Is Lucifer really evil?

[friardchips]

Hello thistle: I found this following URL with a commentary on the revelations regarding St. Bridget, you may be interested to check this out.

Dear abdulmasih, I have found a link reporting on some of the things reported that Jesus said through St. Bridget.

Dear ready, you may also be interested to read this:

Here I have picked three entries in this commentary that all state that Judas is the one being compared to sinners, not Satan. Details for the commentary are at the bottom of the PDF (Knights of the holy Rosary):

ia600400.us.archive.org/9/items/RevelationsOfSaintBridget/RevelationsOfStBridgetAndChurchReform.pdf

Here are the areas with the nearest quotes to that made by the poster:

P.5 of PDF -

• ‘Bridget accuses a great number of Christians, especially priests, of lacking true contrition for their sins, lacking a firm purpose of amendment and not detaching themselves from the causes and occasions of sin. One priest is accused by demons who say, “The liar! We can testify that his confession is like that of Judas, for he says one thing with his mouth but has another in his heart” (1.48). Bridget accuses many priests of hypocrisy, concealing their impurity and other sins under the outward appearance of piety. Such hypocrites are worse than Judas, who at least acknowledged his wicked deed and regretted it, although he did not turn to God’s mercy. These priests, however, continue to feign righteousness (4.132).’

P.6 of PDF

• ‘She states that those guilty of simony, like the duplicitous priests referred to above, are worse than Judas, who at least returned the money after having betrayed Christ (4.132).’

P.12 of PDF

• ‘Know too that priests who have concubines and celebrate Mass are as acceptable and pleasing to God as were the inhabitants of Sodom whom God submersed in hell.…”
  (7.12).’

I am not saying that the quotes are not in the whole book but here I only see Judas and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah used as comparisons. I find it highly unlikely for theological reasons that St. Bridget, a Saint, would have heard such as thing.

No where does it say in this write-up that anyone is more evil or worse than the devil.

So again, if anyone can find a trustworthy link that states otherwise, then please do so, and post it here.

 

[ready]

Hello thistle: I found this following URL with a commentary on the revelations regarding St. Bridget, you may be interested to check this out.

Dear abdulmasih, I have found a link reporting on some of the things reported that Jesus said through St. Bridget.

Dear ready, you may also be interested to read this:

Here I have picked three entries in this commentary that all state that Judas is the one being compared to sinners, not Satan. Details for the commentary are at the bottom of the PDF (Knights of the holy Rosary):

ia600400.us.archive.org/9/items/RevelationsOfSaintBridget/RevelationsOfStBridgetAndChurchReform.pdf

Here are the areas with the nearest quotes to that made by the poster:

P.5 of PDF -

• ‘Bridget accuses a great number of Christians, especially priests, of lacking true contrition for their sins, lacking a firm purpose of amendment and not detaching themselves from the causes and occasions of sin. One priest is accused by demons who say, “The liar! We can testify that his confession is like that of Judas, for he says one thing with his mouth but has another in his heart” (1.48). Bridget accuses many priests of hypocrisy, concealing their impurity and other sins under the outward appearance of piety. Such hypocrites are worse than Judas, who at least acknowledged his wicked deed and regretted it, although he did not turn to God’s mercy. These priests, however, continue to feign righteousness (4.132).’

P.6 of PDF

• ‘She states that those guilty of simony, like the duplicitous priests referred to above, are worse than Judas, who at least returned the money after having betrayed Christ (4.132).’

P.12 of PDF

• ‘Know too that priests who have concubines and celebrate Mass are as acceptable and pleasing to God as were the inhabitants of Sodom whom God submersed in hell.…”
  (7.12).’

I am not saying that the quotes are not in the whole book but here I only see Judas and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah used as comparisons. I find it highly unlikely for theological reasons that St. Bridget, a Saint, would have heard such as thing.

No where does it say in this write-up that anyone is more evil or worse than the devil.

So again, if anyone can find a trustworthy link that states otherwise, then please do so, and post it here.

The private revelation of St. Bridget posted by Abdulmasih about bad priests and bad popes does not say that bad priests and bad popes are more evil than Satan. They say that bad priests and bad popes are worse than Satan. In a certain respect, bad priests and bad popes can be worse than Satan; I have already given my explanation why it can be argued that they, in a certain respect, can be seen as worse than Satan. God bless you.

