Can Christ forgive Lucifer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlanFromWichita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I’m sorry if this is a rehash of an old thread. I’m not so interested in finding the answer as I am in asking the question, so I don’t expect anything in particular for responses.

Alan
If you’re not interested in finding an answer (provided the question asked has an answer), why ask the question? This reminds me of people who say they’d rather “be on the journey” then reach the destination. Truth, if approached that way, will never be found. A good Chesterton quote that addresses this vague relativistic mindset is hovering, but I’ll have to go search for it…
 
40.png
cleopa:
Since “Lucifer”, the Latin translation for morning star, was a Babylonian King, then yes…he can be forgiven.
This is true and it is the source of the name “Lucifer” being applied to Satan. However, there is also a sound theological basis for drawing a parallel between the account of the fall of the Babylonian king in Isaiah 14 and that of Satan’s fall.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
If you’re not interested in finding an answer (provided the question asked has an answer), why ask the question? This reminds me of people who say they’d rather “be on the journey” then reach the destination. Truth, if approached that way, will never be found. A good Chesterton quote that addresses this vague relativistic mindset is hovering, but I’ll have to go search for it…
I would like to know the answer, but I didn’t expect to get it.

I expected people to come down on either side.

If you have never enjoyed a journey except to the extent that it leads you to a destination, then you have bought into an attitude that I think is very depressing.

I’m interested in hearing your Chesterton quote. I don’t see how asking people with more knowledge than I to discuss a topic, not really expecting a clear winning answer, constitutes “relativism.”

In case you didn’t realize, I was recently exposed as absolutist on other threads and they even held celebrations for their victory. It’s ok for you to put down your anti-relativist weapon and tell me what you really think.

I noticed this is your first post on the thread, meaning that you have taken special effort to deliver a message from me, but I don’t know what the message is. I wonder if those who kindly took their time and effort to muse on the actual question I asked are now angry, bitter, and better-than-thou with me because I got them discussing something they were only taking pains to discuss because I asked them.

If these people were offended because I “misled” them in some way, do you not think they have the capability to mention it themselves, or are you just speaking in their behalf? Or could it be there’s no harm no foul except the plank in your eye, the evil in your mind, and the hardness of your heart? Not that any of this applies to you, of course. I’m not saying anything about you; I’m just asking questions.

Would you have more respect for a post-and-run poster?

BTW, yes, I do have some personal ideas on the topic, but I found everyone else’s so fascinating that I felt I had little to contribute. If keeping my mouth shut when I had nothing valuable to say makes me a sinner, then I’m guilty as charged, and unrepentant. If you knew how hard it was for me to “fast” from giving my opinion you might think me a saint rather than a troll (I know you didn’t use that word but I felt it). Then again since you have apparently stuck a “relativist” label on me than anything I say or anything I don’t say probably does look sinister to you, and I feel sorry for you due to your paranoid world view.

When I investigate something, I don’t always expect to find the truth all in one gulp. I may not have the answer to the question, but I have learned a lot and have a better idea how to form my next questions.

Some people work at simplistic jobs where a client comes in, the entire deal is done before they get up, and we are done. Those people need to find answers quickly or at least know how to proceed. I’ve had jobs like that, but I’ve also had jobs where it took weeks or months even to clearly establish the right questions. You ask leading questions and investigate them in order to learn enough to ask the next one. Also, it is often useful to ask questions of people smarter than yourself, without claiming to have an ulterior motive such as having a preference over which way it comes out.
(continued)
 
(continued)
Sorry I don’t pay more attention to who says what (I’m more interested in the message than in sizing up the messenger usually) I find it strange that I’m speaking to you harshly. I remember your handle because it reminds me of Father Sherlock who visited me in the nut house. Somehow I thought you were past such quick judgments, or are you just jerking my chain to see if you can illicit a verbose response from me like this one?

Oh, and BTW I will now five away my own opinion and perhaps taint further discussion on it, which may ruin the point of this thread but hopefully satisfy you into thinking I’m Not A Troll (all for you; I don’t care personally except in entertainment value when someone chooses to spend their life being exercised over how I converse with other people) but that I was encouraging intelligent discussion instead of adding my uninformed opinion.

