroneous claims elsewhere - is entirely appropriate. A sentence which reads "there are some errors due to typographical and grammatical errors" requires a source. A sentence which reads that "the Latin of Melech and LaVey is based on the Roman Catholic Latin Missal reworded so as to give it a Satanic meaning' also requires a source. And so on. It's irrelevant as to whether an expert in the field of Satanism feels these are 'known facts': you cannot assume that knowledge is held by everyone. If sources aren't cited, the content risks being removed. Furthermore, I am asking that you refactor your comments about my scholarly abilities and background, by apologising and striking them through: these constitute a personal attack. Comment on content, not contributor. Coldmachine^Talk 08:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you made a personal attack about me, see my comments here [[4]]. I'm going to have to ask that you retract those untrue, disruptive statements personally attacking my motives for editing the Ave_Satanas article. I clearly did not write it in response to you, I wrote most of it in February. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimhoward72 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not falling for the bait. The opening section on Talk:Ave Satanas where you list the declensions of Satin in the Vulgate makes it more than apparent you edited that article to prove a point. Keep on topic here. I again repeat my own request for you to strike out your comments regarding my scholarly abilities and intelligence. Coldmachine^Talk 07:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic, and personal attacks aside, I think perhaps I've been misunderstood so my apologies for that:

• I did not suggest that Vulgate doesn't decline the Hebrew name Satan; I said that it was a grammatical error which LaVey, basing his own work on the Vulgate, has continued to perpetrate.
• There's a sentence in the article which lies unsupported by clarification on this very point; this is why it's relevant: "The Latin of Melech and LaVey is based on the Roman Catholic Latin Missal, reworded so as to give it a Satanic meaning. There are some errors due to typographical and grammatical errors."
• Here are some easily accessible sources available online which might be used for citations:

"Hebrew names are not declined, and are better written without accents" (Russell, 1991:246)
- Russell, D. A. (1991). An anthology of Greek prose, Oxford: OUP.
"Hebrew names are frequently not declined" (Russell, 1990:226).
- Russell, D. A. (1990). An anthology of Latin prose, Oxford: OUP.
"Most Hebrew names are not declined" (Harrington, Pucci & Elliott, 1962:16)
- Harrington, K. P., Pucci, J. M. & Elliott, A. G. (1962). Medieval Latin, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

These sources are just those I found by doing a very simple Google search, since they're available online and therefore accessible for anyone to see regardless of whether they may be a subject expert or not. And finally, I again repeat my request for you to withdraw your insults, apologise for them, and strike them out on the talk page. Coldmachine^Talk 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made a mistake - I confused you with the user User:Merkinsmum who initially edited the article (who, apparently, like you, is claiming that their Batchelors/Masters in some topic other than Latin - irrelevant to the article, true - allows them to make incorrect claims about Ecclesiastical Latin grammar - correct?), claiming that LaVey's Latin term Ave Satanas was a Latin grammar mistake. When I have enough time to weed through this discussion, I may be able to correct my errors. Now, if you are going to fairly analyze what we have been discussing, you cannot continue to say that "Ave, Satanas" is a grammatical error. A similar usage, "Vade Satanas", (Satanas in the vocative), is found in the Vulgate, the Nova Vulgata (recently produced by the Latin experts at the Vatican), and in the section in the Carmina Burana which I mentioned (and there are more sources). Thus, I am giving correct, validated Latin quotes of why "Ave Satanas" cannot be termed a "grammatical error" - it is not, no matter how you look at it. This long-winded discussion could have been avoided if you would have stuck to the Latin question and looked at direct examples, which I did. Your sources above are irrelevant - Satanas is declined in Ecclesiastical Latin, shown clearly in the examples I brought (in good faith that I would be discussing with someone who can recognize accurate explanations), and Ecclesiastical Latin is the only thing that LaVey was using.