 

[friardchips]

Yes, but Jesus never said that bad priests and bad popes are worse than Satan, not according to St. Bridget; rather, he said that they are worse than Judas and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Please keep to the point.

So, again, unless anyone has any actual link stating that a Saint has made the suggestion that Jesus said that a sinner of one kind or another is worse than Satan - ‘worse than’, in this context meaning ‘more evil than’ - then, with all due respect, you are in fact creating a statement entirely born of your own reasoning and not born of theology or from divine communication or inspiration!

Just because you reason it so doesn’t make it acceptable to think such a suggestion is acceptable within the R.C Church, and in fact, at this stage without further proof that St. Bridget said this, it is opposed to the R.C Church to think such as thing.

If I find proof that St. Bridget did say this then I would still go as far as finding out if it was accepted as true for theological reasons.

 

[ready]

Yes, but Jesus never said that bad priests and bad popes are worse than Satan, not according to St. Bridget; rather, he said that they are worse than Judas and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Please keep to the point.

So, again, unless anyone has any actual link stating that a Saint has made the suggestion that Jesus said that a sinner of one kind or another is worse than Satan - ‘worse than’, in this context meaning ‘more evil than’ - then, with all due respect, you are in fact creating a statement entirely born of your own reasoning and not born of theology or from divine communication or inspiration!

Just because you reason it so doesn’t make it acceptable to think such a suggestion is acceptable within the R.C Church, and in fact, at this stage without further proof that St. Bridget said this, it is opposed to the R.C Church to think such as thing.

If I find proof that St. Bridget did say this then I would still go as far as finding out if it was accepted as true for theological reasons.

You have not read all of the St. Bridget private revelations, have you? Unless you have, then you can not say that Abdulmasih’s quotes are not part of her revelations and then you can not say that Jesus was only referring to Judas. I disagree with you when you say that being worse then someone means being more evil than them. I can be worse than another person in one respect, while they are more evil them me in general. God bless you.

 

[abdulmasih]

Yes, but Jesus never said that bad priests and bad popes are worse than Satan, not according to St. Bridget; rather, he said that they are worse than Judas and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Please keep to the point.

So, again, unless anyone has any actual link stating that a Saint has made the suggestion that Jesus said that a sinner of one kind or another is worse than Satan - ‘worse than’, in this context meaning ‘more evil than’ - then, with all due respect, you are in fact creating a statement entirely born of your own reasoning and not born of theology or from divine communication or inspiration!

Just because you reason it so doesn’t make it acceptable to think such a suggestion is acceptable within the R.C Church, and in fact, at this stage without further proof that St. Bridget said this, it is opposed to the R.C Church to think such as thing.

If I find proof that St. Bridget did say this then I would still go as far as finding out if it was accepted as true for theological reasons.

Search “Revelations of Saint Bridget” then click the SAINTSBOOKS link. The document I quoted is different, it is more than 30 standard pages long.

 

[abdulmasih]

You have not read all of the St. Bridget private revelations, have you? Unless you have, then you can not say that Abdulmasih’s quotes are not part of her revelations and then you can not say that Jesus was only referring to Judas. I disagree with you when you say that being worse then someone means being more evil than them. I can be worse than another person in one respect, while they are more evil them me in general. God bless you.

Thank you. In charity, I must point out a mistake you made. If someone is worse than the devil, and is so by DELIBERATE INTENT, then he or she is more evil than the devil (I don’t like how that rhymes). God bless you

 

[friardchips]

Dear ready,

Thanks for your response.

You have not read all of the St. Bridget private revelations, have you? Unless you have, then you can not say that Abdulmasih’s quotes are not part of her revelations and then you can not say that Jesus was only referring to Judas.

• which I why I said, ready, in the following various posts:

‘…at this stage without further proof that St. Bridget said this, it is opposed to the R.C Church to think such as thing.’

and…

‘I am not saying that the quotes are not in the whole book…’

and…

‘No where does it say in this write-up that anyone is more evil…’

I disagree with you when you say that being worse then someone means being more evil than them. I can be worse than another person in one respect, while they are more evil them me in general.

I am interested in what way you think the devil is not evil?

I’ll explain: when talking in terms of truth and goodness, the word ‘worse’ means less true and less good. When comparing with the devil then one can only argue in terms of evil, because the devil is pure evil.