I offer you that justification so you can heal your own sin of judging me. You have not convinced me that I have sinned by your apparent attempt to convict me. If you still think I’m relativistic or even a troll or whatever, then I’m happy to spar. I feed on evil energy and turn it to good, so shoot some negative remarks at me and you will undoubtedly learn something new in the process. Go ahead. Use me. Lie to me. Ask me rhetorical questions as if I was supposed to actually answer them. I’m game.

I’m not saying I’m a sinner, I’m just curious to hear how you justify jumping into a thread you have placed no effort in, and others have had a wonderful time discussing,

Now just a quick note to CARose:
40.png
CARose:
Hope you’re getting the responses you desired when you started this thread.
I’m happy to say that you and others have made this thread worth much more than I was looking for when I started it. I had a silly notion that I was afraid to voice until I learned a little bit more about Lucifer and his position. Gosh, I don’t even know whether Lucifer and satan are the same person or not.

Your (your and other posters’) musings on the subject have been fascinating and informative, if not conclusive. I really didn’t know what to expect and that’s what I got – the unexpected. I don’t even remember what the silly notion was anymore because it has been so blown out of the water by watching you folks’ forum on the matter.

Also I thank Sherlock for adding a bit of spice to a discussion that was otherwise annoyingly friendly! I love controversy, now that I have recently improved my skills at not becoming anxious over it?

Alan
 
There is nothing wrong with a good discussion, and also, there is nothing wrong with a Didactic-style discussion. (Didactic is learning by asking each other a series of questions. Think it was started by either Plato or Aristotle).

Simply asking a question without really seeking an answer at this moment in time is not relativistic, but simply, brainstorming. I’m sure that at some point, after he or she gets a chance to read all our responses, the Holy Spirit will lead him or her to what answers here are closest to the actual Truth.

We who lean towards Orthodoxy and Tradition (I also fall in this category) need to be very careful not to develop a Pharisaic Conscience, where we get so stuck on Church Law and Rules that we lose compassion and charity. A Pharisee magnifies small defects of others that are not offensive to God into grave sins. Be careful of this type of mentality. None of us is perfect.

We will be judged by God on how we judge others, and I certainly wouldn’t want Jesus sending me to the Fires of Gehenna for picking my nose when no one is looking. (Not that I’m admitting to such a disgusting habit. 😉 I mean, only Barbarians pick their nose with their bare hands. 👍 ). ROFLOL!!! You get my point.

At one time, I was guilty of being Pharisaic, and now, I’ve learned to lighten up and have learned to talk to other people with compassion instead of throwing them a one-two punch on the head with the Code of Canon Law and my Dogma books. LOL!!! (Now I just thump GENTLY on the shoulder, with a “girl punch.” I am no longer into “technical knockouts.” HA!!!)

So dudes, or dudettes, please play nice. Thump gently. No bruising allowed. Kisses and hugs to you both !!!
 
40.png
GoldenArrow:
There is nothing wrong with a good discussion, and also, there is nothing wrong with a Didactic-style discussion. (Didactic is learning by asking each other a series of questions. Think it was started by either Plato or Aristotle).

Simply asking a question without really seeking an answer at this moment in time is not relativistic, but simply, brainstorming. I’m sure that at some point, after he or she gets a chance to read all our responses, the Holy Spirit will lead him or her to what answers here are closest to the actual Truth.

We who lean towards Orthodoxy and Tradition (I also fall in this category) need to be very careful not to develop a Pharisaic Conscience, where we get so stuck on Church Law and Rules that we lose compassion and charity. A Pharisee magnifies small defects of others that are not offensive to God into grave sins. Be careful of this type of mentality. None of us is perfect.

We will be judged by God on how we judge others, and I certainly wouldn’t want Jesus sending me to the Fires of Gehenna for picking my nose when no one is looking. (Not that I’m admitting to such a disgusting habit. 😉 I mean, only Barbarians pick their nose with their bare hands. 👍 ). ROFLOL!!! You get my point.

