Well, PM, I suppose it all comes down to what is meant by "satanic mass" and "apostate priest". I doubt that a "satanic mass" could ever be in proper form. As for Donatists, well "contending" with them is easy:
"By 'Contentions,' he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?
How then does he elsewhere say, "If God peradventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned." +John Chrysostomos, Homily VI on Titus
"As for Donatists, well "contending" with them is easy: "
My Donatist statement was in reference to our discussion from a few weeks ago on the homosexual priest thread where I was (politely) called a Donatist.
I understand the logic behind murphE's statement, but wonder if it is accepted Catholic (or Orthodox) thinking on the matter.
In Catholic or Orthodox theology, what exactly does a priest do to change the host into the flesh? By what power do they do this? How do they access that power?
(K, I think this is going to come back to your statement regarding the difference with which we view sacramentalism.)