So, from your viewpoint, you are stating that you think not only is the devil not evil in some manner or other, or less evil than pure evil, but also that you believe that by people having the capability to be worse than the devil, that they are more evil than pure evil.

It doesn’t make sense…

The devil is pure evil in every way and cannot be out-fielded in evil in any way. To suggest such a thing is along the lines of people saying that the devil is not the devil and doesn’t exist - the greatest trick of the devil.

 

[friardchips]

Thank you. In charity, I must point out a mistake you made. If someone is worse than the devil, and is so by DELIBERATE INTENT, then he or she is more evil than the devil (I don’t like how that rhymes). God bless you

Hi. Not sure why you put: ‘Thank you. In charity…’

First of all, ready has not proved anything as you will see with the post I replied to ready with. And he is doing you no favours by defending what you have not yet proved (where is the URL, for example?). Until such time, there is no proof that St. Bridget said this and is therefore, until such time can be proved otherwise, against theology.

And in charity, let me assure you that it is uncharitable to add or take away from Christ’s power and the authority of the R.C Church. So, it is not in charity.

What you are also saying about deliberate intent - you do not believe that the devil can help himself to administer evil? You don’t think he made a choice to rebel?

Do people love the devil and want to defend him? Trust me, he won’t be so lovely and lenient to you in return!

If St. Bridget said this, then all I am asking is for you to write the URL or give the title of the book and publisher so we can have proof she said this. Then all will be sorted. Otherwise, why did you say this? Is this maybe your own reasoning?

If anyone has got the revelations could they post whether St. Bridget said this or not and whether it has been disregarded if so.

Maybe an expert in the field could respond to this thread and give your concrete fact-based opinion!

As you can see from my research so far, some steps have made to being able to assert whether it is likely that St. Bridget said these things or not. At the moment, where things stand, it is likely she didn’t…

 

[thistle]

Yes, but all I am saying is that no approved private revelation contradicts Church teaching, the Church would not approve of the parts of a person’s private revelation that contradicted Church teaching, like the Church did for part of the private revelation of La Salette. God bless you.

I realise that. I am just saying that all sorts of nonsense could be written without it necessarily contradicting Church teaching. For example, two “approved” revelations contradict each other by the number of nails used to crucify Jesus, and one saying he was nailed to the cross while lying on the ground and the other he was nailed to the cross when it was upright. They can’t both be correct. However, none of these contradict Scripture (even though the private revelations contradict each other) because Scripture does not say if Jesus was crucified on the ground or when upright or how many nails were used.
Also Anne Emmerich states that after Jesus was arrested the soldiers threw him off a bridge. I think that is nonsense but because it is not in Scripture it does not contradict it.

 

[ready]

I realise that. I am just saying that all sorts of nonsense could be written without it necessarily contradicting Church teaching. For example, two “approved” revelations contradict each other by the number of nails used to crucify Jesus, and one saying he was nailed to the cross while lying on the ground and the other he was nailed to the cross when it was upright. They can’t both be correct. However, none of these contradict Scripture (even though the private revelations contradict each other) because Scripture does not say if Jesus was crucified on the ground or when upright or how many nails were used.
Also Anne Emmerich states that after Jesus was arrested the soldiers threw him off a bridge. I think that is nonsense but because it is not in Scripture it does not contradict it.

I understand what you are saying. After reading Ven. Mary of Agreda’s and Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich’s account of the life of Blessed Mary I have pious faith in Ven. Mary of Agreda’s private revelations, but not in the private revelations of Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich which contradict Ven. Mary of Agreda’s private revelations. God bless you.

 

[ready]

So, from your viewpoint, you are stating that you think not only is the devil not evil in some manner or other, or less evil than pure evil, but also that you believe that by people having the capability to be worse than the devil, that they are more evil than pure evil.

No, I believe and know with certainty that Satan and his minions/accomplices are the most evil of all God’s creatures. Satan is a pure spirit, this the Church teaches. Satan’s plans are pure evil, Satan’s actions are pure evil, but he as a being is not pure evil, for he has a being, which is good, says St. Augustine. The Church does not teach that he is pure evil --the Church teaches that he is evil and is pure spirt. If Satan were pure evil, then God would annihilate him, says St. Augustine, for nothing which does not retain some goodness would God keep in existence.

The devil is pure evil in every way and cannot be out-fielded in evil in any way. To suggest such a thing is along the lines of people saying that the devil is not the devil and doesn’t exist - the greatest trick of the devil.