At one time, I was guilty of being Pharisaic, and now, I’ve learned to lighten up and have learned to talk to other people with compassion instead of throwing them a one-two punch on the head with the Code of Canon Law and my Dogma books. LOL!!! (Now I just thump GENTLY on the shoulder, with a “girl punch.” I am no longer into “technical knockouts.” HA!!!)

So dudes, or dudettes, please play nice. Thump gently. No bruising allowed. Kisses and hugs to you both !!!
You’re right, you’re right…I think I came down hard on Alan not because of this post per se, but rather the cumulative impression of him that I’ve gotten from other discussions. Which is not fair, I’ll admit, as I ought to address the question at hand on its own merits and not let Alan’s past discussions color the question. Mea culpa…
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
This is true and it is the source of the name “Lucifer” being applied to Satan. However, there is also a sound theological basis for drawing a parallel between the account of the fall of the Babylonian king in Isaiah 14 and that of Satan’s fall.
There is also a sound theological basis NOT to draw a parallel between the fall of Satan, and the fall of Helal, son of Shehar alluded to in Isaiah.

Most of the theology and mythology behind the fall of the angels comes from the Book of Enoch.

It is much more likely that Jesus was alluding to the Book of Enoch when he said “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven”, than back to King Helal of Babylon. After all, in Enoch “Satan” is referred to as the angel “Satanail”, not Lucifer.
 
Alan,

I’m glad you’re getting what you were hoping for from the musing of myself and others here. I’m sorry however that you and Sherlock had to get into it. He offended you, but you also responded more strongly than was necessary. Take a deep breath and try sending up a prayer for someone who offends you before you respond. A bit of a cooling off would probably help as well. And one rule I’ve learned, hopefully to my benefit, is if the Forum tells me that my post is too long, it probably is, unless I’m giving some detailed answer to help someone, words of Charity only.

Please don’t read this as a slam, because that’s not how it’s meant. You made reference to a Fr. Sherlock and his visit to you, so perhaps I’m taking the liberty of assuming you’d appreciate feedback on how your behavior is perceived by those who care about you.

Oh, and if I haven’t offended you (which I truly hope I haven’t), do you not take the writings of the CCC as definitive on the subject?

CARose
 
Alan, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your asking a question just to hear the discussion, but I thought I’d post the Chesterton quote because you expressed interest in hearing it. I don’t know if it’s the same one Sherlock was thinking of, but it sounds close:
G.K. Chesterton:
But if we take some favourite and frequently quoted sentence, such as, “To travel hopefully is better than to arrive,” we shall see that it gives a loophole for every sort of sophistry and unreason. If it could be stated as a thesis, it could not be defended as a thought. A man would not travel hopefully at all, if he thought that the goal would be disappointing as compared with the travels. It is tenable that travel is the more enjoyable; but in that case it cannot be called hopeful. For the traveler is here presumed to hope for the end of travel, not merely for its continuance.

Now, of course, I do not mean that pleasant paradoxes of this sort have not a place in literature…
 
40.png
CARose:
Oh, and if I haven’t offended you (which I truly hope I haven’t), do you not take the writings of the CCC as definitive on the subject?
None of you offend me. The blessings I receive from this forum come in many forms, including others telling me what I look like to them.

There is no doubt that I have personally made some pretty angry posts and have earned distrust. Sherlock actually impresses me a great deal, especially as he has demonstrated in this thread. Being harsh is something we all are tempted to do at times (at least speaking for myself) and that’s what we’re here for. To learn how to discuss controversial issues in a safe environment where nobody can shoot me like last month when the guys next door to us killed each other over alleged religious dispute.

Sherlock, I was not hurt in any way, and as CARose said, I did come back too strongly and I apologize. Maybe a quick PM would have been in better order than to try to paint you as a Bad Guy.

