M
mgoforth
Guest
The Gospels are not Church documents? Let’s discuss those.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Why did Jesus call him Satan if his name isn’t Satan?
S
SPPN
Guest
Yes
K
Kropotkin
Guest
They are Sacred Scripture; just show me one Church document that supports your position.Then the Gospels are not Church documents? Let’s discuss those.
M
mgoforth
Guest
I’ve showed you the words of Christ Himself, the head of the Church. You don’t seem to WANT to believe this…or you’re approaching your faith from a very legalistic mindset. Satan as a personal entity of evil is in the Gospels, in the NT epistles, in the book of Revelation, in the Catechism, in the writings of countless popes and saints. If you are so determined to exclude this belief from your faith, then that is between you and God.They are Sacred Scripture; just show me one Church document that supports your position.
Why would you not believe in Satan with all this evidence for his existence from reliable sources? Just because it’s not written in stone as a required belief?
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. (including turning a blind eye to him)
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
K
Kropotkin
Guest
You are not The Church; nor do you speak for it; I don’t care about your interpretation of scripture, only that of The Church. Show me something that supports your personal Interpretation.I’ve showed you the words of Christ Himself, the head of the Church. You don’t seem to WANT to believe this…or you’re approaching your faith from a very legalistic mindset. Satan as a personal entity of evil is in the Gospels, in the NT epistles, in the book of Revelation, in the Catechism, in the writings of countless popes and saints. If you are so determined to exclude this belief from your faith, then that is between you and God.
Why would you not believe in Satan with all this evidence for his existence from reliable sources? Just because it’s not written in stone as a required belief?
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. (including turning a blind eye to him)
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
M
mgoforth
Guest
“Just as Christ was sent by the Father, so also He sent the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit. This He did that, by preaching the gospel to every creature, they might proclaim that the Son of God, by His death and resurrection, had freed us from the power of Satan and from death, and brought us into the kingdom of His Father.” Sacrosanctum Concilium Chapter 1I’m amazed by Don Bosco’s writings, and believe in The Creed; neither of which mention Satan. Jesus came to save us from sin not from Satan; read your Bible.
Also, need I point out the hypocrisy of asking one person to read his Bible, while refusing to address verses from Sacred Scripture that I’ve presented to you?
K
Kropotkin
Guest
Again, you’ve quoted material that is not de fide; so at the end of the day my opinion is as good as yours. If however The Church had made a definite statement on the subject it would be different, but it hasn’t.“Just as Christ was sent by the Father, so also He sent the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit. This He did that, by preaching the gospel to every creature, they might proclaim that the Son of God, by His death and resurrection, had freed us from the power of Satan and from death, and brought us into the kingdom of His Father.” Sacrosanctum Concilium Chapter 1
Also, need I point out the hypocrisy of asking one person to read his Bible, while refusing to address verses from Sacred Scripture that I’ve presented to you?
M
mgoforth
Guest
These are all taken from documents produced by the Second Vatican Council:You are not The Church; nor do you speak for it; I don’t care about your interpretation of scripture, only that of The Church. Show me something that supports your personal Interpretation.
“Now God, in order to establish peace or the communion of sinful human beings with Himself, as well as to fashion them into a fraternal community, did ordain to intervene in human history in a way both new and finally sending His Son, clothed in our flesh, in order that through Him He might snatch men from the power of darkness and Satan (cf. Col. 1:13; Acts 10:38) and reconcile the world to Himself in Him (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Him, then, by whom He made the world, He appointed heir of all things, that in Him He might restore all (cf. Eph. 1:10).” Ad Gentes
“As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. In Him God reconciled us to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the devil and sin He delivered us, so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God “loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).” Gaudium Et Spes
“Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator.” Gaudium Et Spes
“But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly and casting out that “prince of this world” (John 12:31) who held him in the bondage of sin.” Gaudium Et Spes
I can certainly find more documentation if you would like.
K
Kropotkin
Guest
I think you misunderstand me, and I honestly mean you no disrespect, but as I said before I believe this conceptualisation of Satan is indeed Church tradition and is present in Church documents; however my argument is that it is not de fide and that it has never been stated as such.These are all taken from documents produced by the Second Vatican Council:
“Now God, in order to establish peace or the communion of sinful human beings with Himself, as well as to fashion them into a fraternal community, did ordain to intervene in human history in a way both new and finally sending His Son, clothed in our flesh, in order that through Him He might snatch men from the power of darkness and Satan (cf. Col. 1:13; Acts 10:38) and reconcile the world to Himself in Him (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Him, then, by whom He made the world, He appointed heir of all things, that in Him He might restore all (cf. Eph. 1:10).” Ad Gentes
“As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. In Him God reconciled us to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the devil and sin He delivered us, so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God “loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).” Gaudium Et Spes
“Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator.” Gaudium Et Spes
“But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly and casting out that “prince of this world” (John 12:31) who held him in the bondage of sin.” Gaudium Et Spes
I can certainly find more documentation if you would like.