NOBODY here is saying that the devil is not evil or does not exist. And to be worse than someone does not necessarily mean to be more evil than they are in every respect. For example, a person can be worse than you for his negligence of being temperate or diligent, but you still could be much more evil of a person than I he is. Don’t you see? He can be worse than you in one respect, while you basically can be much more evil of a person than he. I don’t doubt that bad priests and bad popes are Satan’s seed and are evil – that they can be considered worse than Satan by Jesus, like Jesus said to St. Bridget, for bad priests and bad popes of all people should be GOOD and SHEPHERDING SOULS TO HEAVEN, a special task entrusted to them by God Who placed all of His confidence in them. These evil men are Satan’s minions and accomplices. God bless you.

 

[ready]

No, I believe and know with certainty that Satan and his minions/accomplices are the most evil of all God’s creatures. Satan is a pure spirit, this the Church teaches. Satan’s plans are pure evil, Satan’s actions are pure evil, but he as a being is not pure evil, for he has a being, which is good, says St. Augustine. The Church does not teach that he is pure evil --the Church teaches that he is evil and is pure spirt. If Satan were pure evil, then God would annihilate him, says St. Augustine, for nothing which does not retain some goodness would God keep in existence.

In his book *Confessions *, St. Augustine says that God would not permit something that was pure evil to exist. God is pure Goodness in his Being. But Satan is not pure evil in his being. There is a heresy I believe that says that there exists a battle between pure Goodness and pure Evil. Yes, there exists a battle between Good and Evil, and God is pure Goodness, but Satan in his being is not pure evil – only his plans and actions can be described as such. God bless you.

 

[thistle]

I understand what you are saying. After reading Ven. Mary of Agreda’s and Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich’s account of the life of Blessed Mary I have pious faith in Ven. Mary of Agreda’s private revelations, but not in the private revelations of Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich which contradict Ven. Mary of Agreda’s private revelations. God bless you.

 

[friardchips]

ready, I love St. Augustine, a doctor of the Church, and have read ‘Confessions’, and it is life-changing.

I have heard this heresy about good vs evil too, it is still around today and I think St. Augustine himself spoke out against it in his day. I can’t recall him saying that the devil was not pure evil. But will look that up. He might well have done. Thanks for bringing it up. The heresy is a danger people can fall into if they concentrate on the devil rather than on the holy Cross! Posters take note! However, it matters not whether the devil is pure evil or not because ‘worse’ cannot be argued in human terms using the devil as a comparison, which is what you’ve been doing…

So before I look up Augustine, I would reason two notions and put them forward to you:

The devil *could not *be considered pure evil because, you say Augustine said, that he has a being which is good. I would concur that this would only be because the devil was made by God in the first place and nothing God makes is evil. And if the devil exists then God is holding him in existence. Right? Please follow…

The argument to do with the devil being or not being worse than some popes and priests, which you think and which I don’t think can be considered reasonable, is in what we both understand as what constitutes as being evil - and you still haven’t got what I am saying; you see, everything on this earth we experience in the form of senses and desires but they are only earthly-level versions of heavenly desires - imperfect, limited or disordered. (Let’s leave the senses out because it is not on-topic). The same can apply to evil. Humans experience evil in* human terms *as living beings. We can experience mental anguish, physical pain and suffering on all levels as human beings caused by other humans and our evil inclinations and weaknesses and disordered desires etc…

But moving into the spiritual realm, Catholics can experience desolation and consolation not rooted in the experiences of human life but what God is showing or communicating to them, over and above the normal state of being. The Saints were able, as you mentioned before, to experience a higher, supernatural (don’t like this word) understanding of good and evil. They would tell you that desire to do evil is a disordered form of something pure - love! We want to be loved by God but do not know how to express it in outward consistent regular fashion, if it all, for various reasons. The reason being is that God is all good; but evil, in it’s, for argument’s sake let’s say its purest form, without, over and above the physical manifestations of evil, is love (spiritual) turned inwards - a sheer loathing of self that is actually emptiness and void of love - the total absence of God! Utter torment! So the devil, in this regard, can be known as a pure evil without God destroying him immediately, because the devil has in fact been cast out into its own pit of fire. It is the devil’s hatred that drives men to going against God or keeping them away from God. No man can wreak the havoc that this dark angel causes. If men do this, it is because of their weak human condition that has allowed the devil to spiritually take hold. And before you say…no, not pure…