As for your request for references - I can bring two sources. I can write a note that state that LaVey's Latin is directly from the Roman Mass - and I can give examples, from both, if needed. Is this the type of reference you are looking for? Second, I can quote the typos from LaVey's Latin (which are clearly publishing errors, ie. "clignum" instead of "dignum"), which will demonstrate the typo reference. I assume this is what you want in the article - correct me if I am wrong.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Talk:Ave Satanas so I don't have to repeat myself unless you want me to copy them. It includes to academic sources showing how to decline the word. I have said I am not an expert, Coldmachine and I are not pretending to be anything we're not- but my degree is in a related field, I know a WP:RS when I see it, and I can check them :):):):):) We're not saying 'satanas' is never used- it is, but not used in this context grammatically, hence it is a grammatical error. How else do you term a grammatical error? If you can find the phrase "Ave Satanas" in this context rather than the end of one clause ending in ave, and the next starting in Satanas or something, in the Vulgate or any other ecclesiastical text used in the Church or academia I would be overwhelmed, as I doubt the Pope and the Vatican or the Bible includes this at any point as these are christian texts and even if it were correct, they would never need to say "Hail Satan!" unless they were monks who've gone to the dark side:) Merkin's mum 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake again - I meant to say that "Vade Satanas" above, (fixed now), which I have amply shown with direct Latin quotes is a valid use of the vocative "Satanas". So the vocative "Satanas", whether it is "Vade, Satanas" or "Ave, Satanas", is not a grammatical error. I've clearly given examples why this is the case, in all fairness, no one should be arguing this point. And yet, you continue to do so, based on no sources whatsoever.Jimhoward72 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can also see my Talk page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Merkinsmum#Helloooooo.2C_Satan.21 where he says Satanas here may be a typo or spelling mistake. Are you denying that Satana is far more commonly used for the vocative? Merkin's mum 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So now you are saying that "Satana" is used as a vocative, along with "Satanas", as I demonstrated? So you are opening up a new can of worms. I have proved my point, that Satanas is used as a vocative in Ecclesiastical Latin, in both the carmina burana and in the Latin Vulgate. So you don't think the task should be on you to bring Latin quotes (as I did) to prove your statement that "far more commonly used for the vocative"? So, go ahead, use your knowlege of ecclesiastical latin to prove your point. Search the texts, bring the quotes, as I did. If you or your partner are not willing to do this, then you should have never began this debate, after I had already gone to the effort (in good faith that you were able to recognize sound textual demonstrations), to show that clearly "Satanas" is an easily found vocative use in Ecclesiastical Latin, whether it be "Vade, Satanas", or "Ave, Satanas". If you (or your compatriot) are going to continue, please give sound textual analysis instead of sweeping generalizations on no textual basis whatsoever.Jimhoward72 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're disputing the fact that the Vulgate declines the word in this way: Vade Satana/Satanas or Ave Satana/Satanas; we're making the point that this is likely a grammatical error resulting from mistranslation or misuse, which LaVey has continued to perpetrate by basing his work on such a text. I've cited three modern sources myself on declensions and Hebrew names. The problem is that LaVey's use of Latin seems an appropriate area for inclusion in this article, there is an existing statement tantamount to this which reads "There are some errors due to typographical and grammatical errors", but there are no examples. To be honest, I'm confused about what the opposition to clarifying this article is entirely based upon and so I find myself arguing in circles. We're not here to debate Latin, or its linguistic oddities; we're here to make this article as encyclopaedic as possible and if doing so means explaining that LaVey's use of Latin perpetrates errors as a result of his use of the Vulgate then I fail to see the problem when there are citations to back everything up (both the Vulgate's use of Ave Satana/Satanas, and the fact that Hebrew names are not normally declined in this way). Coldmachine^Talk 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It turned out to be a moot point lol as I found out he doesn't decline 'Satanas' at all, and Jim explained why in the article (It's just a name LaVey and maybe some older texts use for Satan- though a ref would be good there, I'll try and find one. So I think the paragraph is loads better and that was a new piece of info I learned from the article.:) Merkin's mum 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may...

It seems to me that these claims about grammatical "errors" in the Latin of the Black Mass are based on a false theory of language. Grammatical "rules" are like the "laws" of nature: that is to say--they're not "rules" at all: they're generalizations based on observation.

To argue that Satanas "should" be declined a certain way is to confuse "is" with "ought". It's equivalent to arguing that the orbit of Mercury "should" follow the laws of Newtonian mechanics, and that Mercury makes a physical mistake when it fails to follow those laws.

