Assumption of st. Mary

[John_oxios]

Hello SemperReformada,

Thank you for your post.

I believe that Revelation 12, among other things, does support this doctrine.

Revelation 12 is interesting to this discussion, because among other things, there are a lot of non-Catholic Christians who believe that no one goes to Heaven until after the Second Coming of Christ, even though, Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5 2, Kings 2:11, Mathew 17:13, Matthew 27:52 and 1 Thessalonians state that Enoch, Henoch, Moses and Elijah, Elias and others were taken up to Heaven and are there now.

Obviously, Mary is mentioned early on in Revelation’s and before the final conflict. Revelation 12 tells us who the enemy of Satan is, and who Satan "went off to wage war against" -

"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus…"* (Rev. 12:17). *

Revelations 12 not only tells us that St. Mary is already in Heaven by this point but that she is “royalty” -

***"…***a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…" (Rev 12:1).

And, there is no doubt who this “woman” is, because in Rev. 12:5 states,

*"****She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne." ***

So, does Revelation 12 help to support the belief in the Assumption of Mary? I believe that the answer is obvious.

Now, I know what you are going to say, “The woman in Revelation 12 is the Church” and you would be correct. Revelation 12 represents Israel, the Church, Eve and Mary…

"The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary."

"Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16)."

More Here at Catholic Answers, article titled -“THE WOMAN OF REVELATIONS 12”

If Mary is already in Heaven by this point, then how did she get there? Do you believe that God would do this for others, like Moses and Elijah and not for the “favored one” (Lk 1:28) , Mary, the Mother of God?

"In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."
(Luke 1:26-28)

Your Thoughts?

Hey Jimmy B,
Finally someone who understands biblical imagery. The Gospels and epistles were told before they were written.
back in the day books were rarely available, The writes of the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures painted pictures with words so the people would remember easier.
Put me in front of a rembrandt without the story of the artists rendition, and I won’r know anything about it let alone appreciate in the manner the artist intended.
Revelations isn’t prophetic, Revelations was written to help a Church being persecuted to death. It gave them hope, In John’s day everyone Knew who the Woman was, It is Mary, Mother of the Living Church.

God bless,
John

 

[SemperReformada]

Hello SemperReformada,

Thank you for your post.

I believe that Revelation 12, among other things, does support this doctrine.

Revelation 12 is interesting to this discussion, because among other things, there are a lot of non-Catholic Christians who believe that no one goes to Heaven until after the Second Coming of Christ, even though, Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5 2, Kings 2:11, Mathew 17:13, Matthew 27:52 and 1 Thessalonians state that Enoch, Henoch, Moses and Elijah, Elias and others were taken up to Heaven and are there now.

Obviously, Mary is mentioned early on in Revelation’s and before the final conflict. Revelation 12 tells us who the enemy of Satan is, and who Satan "went off to wage war against" -

"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus…"* (Rev. 12:17). *

Revelations 12 not only tells us that St. Mary is already in Heaven by this point but that she is “royalty” -

***"…***a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…" (Rev 12:1).

And, there is no doubt who this “woman” is, because in Rev. 12:5 states,

*"****She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne." ***

So, does Revelation 12 help to support the belief in the Assumption of Mary? I believe that the answer is obvious.

Now, I know what you are going to say, “The woman in Revelation 12 is the Church” and you would be correct. Revelation 12 represents Israel, the Church, Eve and Mary…

"The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary."

"Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16)."

More Here at Catholic Answers, article titled -“THE WOMAN OF REVELATIONS 12”

If Mary is already in Heaven by this point, then how did she get there? Do you believe that God would do this for others, like Moses and Elijah and not for the “favored one” (Lk 1:28) , Mary, the Mother of God?

"In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."
(Luke 1:26-28)

Your Thoughts?

Okay, let’s assume you are correct and the “woman” or Rev. 12 is Mary. How does that support the assumption of Mary? Again, it is my understanding that by assumption you are speaking of both the body and soul of Mary being assumed into heaven and not just her soul.

 

[SemperReformada]

The existence of Blessed Mary’s physical body - Rev 12:1 specifically mentions her feet and her head - i.e. a physical body is seen whereas the great cloud is spiritual without a body at that time. So Mary’s body is seen by John in heaven. I think that is why it is quoted here.

I think you are correct that there is a tendency, at least among those who accept the assumption of Mary, to see a physical description of the woman in Rev. 12 and then use that verse as support of the assumption.

But there are others in the Book of Revelation who have their physical body described as well and I don’t think anyone believes they were assumed.

For example:

Revelations:

Revelations 12:1
1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

Revelations 4:4 (elders)
4Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.