What I am saying is that evil did not exist, and the word was not necessary until the devil turned from God. In supernatural terms, that is what evil is! So God allowed a choice, and allowed for the possibility of turning away from God. But to say that the devil is not pure evil is to say that evil existed before the devil’s choice. Augustine was in fact reasoning from a different viewpoint to cancel out the idea of a balance between good and evil - which is heresy. But safely within the realms of R.C understanding, it can be argued what is pure evil? The purest evil is simply the devil because it was in the devil that the choice to turn from God became manifest. Evil does not have an effect on God because evil in its purest form is the turning inwards away from God, in the devil. Evil doesn’t effect God but God can wipe out the devil. Why is this so? Because all evil eventually is bound up by God in the devil and squashed, and can be, because all pure evil really means is the purest form of evil - that which has turned furthest from God. This cannot be argued in any other way than being the devil. You see?

The devil’s choice was evil in its purest form. When people* do *evil, they are praying to the devil. They get bound up with his initial choice to turn away - in hell.

No human can operate to the level of that which is most evil because no evil human being has the boundaries or power to achieve that evil which was essentially made manifest in the father of evil (again, I reiterate Jesus’ words - the ‘Father of lies’).

Jesus was jubilant when Satan came falling from the sky. Jesus is never happy to see humans souls falling into hell.

Jesus said for us to love our enemy. This means praying for those who do great injustice.
Jesus does not ever say pray for the devil, because that is to say pray for evil in pure/purest form - evil himself - love turned inwards. If you think that the devil is not worse in any area or aspect of evil than people then that means that you think he can be forgiven.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin which cannot be forgiven. The devil does not have access to confession. He orchestrates ALL evil. because he IS evil. He is worse in every way than every sinner because he is The Tempter of all evil made manifest.
If those that purposefully lead people from Christ knowing of His love will not be forgiven then you think God loves the devil’s soul, he who is evil itself. Hmm…

 

[friardchips]

’Through Bridget, Christ reprimanded the popes for not returning to Rome from Avignon; but even calling Clement VI (1342-52) “a destroyer of souls, worse than Lucifer, more unjust than Pilate, and more merciless than Judas” failed to change his mind. She also delivered several messages to Popes Innocent VI, Urban V, and Gregory XI.'

abdulmasih and ready, I have proved myself incorrect in the end - St. Bridget did say this, apparently. Found a trustworthy link!…on:

dailycatholic.org/issue/11Oct/oct8pom.htm

I would still like to know if this was approved by the R.C Church as authentic because of the following statements by Christ, at the bottom of this page:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

’413 “God did not make death”…(as I said in my long post)…**“and he does not delight in the death of the living” **(as I said). . . **“It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).’ ** - (as I said)

Let me reiterate here: ‘through the devil DEATH entered the world!’ All of death!!! That is a biggy!

**414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God. **…‘definitive’.

415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1). Also…

Jesus called Satan a ‘murderer from the beginning’. And he called him the ‘Father of lies’. So, as I reasoned in my looooong post, how can this be true id St. Bridget was correct? :whacky:

Does anyone know if the Church rejected St. Bridget’s notion? And if not, do we have to believe it due to our own sensible reasoning?

 

[friardchips]

Actually, you were right initially abdulmasih and I should have just believed you. Please forgive my mistrust and pray for me. Thank you for humbling me and enlightening me with this revelation! ( though I remain utterly confused )

 

[ready]

You say: “But to say that the devil is not pure evil is to say that evil existed before the devil’s choice.”

I say: This is not so. Evil came into the world the instant Satan chose to refuse to serve God and was disobedient to Him, not one moment sooner.

You say: “No human can operate to the level of that which is most evil because no evil human being has the boundaries or power to achieve that evil which was essentially made manifest in the father of evil (again, I reiterate Jesus’ words - the ‘Father of lies’).”