M
mgoforth
Guest
It seems a very safe bet to believe in satan’s existence. Prior to the Assumption of Mary being declared de fide, the truth of the assumption was still true. I respect that you place your faith in de fide, as you should. My only point is that those things that we MUST believe are not the only things we CAN believe. There are others that, based on a preponderance of evidence, seem overwhelmingly true. Will you be excommunicated from the Church for refusing to believe in satan? No. Will you place your salvation at risk? Pope Benedict seems to believe so.Again, you’ve quoted material that is not de fide; so at the end of the day my opinion is as good as yours. If however The Church had made a definite statement on the subject it would be different, but it hasn’t.
L
lux
Guest
I too think that you have already made up your mind that satan doesn’t exist for you. Is your purpose here to try to convince others that we should not believe as well? What is the proof of your assertion? How does it bring us closer to God?
G
Gods_Peace
Guest
In the end you are wrong. That temptation flows through satan, and the root of satans temptation is sin. Get your head straightI think you misunderstand me, and I honestly mean you no disrespect, but as I said before I believe this conceptualisation of Satan is indeed Church tradition and is present in Church documents; however my argument is that it is not de fide and that it has never been stated as such.
K
Kropotkin
Guest
Although I may have opinions of my own my mind is never made up; and no, it is not my intention to encourage others to accept my beliefs. I am honestly just a very inquisitive soul. How does it bring us closer to God? For me it is the acceptance that God is the ONLY authority within this world, and that any strife or trouble we encounter is not the work of Satan, but rather God testing us in order to make us stronger.I too think that you have already made up your mind that satan doesn’t exist for you. Is your purpose here to try to convince others that we should not believe as well? What is the proof of your assertion? How does it bring us closer to God?
K
Kropotkin
Guest
Thanks for the post, but I’m looking for a more well=read discussion.In the end you are wrong. That temptation flows through satan, and the root of satans temptation is sin. Get your head straight
X
Xuan
Guest
Hi Kropotkin,Hi everyone,
As I’m sure most of you are aware our modern conceptualisation of Satan is the product of theological evolution. In the Old Testament “Satan” was merely a righteous angel of God sent by God to test the faith of individuals; in fact the correct translation is “The Satan” (the adversary), and was a role that could be delegated to any angel.
For the most part The Church accepts that Satan represents a single being who is the absolute personification of evil; however I have seen nothing to suggest that the belief in a personal being called Satan is De Fide.
In Christ, through Mary
Kropotkin
I don’t think the Church requires us to see Satan as a person. I think the Church allows (and sometimes encourages) us to see him that way, but I think the Church also allows us to see him as a metaphor for things that cause temptation (greed, testosterone, etc.). After all, the Bible is full of metaphors, and many of them are not clearly spelled out. When we do something wrong, we can say we gave in to the devil, or we can (more accurately) say we gave in to our own inclinations, which actually means giving in to our “self”.
In reference to an earlier post, when Christ was being tempted in the desert, I personally don’t think He was actually talking to a guy named “Satan”. I think He was dealing with His own human ego. After all, He was fully human as well as fully divine, and subject to all the same temptations that everybody else is. It was something He had to deal with.
With some issues, it seems the Church puts out one viewpoint for public consumption while holding other viewpoints in reserve for discussion among theologians. I think this is one such issue. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Xuan
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
You are trying to defend an indefensible position. I suggest you go talk to a priest since you don’t believe evidence you see with your own eyes.Thanks for the post, but I’m looking for a more well=read discussion.
Why do you think church Tradition is not de fide? It is and always has been.
K
Kropotkin
Guest
Thanks so much Xuan, completely agree, thanks for postingHi Kropotkin,
I don’t think the Church requires us to see Satan as a person. I think the Church allows (and sometimes encourages) us to see him that way, but I think the Church also allows us to see him as a metaphor for things that cause temptation (greed, testosterone, etc.). After all, the Bible is full of metaphors, and many of them are not clearly spelled out. When we do something wrong, we can say we gave in to the devil, or we can (more accurately) say we gave in to our own inclinations, which actually means giving in to our “self”.
In reference to an earlier post, when Christ was being tempted in the desert, I personally don’t think He was actually talking to a guy named “Satan”. I think He was dealing with His own human ego. After all, He was fully human as well as fully divine, and subject to all the same temptations that everybody else is. It was something He had to deal with.
With some issues, it seems the Church puts out one viewpoint for public consumption while holding other viewpoints in reserve for discussion among theologians. I think this is one such issue. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Xuan
K
Kropotkin
Guest
Wow, not sure what to say to something like that, you’re Catholic right?Why do you think church Tradition is not de fide? It is and always has been.
S
studychristian
Guest
Most of Christianity has a concept of Satan…
- Status
- Not open for further replies.