I have certainly played the pharisee when I was in leadership positions in the church (VP of parish council, pres of Home and School, etc) working with a bunch of essentially CINO folks who – get this – literally refused to so much as even consider what Christ taught about His Church , and the worst part about being a pharisee is not the ineffectiveness, but the psychological imbalance it brings when you go nuts wondering why these seemingly good people are so stupid and evil when it comes to listening to the Lord. I was working on a database by which I was entering thousands of private comments to the Church who solicited them for the Third Synod of Wichita right up until the day I got locked up. I think part of my psychosis was due to hearing so many heartfelt opinions both for and against the Church when I was already at odds over Church leaders about some of the exact issues.

Believe it or not, one of the main reason I attack what I think to be harsh tactics by “orthodox” is not a slam on being orthodox, but by taking a path that leads to insanity, because if they think they are going to change the minds of the moral relativists by citing Canon Law and such, they are decieved. Maybe a victory once in a while, just to keep feeding their enthusiasm. I am honestly concerned not only that they are deepening the divisions they would heal, but that they themselves are typically in a perpetual frantic state. I know when I was really upset about some things happening right under my nose that I couldn’t stop, I literally stayed awake night after night, trying to draft letters to them to “fix” them.

Guess what happened? My lack of sleep and my tendency toward mania fed each other in a vicious cycle and I made a lot of enemies, who luckily have forgiven me at least on the surface they are polite. Of course, I no longer hold leadership positions at the orders of my psychiatrist.

Yes, I want to protect the “victims” of orthodox putting down CCs, but I see two victims. I see the CC as being vaccinated further against belief, or even the desire to join a club to which the orthodox belongs. (Why agree to join up with somebody who treats people like me, like that.) Therefore the CC is the victim of being pushed away, not the benefactor of being called by the Shepherd (through a voice that sounds confusing if not downright angry). It’s like when my dog runs off, yelling at him angrily to get back does less good than offering him food.

I also see the orthodox as an unwitting victim of his own actions, because it , Hey I’m getting tired of my own words. You people are smart enough to fill in the blanks. In short, my admonitions for orthodox and attacks against their pride (which they view as comfortable certainty) are, believe it or not, intended to help the orthodox at least as much as the CC.

Somebody has to stop the cycle of this endless bickering and each person yelling at the other that lack of unity is Their Fault. I may use methods that confuse or even irritate people from time to time, and I’m sorry people go through that, but I’m on a mission of sorts at any given moment and a little collateral damage, to me, can be easily turned to gold. For example, I am completely impressed by the responses to my aggressive post toward Sherlock.

Every day I am both humbled and exalted on these forums, and I for one believe my life is a great deal better for them. I don’t care who says what to me anymore; I believe the spirit is guiding us to the medicine we need, whether or not it tastes bitter.

Sherlock, I was surprised at your comments to me because I had it in my mind that I had a great deal of respect for you. Thank you for responding to my message instead of my tone (and thanks GoldenArrow for your intervention to help with that) and at the risk of sounding too chummy, I have not lost respect for you but gained respect for you via this thread.

Now I gotta go find somebody to beat up after all this sickening pleasantness. 😃

Alan
 
Alan,

You wrote: “If you have never enjoyed a journey except to the extent that it leads you to a destination, then you have bought into an attitude that I think is very depressing.”

I never said such a thing, so there’s no need for the assumption. I haven’t bought into any attitude. But I apologize: I am reacting badly not to the merits of this post, but rather am reacting to the cumulative effect of other posts—which is not fair. Mea culpa.

I don’t have the time to read your response (sorry, but it’s just too long and I am always short on time), but I did catch the phrase “Fr. Sherlock”—that intrigues me. If I may ask, where was this? There aren’t that many Sherlocks around, and it would be interesting to see if there’s any relation (Sherlock really is my name—it’s not a made-up “handle”).