Revelations 7:9 (144,000)
9After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;

There are other verses as well but you see from the two I provided that Mary is not the only one described physically in the book of Revelations.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Okay, let’s assume you are correct and the “woman” or Rev. 12 is Mary. How does that support the assumption of Mary? Again, it is my understanding that by assumption you are speaking of both the body and soul of Mary being assumed into heaven and not just her soul.

*“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed.” *
- 1 Corinthians 15:52

“Refrain from every kind of evil. May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
**- 1 Thessalonians 5:22,23 **

“Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience. Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow (body), and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart.”

• Hebrews 4:11,12

Catechism of the Catholic Church -

1042* At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed: *

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631

 

[SemperReformada]

*“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed.” *
- 1 Corinthians 15:52

“Refrain from every kind of evil. May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
- 1 Thessalonians 5:22,23

“Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience. Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow (body), and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart.”

• Hebrews 4:11,12

Catechism of the Catholic Church -

1042* At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed: *

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631

Jimmy,

What specifically in Rev. 12 do you find supporting the bodily assumption of Mary? While I appreciate the other scriptures you posted they aren’t helping me see what you see in Rev. 12.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mary is firstmost of all creatures…and perfect Christian…the 12 stars also represent the fullness of faith of all Christians.

Catholics see both Mary and the Church as the symbol in Revelations.

 

[joe370]

Romans 14:19 – “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”

Dave and Freedom, how is mutual edification even possible for sola scriptura advocates, considering the fact that these SS advocates, such as yourselves, defer to no authority other than their own, when it comes to interpreting the holy bible, given to them by the CC?

It seems a tad hypocritical for these SS advocates to say that the CC has no authority to teach error free doctrine, all the while, they themselves, teaching authoritatively, error free doctrine. Every SS advocate interpreting the bible and teaching authoritatively, is his or her own Pope, many of which are founders of new churches, claiming just as much authority as the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy,

What specifically in Rev. 12 do you find supporting the bodily assumption of Mary? While I appreciate the other scriptures you posted they aren’t helping me see what you see in Rev. 12.

Catholicism is not the religion of one, two or a handful of Bible verses. As with much of what is defined in Christianity, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is based on the totality of information, historical, traditional and scriptural. It’s the big picture and Revelation 12 is just a small part of that picture and small part of the totality of information, understood in context.

Here is the Papal Encyclical, Munificentissimus Deus (Defining the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary) by Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950

I hope this helps.

 

[joe370]

SemperReformada **if **you were convinced that Mary, the mother of God, was conceived immaculately, (remember, I said if…) - would you also consider the fact that she was not subject to the corruption of Creation beginning with the advent of sin, introduced into the world by our first parents?

Should Mary’s flesh have been subject to decay and dissolution, (like the rest of us, at least until we receive our new bodies) if she was really conceived immaculately?

Should she, the mother of God, have been subject to the one [Satan] who subjected creation to frustration, decay and dissolution, if in fact she was free of the stain of sin? If so - why?

Why should Mary, the mother of God, need to be (like all of creation) - subject to the bondage of decay,** if **in fact she was conceived immaculately, just as our first parents were? If Adam and Eve had not sinned they would not have been subject to the bondage of decay - right?
*Romans 8:19-22 - (19) The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.(20) For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one [Satan] who subjected it, in hope(21) That the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.(22) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.*

 

[Todd520]

Anyone see what happened to my “Mary across the faiths” thread? I thought it was less controversial than this one, but it was delete completely?

 

[SemperReformada]

SemperReformada **if **you were convinced that Mary, the mother of God, was conceived immaculately, (remember, I said if…) - would you also consider the fact that she was not subject to the corruption of Creation beginning with the advent of sin, introduced into the world by our first parents?

Should Mary’s flesh have been subject to decay and dissolution, (like the rest of us, at least until we receive our new bodies) if she was really conceived immaculately?

Should she, the mother of God, have been subject to the one [Satan] who subjected creation to frustration, decay and dissolution, if in fact she was free of the stain of sin? If so - why?

Why should Mary, the mother of God, need to be (like all of creation) - subject to the bondage of decay,** if **in fact she was conceived immaculately, just as our first parents were? If Adam and Eve had not sinned they would not have been subject to the bondage of decay - right?

*Romans 8:19-22 - (19) The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.(20) For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one [Satan] who subjected it, in hope(21) That the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.(22) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.*

One could argue that by virtue of Mary being Jesus’ mother that she wouldn’t have been subject to the bondage of decay…but that isn’t the point. If you want to argue that the immaculate conception makes it all the more likely that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven that is fine too but I don’t see anything in scripture that would lead one to accept the assumption.

A poster has listed quite a few scriptures, presumably with the intent of demonstrating that the assumption can be found within scripture and I just don’t see it.