If a person does the worst evil that a person can do in his state in life, then he is evil to the max just as the worst devil is in his state of existence, no? not until he repents anyway. Even though a human’s ability to cause evil may not be as great as a devil’s, his degree of evil may be overflowing for a person, no? Evil means “the absence of good.” Whether that absence is in a fallen angel or in a fallen man it still is the absence of good, it still is evil. Whether a thimble is filled with poison or a large glass is filled with it, it is still poison and poison enough to kill a person and send them to hell. Satan is very evil, and so are his accomplices, his seed. I would imagine that Satan is God’s biggest sinner and gets the worst punishment in hell because he has done such incredible damage to the whole human race. But I honestly can not discard the private revelation of St. Bridget. Perhaps our Lord meant it figuratively or in a very special way when he said that bad popes and bad priests are worst than Satan – He truly must have meant that they are worst in a certain respect. Did he mean it figuratively or even in a certain respect when he told St. Margaret Mary that he was suffering, for we know that Jesus can not suffer in heaven. I believe he meant it in a certain respect and not figuratively, but I don’t know. I’ll find out in the next life.

Satan can not be forgiven, and I do not believe that the Church teaches that Satan is pure evil – though she teaches that he is evil. As I said, St. Augustine teaches that God would not permit a creature that was pure evil to exist. He is I believe the most evil of creatures, but I don’t believe that the Church teaches that he is pure evil. And just because he may be the most evil of creatures this does not mean that bad priests and popes can’t be worst than he in a certain respect. As I said, I don’t think that being worst than Satan means being overall “more evil” than Satan – just worst than he, in some respect. God bless you.

 

[friardchips]

ready, I think my own reasoning is short of good here and what you said about pure evil is probably correct. Until such time that I can see that the Church as well as St. Augustine has stated what you said, then I believe you. Why would you say something contrary to the truth. I was a bit quick to go at you when you seemed to give up arguing with abdulmasih, so please forgive me for not checking resources first.

In terms of whether St. Bridget’s remark is true; I think that until such time could be proved incorrect, one has a duty to believe a Saint, and so I believe what she said too.

What I argued though about how ‘worse’ is meant in this context - I think it could do with analysis. ‘The catechism of the R.C Church, says: 'In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.’ Talking about Satan.’ But until such time that St. Bridget’s remark can be proved that it was meant in a specific (possibly figurative) way, then I hold everything St. Bridget said in her revelations and of course what the R.C Church defines as applicable and true, as true, in my mind and heart also.

And as St. Augustine said: “we must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.” (This quote can be found on the catechism URL already posted).

And to reiterate; what you said: when we sin mortally we do evil that sends us to hell. To blame everything on the devil would be to then approach the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a less than truly sorry heart for our own actions and therefore risk not being contrite when asking for forgiveness at the Sacrament, although imperfect contrition is accepted. As a Catholic, in no uncertain terms, one must love the Church and all its true and holy teaching

God bless.

 

[ready]

ready, I think my own reasoning is short of good here and what you said about pure evil is probably correct. Until such time that I can see that the Church as well as St. Augustine has stated what you said, then I believe you. Why would you say something contrary to the truth. I was a bit quick to go at you when you seemed to give up arguing with abdulmasih, so please forgive me for not checking resources first.

In terms of whether St. Bridget’s remark is true; I think that until such time could be proved incorrect, one has a duty to believe a Saint, and so I believe what she said too.

What I argued though about how ‘worse’ is meant in this context - I think it could do with analysis. ‘The catechism of the R.C Church, says: 'In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.’ Talking about Satan.’ But until such time that St. Bridget’s remark can be proved that it was meant in a specific (possibly figurative) way, then I hold everything St. Bridget said in her revelations and of course what the R.C Church defines as applicable and true, as true, in my mind and heart also.

And as St. Augustine said: “we must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.” (This quote can be found on the catechism URL already posted).

And to reiterate; what you said: when we sin mortally we do evil that sends us to hell. To blame everything on the devil would be to then approach the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a less than truly sorry heart for our own actions and therefore risk not being contrite when asking for forgiveness at the Sacrament, although imperfect contrition is accepted. As a Catholic, in no uncertain terms, one must love the Church and all its true and holy teaching

God bless.

 

[abdulmasih]

Actually, you were right initially abdulmasih and I should have just believed you. Please forgive my mistrust and pray for me. Thank you for humbling me and enlightening me with this revelation! ( though I remain utterly confused )

You are much forgiven, brother in Christ. Please realise in the future that I take very great care not to contradict Catholic teaching and post only what is in accordance with my conscience and that if I believe them 100%, even if I do post from saints’ private revelations. On a side note, it feels really weird to have people call me abdulmasih. I originally picked the name since I’m Indonesian and many people here speak Arab to some extent, but it feels a little off since I’m not even Arabic or of Arab descent.