Grace and Glory: Thanks, that was the Chesterton quote I had in mind. There’s two others that come to mind here: “An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut.”, and " “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
 
40.png
Sherlock:
I don’t have the time to read your response (sorry, but it’s just too long and I am always short on time), but I did catch the phrase “Fr. Sherlock”—that intrigues me. If I may ask, where was this? There aren’t that many Sherlocks around, and it would be interesting to see if there’s any relation (Sherlock really is my name—it’s not a made-up “handle”).
Father John P. Sherlock was in charge of the Third Diocese of Wichita, and is now I believe the rector of St. Mary’s Cathedral downtown Wichita. He comes across to me as very wise, capable, able to lead, and always ready to laugh his famous laugh.

This information is old, so hopefully it is still good. I got it from the page from back when he was Synod secretariat.
Rev. John P. Sherlock
sherlockj@cdowk.org
Code:
                                 ***Catholic                Diocese of Wichita
***424 N. Broadway
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 269-3900


Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Father John P. Sherlock was in charge of the Third Diocese of Wichita, and is now I believe the rector of St. Mary’s Cathedral downtown Wichita. He comes across to me as very wise, capable, able to lead, and always ready to laugh his famous laugh.

This information is old, so hopefully it is still good. I got it from the page from back when he was Synod secretariat.
Rev. John P. Sherlock
sherlockj@cdowk.org
Code:
                                 ***Catholic                Diocese of Wichita
***424 N. Broadway
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 269-3900


Alan
Hey, cool! Thanks! I’ll look him up and see if there’s any connection.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Has the timer run out on Lucifer?

Wasn’t he once good? If so, then is he irreparably evil?

What if he made an act of perfect contrition to Jesus? Could he be saved?

I’m sorry if this is a rehash of an old thread. I’m not so interested in finding the answer as I am in asking the question, so I don’t expect anything in particular for responses.

Alan
This is a good question. I have often wondered too.

I think that the problem for God . Is can He ever trust satan ,he a total mocker of God . He wanted to level himself with God.

He can never be trusted and Our Lady will crush his head. he will die and he knows it .In anger satan wants all souls and destroy God’s creation.

He will never turn to God because he is too full of pride and arrogant and is with intense hated for God and us. his hatred is infinite in the sense of the word.
He has lost his place in Heaven and will never ever get it back.

So the answer is a straight NO.

Lets not worry about satan’s redemption ,he’s gone ,he 's blown it ,he’s had it.

But food for thought while on the topic , I hope Judas asked God for forgiveness before he ended his life and pleaded God’s mercy. What a dilemma for Judas to find himself in.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Has the timer run out on Lucifer?

Wasn’t he once good? If so, then is he irreparably evil?

What if he made an act of perfect contrition to Jesus? Could he be saved?

I’m sorry if this is a rehash of an old thread. I’m not so interested in finding the answer as I am in asking the question, so I don’t expect anything in particular for responses.

Alan

Answer to question in heading of thread: No.​

 
I heard on Relevant Radio the other day that Lucifer, being an angel, had full knowledge, unlike humans, who have an evolved knowledge…so that when Lucifer exercised his free will to reject God’s directive he did so completely, whereas when humans reject God, the seriousness of the offense is contingent upon how much knowledge of God and His desires the man possessed before saying No. That’s why Lucifer’s choice is a permanent one and man’s is not.

It’s also why the bible talks about to whom much is given much is expected…and why mortal sin for man has to have the element of full knowledge and consent. Well, that last bit is my conjecture…that wasn’t in the Relevant Radio piece. :o
 
Satan is unredeemable, as for Lucifer???

You see I am not completely convinced that Lucifer is Satan. Satan appears within a group of terms including: serpent, dragon, Leviathan, Rahab, however he is only rarely named with angels (the Douay combines the words in the same verses three times)

Zec 3:1 And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord: and Satan stood on his right hand to be his adversary. (DRB)

Conclusion - angels oppose Satan (Satan in the roll of adversary)

2Co 11:14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. (DRB)

Conclusion - Satan is not by nature an angel of light, nor is he named as an angel of darkness, implied Satan is something other than what we understand as angel

2Co 12:7 * And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. * (DRB)

Conclusion - Satan controls angels but no implication that Satan is an angel, but meshes well with the images of the dragon and of Abbadon that we find in Revalations.