The closest scripture I can see that might be used to support the assumption is Rev. 12 and that is why I asked about Rev. 12. Even if the woman turns out to be Mary it doesn’t necessarily prove the assumption because others in Rev. are depicted as being physically present in heaven. Are we to believe everyone who is depicted as being physically present in heaven as assumed along with Mary?

So while it’s possible that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven there doesn’t appear to be any scriptural support for this belief.

 

[joe370]

One could argue that by virtue of Mary being Jesus’ mother that she wouldn’t have been subject to the bondage of decay…but that isn’t the point.

So, your answer is yes or no?

If you want to argue that the immaculate conception makes it all the more likely that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven that is fine too but I don’t see anything in scripture that would lead one to accept the assumption.

 

[beehumble]

Well, I guess I approached it wrong. The proper way might be this:

It is backwards to look first to Scripture and then to the teachings of the Church. It is the other way around. First came the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and the Apostles orally, which were eventually written down. Paul founded his churches long before his letters to those churches were collected into books of Scripture. As did Peter, James and all the Apostles. The Scriptures were not written down to serve as a catechism.

I have visited the glorious tomb of Peter in Rome, where his bones were found. I have visited the glorious St. Paul’s tomb in Rome, where bones have been found. I visited the glorious St. Mark’s tomb in Venice. These are known from antiquity as the Christians felt the whereabouts of these bones were important, and so knowledge of there whereabouts were handed down through the centuries.

And while it is true we do not have knowledge of every every biblical saint’s bones, we have stories of where their bones were, and the movement of those bones from time to time. I have never seen any stupendously magnificent tomb where Mary’s bones are. I have never heard of any story of her bones being moved from place to place. I have heard from my grandmother that the Apostles said her body was taken up into heaven. She said she heard this from her grandmother. The Church teaches that her body was taken up to heaven. This is what we call Tradition.

I believe it is the work of Satan to instruct Christians that Mary is of no importance, as many Protestants believe, because his defeat is due to her ‘Yes’. Genesis says so when it mentions the Woman. Revelation says so when it mentions the Woman. The Woman has been defined by Jesus as being Mary. The creatures Mary and Satan are arch enemies. She has replaced his position in Heaven as the most significant creature. Her Yes to God not only countered Eve’s No, but it countered Satan’s No too. Satan’s No contaminated God’s creation; through Mary’s Yes, the entire creation is to be restored beginning with her Son’s resurrection. The last contamination from Satan to be restored is death, as all who died in Christ will rise and death will be no more.

The Apostles and my Church founded by them said Mary was assumed into heaven and that is good enough for me.

The Bible is man’s salvation story as written by God, and in the first chapters and the last chapters we find Mary; God wrote her into the salvation story literally from beginning to end.

Instead of asking Catholics to explain why we revere Mary, I wish a Protestant could for once explain to me why they have such animosity towards Mary; I never understood it; it baffles me. Even Luther knew enough about God to have great respect for Blessed Mary. Why do modern day Protestants downgrade and pick on Jesus’ mother? Why do they take delight in picking on the one whom Almighty Holy God favored? If she is favored by God, held up as special by God, as His book says shes is, how can somebody who calls himself a Christian not hold her up as someone special? It seems perversely evil. I can assure everybody that Jesus does not like it. But that is a topic for another thread.

Do you really believe that Jesus who is God allowed His favored one’s flesh, Mary’s flesh, which held within itself and nurtured the Holy One, the one so Holy angels in His presence hide their faces and forever utter “Holy, Holy, Holy” , to be eaten by maggots? To rot and putrefy?

 

[John_oxios]

So while it’s possible that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven there doesn’t appear to be any scriptural support for this belief.

It’s not what you call support, but biblicalprecedence, and according to the Hebrew scriptures it is possible to be taken up Body and all, Enoch, Elijah are examples;

Remember Nothing is impossible for God.

Horses of fire? Chariot and all
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Pillar of fire during the nite, a cloud pillar during the day,
God splits the waters of the Jordan, dries up the mud bed, allows The Lsrelites to cross.

Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.

c’mon its not like God hasn’t done it before, there is a Biblical precedence that it has happened.

But a protestant, you can’t believe it can happen to Mary?

God bless,
John

 

[SemperReformada]

It’s not what you call support, but biblicalprecedence, and according to the Hebrew scriptures it is possible to be taken up Body and all, Enoch, Elijah are examples;

Remember Nothing is impossible for God.

Horses of fire? Chariot and all
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Pillar of fire during the nite, a cloud pillar during the day,
God splits the waters of the Jordan, dries up the mud bed, allows The Lsrelites to cross.

Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.

c’mon its not like God hasn’t done it before, there is a Biblical precedence that it has happened.

But a protestant, you can’t believe it can happen to Mary?

God bless,
John

John,

I have just a minute to respond.

Yes, there is a precedent and certainly it’s possible. I think I stated as much in one of my earlier posts.

I suppose their are two issues I have w/ Catholic apologetics and the assumption:
a.) While there may be support for the doctrine in tradition, I don’t see any support for the assumption in scripture. If I were Catholic, given the belief of sacred tradition and inspired scripture, I don’t think this would particularly bother me. I don’t understand the insistence of some Catholics to try to justify this doctrine using scripture. If I were Catholic I think I would do as you and Joe have done.

b.) I don’t understand the church’s insistence on this (the assumption) being made part of your doctrine. If I understand Catholic theology correctly, willingly denying the bodily assumption of Mary would be a mortal sin.

That’s all I have time for tonight.

Have a good night and a good day at work/school/vacation or whatever you do tomorrow.

 

[vulcano37214]

I

“…she was just a human being, with the same sin nature and everyone else…”

What is this belief based upon? Obviously, there is no biblical evidence that St. Mary ever sinned. So, is this Protestant, extra-biblical speculation?

**Or, Maybe it’s based on Protestant tradition… **

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

---

If God is both Omni-Present (Everywhere at All Times) and Omni-Potent (All Powerful), then isn’t Mary’s Assumption possible?

If you are trying to support something biblically should you not use the Bible to support your argument and not catholic writings.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I

If you are trying to support something biblically should you not use the Bible to support your argument and not catholic writings.

Catholicism does not adhere to the errant, sixteenth century Protestant invention of “Sola Scriptura” or Scripture Alone or Bible Alone. However, if you go back and read my earlier posts here, you will see that I did provide some Bible verses, which do help to put this belief in context. Moreover, there isn’t anything, anywhere in the Bible, that rejects this belief.

Thank you for your post.

 

[joe370]

SemperReformada, you said:

I don’t understand the church’s insistence on this (the assumption) being made part of your doctrine. If I understand Catholic theology correctly, willingly denying the bodily assumption of Mary would be a mortal sin.

Semper, if it’s true then why not teach it? Of course, the CC does not state that we must believe in the AOM to be saved. We are redeemed/saved, according to the CC, by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus the Christ, only, but you still believe that SS as the Christians final authority, is necessary doctrine, even though that teaching is nowhere found in the holy bible. Why do non-Catholics insist on this (SS) - being made part of their doctrine?

Could you please, when you get the chance, show me where the CC teaches, that willingly denying the bodily assumption of Mary is a mortal sin? At best, the CC has stated:

If anyone should willfully deny or to call into doubt that which has been defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the Catholic Faith.

That seems like a fair statement.

You have a good day tomorrow as well my friend.

 

[rinnie]

Kathleen,
I carry in my wallet a picture of St. Peregrine - patron saint of cancer victims. I have since I was diagnosed with prostate cancer 4+ years ago. His story and faith are a source of strength for me, even though I haven’t needed treatment since my initial procedure.

Jon

Hi Jon, My husband wears the medal every single day. My Son wears it also. My husband got the medal the day he was told he had cancer. He wore it to every treatment and wears it to this day. He lost all of his hair, he lost alot of weight but never lost that medal

He has since given it to many many non-catholics. They wear it every single day. One lady was told she had cancer, he gave her the medal, and when she went back her cancer was gone She is still in awe The Doctor does not understand either!! But of course we are not surprised

 

[rinnie]

John,

I have just a minute to respond.

Yes, there is a precedent and certainly it’s possible. I think I stated as much in one of my earlier posts.

I suppose their are two issues I have w/ Catholic apologetics and the assumption:
a.) While there may be support for the doctrine in tradition, I don’t see any support for the assumption in scripture. If I were Catholic, given the belief of sacred tradition and inspired scripture, I don’t think this would particularly bother me. I don’t understand the insistence of some Catholics to try to justify this doctrine using scripture. If I were Catholic I think I would do as you and Joe have done.

b.) I don’t understand the church’s insistence on this (the assumption) being made part of your doctrine. If I understand Catholic theology correctly, willingly denying the bodily assumption of Mary would be a mortal sin.

That’s all I have time for tonight.

Have a good night and a good day at work/school/vacation or whatever you do tomorrow.

If you feel it is not in scripture who do you think that the women is in Rev. 12:1? And how did she get there? And is that not proof that she is there? Body and Soul!!

IF that women is not the Blessed Mother and that is not proof what is? It is proof that the Israel of Old gave birth to the Messiah and then became the New Israel (the Church, The living Christ of today). Which suffers to this day great persecution by the dragon (devil).