The so-called "rules" of grammar follow usage, not the other way round--that is, unless one group tries to use power to authorize and privilege one usage at the expense of others. As the saying goes, a "language" is a dialect with an army.

Given that Satanists are just about the only people who are declining the Latin word "Satanas" nowadays, it really doesn't matter if their declensions follow the classical pattern for such words, or not. The "proper" declensions are the ones they do, in fact, use. Any other position on this question would seem to assume that the "rules" of Latin grammar are somehow timeless and changeless, existing outside of history in some kind of Platonic realm of linguistic forms.--Cliodule (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how closely you have read the arguments above, but the same rule you are saying could also be applied to the Latin Vulgate - this I imagine, was one of the first Latin writings to decline Satanas (I mean, really, was anyone else interested in declining Satanas in Latin before the early Christians translated their scriptures into Latin?), and it used "Vade, Satanas" (Matt. 4:10), with Satanas as the vocative. The Stuttgart critical edition of the Vulgate also uses "Vade, Satanas", as does the Nova Vulgata (a new critical edition published by the Vatican). Claiming that they are all "perpetuating a grammatical error" is ridiculous. (Isn't a claim like that something like unverifiable, untrue, pointed research - or whatever Wikipedia legalese calls it?)Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry if I seemed aggro when I first came to the article- I thought that particular paragraph which suggested their were no errors in LaVey's text was quite pro-LaVey. I thought some young fans of LaVey had written the couple of sentences that made it look like that to be honest:)-don't know if it was anyone who's editing it nowadays. It's rare for people to praise LaVey's scholarship, I thought I was correcting someone who was trying to make the paragraph be about praising and whitewashing LaVey. If there were typos by the printers or whatever, he still should have corrected that, as he would have been given a copy to proofread before printing, or should have made sure he got one.Merkin's mum 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

References- from WP:RS

We should put more refs in this article- they should be easy to find. I'm lazy 2nite lol but will look tomorrow. Merkin's mum 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of article by anti-satanists

Please stop desecrating the Black Mass page, if you have something against atheists and/or satanists then find another place as the Black Mass wikipedia page is not the proper place to vent christian hate.

This is the correct version of the first line of the Black Mass page: "A Black Mass is a ritual performed as a religious improvement of the Catholic Mass used in the religion of satanism."

Satanism IS an improvement over so-called christianity. (so you christians stop vandalizing OUR page please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.17.112 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Devil Worship Doesn't Exist, but it's good if it does exist, allegedly

The article is a work of art in the ways of deception. As a non-religious person, it seems obvious that good and evil exist. Whether there are super-beings involved is rather uninteresting, but this article spends much time explaining the _very_good_reasons this ritual should exist (i.e. "evil" Christians) rather than how much documentation we have that it does exist: it is not "said to," it is not "supposed" and it's not "alleged." The ~Poison Affair in Louis XIV's court where they sealed all the court documents and imprisoned people by decree lend credence to the idea that many powerful people have been seduced (due to their own personal vices) by rituals of disrepute. Compendium Maleficarum was written in the early 16th century, and while written by Catholic ideologue(s), it's far more interesting and full of wisdom than Wikiped would leave anyone to believe.

The greatest trick ever played was convincing people that evil doesn't exist (but it's actually good!). I only just started reading Compendium Maleficarum today, so I'll see if I can add anything of value from it wrt this ritual.

Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club

This might deserve coverage somewhere

• http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/12/black-mass-relocated-controversy/?page=single
• http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/12/harvard-groups-plans-to-stage-black-mass-anger-catholics/
• http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/12/harvard-satanic-black-mass-canceled/
• http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2014/statement-on-black-mass

Torture will make anyone confess to anything

Here is it listed as facts what medieval prosecution brought "to light". Innocent people died because of the torture and accused anyone with anything to make the pain stop. Whom survived was usualy crippled. Ofcourse can a human beeing be forced to confess about absolutely anything. How can the results of this hellish nightmare back then be here presented as cold facts? Or on what other evidence should this stand? I know that some crazy people troday try to provocate with this nonsense, but in the 18th century? Please! Source? How about just a little bit of common sense? 2A02:8070:6188:2B60:50B2:AE4D:AFB5:AC13 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)