and Job is also a reference

Job 1:6 * Now on a certain day, when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them.*(DRB)

Conclusion - Satan is not named as one of the sons of God, but as being present in addition to them

To me Satan seems to be more in line with the Darkness spoken of in John 1

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. (DRB)

As for Lucifer? There is some evidence for the redemption of angels but it is very tenuous and deals with the sons of Rapha in Kings and the appearance of Raphael in the book of Tobit as a good angel. The key is in the hebrew root word of Rapha. Rather inconclusive and food for thought at the least.

one final thought

Col 1:20 And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven. (DRB)
 
But for Grace:
Satan is unredeemable, as for Lucifer???

You see I am not completely convinced that Lucifer is Satan. Satan appears within a group of terms including: serpent, dragon, Leviathan, Rahab, however he is only rarely named with angels (the Douay combines the words in the same verses three times)

Zec 3:1 And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord: and Satan stood on his right hand to be his adversary. (DRB)

Conclusion - angels oppose Satan (Satan in the roll of adversary)

2Co 11:14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. (DRB)

Conclusion - Satan is not by nature an angel of light, nor is he named as an angel of darkness, implied Satan is something other than what we understand as angel

2Co 12:7 * And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. * (DRB)

Conclusion - Satan controls angels but no implication that Satan is an angel, but meshes well with the images of the dragon and of Abbadon that we find in Revalations.

and Job is also a reference

Job 1:6 * Now on a certain day, when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them.*(DRB)

Conclusion - Satan is not named as one of the sons of God, but as being present in addition to them

To me Satan seems to be more in line with the Darkness spoken of in John 1

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. (DRB)

As for Lucifer? There is some evidence for the redemption of angels but it is very tenuous and deals with the sons of Rapha in Kings and the appearance of Raphael in the book of Tobit as a good angel. The key is in the hebrew root word of Rapha. Rather inconclusive and food for thought at the least.

one final thought

Col 1:20 And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven. (DRB)
The truth is that Lucifer is a latin name for Venus, which is the morning star. In Isaiah 14:12 is the phrase “morning star,” and Jermone translated it using the word “Lucifer.” To someone reading in latin, this makes sense as referring to Venus. However, the KJV translators made a mistake and kept the word Lucifer in that one passage. To English readers, the name Lucifer was just a name without any other meaning behind it.

Isaiah 14:12 is about the rise and fall of a Babylonian king. It also has long been considered as a parallel to the fall of Satan.

The KJV rendering of “morning star” as Lucifer combined with the parallel of the passage to Satan’s fall led to Satan being (what I would call) mistakenly assumed to have the name Lucifer. Catholicisim does not tend to deviate from this usage for a few theological reasons. The word Lucifer comes from the same root as lucidus, which means, “clear and bright.” Satan has often been called the brightest angel. St. Paul spoke of Satan as sometimes appearing as an “angel of light.”
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
The truth is that Lucifer is a latin name for Venus, which is the morning star. In Isaiah 14:12 is the phrase “morning star,” and Jermone translated it using the word “Lucifer.” To someone reading in latin, this makes sense as referring to Venus. However, the KJV translators made a mistake and kept the word Lucifer in that one passage. To English readers, the name Lucifer was just a name without any other meaning behind it.

Isaiah 14:12 is about the rise and fall of a Babylonian king. It also has long been considered as a parallel to the fall of Satan.

The KJV rendering of “morning star” as Lucifer combined with the parallel of the passage to Satan’s fall led to Satan being (what I would call) mistakenly assumed to have the name Lucifer. Catholicisim does not tend to deviate from this usage for a few theological reasons. The word Lucifer comes from the same root as lucidus, which means, “clear and bright.” Satan has often been called the brightest angel. St. Paul spoke of Satan as sometimes appearing as an “angel of light.”
yes, very good, but you did not truly respond to any of the comments made in my previous post other that the usage of the word Lucifer as a name for a specific being. Would you care to comment further, the issue about the meaning of Lucifer was addressed above by cleopa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top