Must I believe in Satan?

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Here is the definition of de fide.

de-fi·de
   [de-fee-de; Eng. dee-fi-dee] Show IPA

Latin .
of the faith: a phrase used in the Roman Catholic Church to qualify certain teachings as being divinely revealed, belief in them therefore being obligatory.

The belief in Satan is as de fide as belief in Jesus.

 

[CaptFun]

Kropotkin, I’d like to ask you why your are trying so desparately to convince yourself that Satan doesn’t exist. Also, are you trying to convince yourself that hell doesn’t exist?

Lol. That’s a thought I had. But not the only one. Only Kropotkin knows - and maybe not even him. Some nicer thoughts I had were (and Kropotkin, you might consider these side effects - being misunderstood by others who wonder why you started the post):

1. Kropotkin is doing a Mc Luhanistic “probe” into the subject. Flushing out all manner of thinking on the matter by asking questions of smart people. The late Marshall McLuhan called it “probing” for knowledge. Sometimes in academia (and outside it) subjects become so emotionally charged that learning (even with discovering blind alleys and discounting mistakes as part of the process) becomes stifled. This was even before “political correctness” was labelled.
2. Kropotkin has devised and ingenious Tom Sawyer-like way of getting us to contribute oodles of footnotes and data for the bibliography in his upcoming Theological Doctor’s thesis.

Color me a willing participant (accomplice?).
"Get thee behind me (obedient ally of my testing) !" :whistle:

 

[Joan_M]

I never asked for proof from within Sacred Tradition, as I know what has been believed in the past, I want evidence that such a belief is de fide. However I have realised now that there is no such proof.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

Here is a link to the entire text: The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent.

If you search for Satan you will only find 2 references - search, instead, for devil.

End your obstinance.

 

[FrBryan]

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.
Kropotkin

Since ample evidence has been given from Sacred Scripture to show that the devil is a real, personal being, specifically a fallen angel, but you contend that this does not show that the teaching is de fide, I found the following quote from the 4th Lateran Council (1215 AD). This quote comes from the Confession of Faith.

“The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.” (ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm)

Now, the purpose of a confession of faith is to put forth those teachings that must be believed in, so this must be de fide. By the way, this is what the CCC references for n. 391, which was quoted earlier.

As to the second issue, that concerning theological development, The Catechism has this to say,
CCC 94:

Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.
• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, The sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”
• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

There is room for deepening understanding of the truths of the faith, or theological development, as long as we stay faithful to Scripture and Tradition.

Fr. Bryan

 

[thistle]

I respect your opinion. However I have a BA and a MA in Theology from a Catholic university, and I disagree with your opinion; I think it is very rude to accuse someone who disagrees with your opinion of calling our Lord a liar, very cheap shot. It may be possible that your interpretation of Luke is not perfect, unlikely I know but possible.

You keep avoiding answering my question.
What did Jesus mean when he spoke these words?

Luke 10:18 Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky."

 

[thistle]

Not all the contents of The Catechism constitute de fide teachings, but rather the current position of The Church, many things are up for debate. In fact the then Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that it is lawful to debate the issue of “Adam’s” literal or figurative meaning.

You do realise surely that Catholics are bound by all Church teachings whether they are infallible or non-infallible. You do not get to pick and choose which to accept and which to reject. They must all be accepted.

 

[underacloud]

No desperation: I don’t mind believing in “Satan” if scripture and The Church support it, but from what I’ve learnt, and from what I’ve heard here there is no proof for such a belief.

They certainly *support *it, as other posters have shown (eg via the catechism). They just haven’t come out and made it de fide, so perhaps there is room to hypothesise on an abstract level regarding different interpretations. That’s how theology develops and evolves. Nothing wrong with that.

But as Thistle points out, Catholics are still bound by all current Church teachings whether they are infallible or non-infallible. You may surmise on an abstract level what certain teachings mean, but on a practical level you are obliged to assent to what is included in the catechism. I assent to certain beliefs that I find hard to understand. I trust that the current teaching is fundamentaly true, even though it may be figurative in some manner. The current teaching certainly treats satan as real and a single entity, and all Catholics should assent to this, even if they theoretically hypothesise more a figurative meaning.

 

[iloveangels]

Kropotkin, you asked, “Must I believe in Satan?”

Why not? He believes in you.

 

[R_C]

They certainly *support *it, as other posters have shown (eg via the catechism). They just haven’t come out and made it de fide

Sorry, I think we are not noticing the fact that

1. • the Sacred Scriptures clearly state that Satan is a creature
   • the Lord has clearly confirmed this as a fact
   • the Church has stated and states (ex. in the Catechism) that Satan is a creature, specifically an angel
   I have found that the theologian Fr. Ludwigg Ott in his notorious work “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” states that the following beliefs are de fide:
   • Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil.
   • The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin.
   He also lists as a teaching of the Church (but without the de fide) status that
   • The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.
   The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a doctrinal document, Christian Faith and Demonology, which clearly states:
   

   the very existence of the devil is frankly called into question. …] Some critics claim that none of his words guarantees demonic reality …] the existence of demonic reality, they say, no longer has a call on our faith today, and we are free to reject it. …] For all the above, finally, the names of Satan and of the devil are only mythical or functional personifications, the significance of which is solely to underline in a dramatic fashion the hold which evil and sin have on mankind. They are only words …] Similar ideas, repeated with a wealth of learning and spread by journals and some theological dictionaries, cannot fail to disturb people.

   The principal episodes of healing possessed persons were also accomplished by Christ on occasions which are presented as decisive ones in the accounts of his ministry. His exorcisms posed and oriented the problem of his mission and of his person; …] Without ever placing Satan at the centre of his Gospel, Jesus nevertheless only spoke of him on what were clearly crucial occasions and by means of important pronouncements.

   There is a necessary conclusion. Satan, whom Jesus had confronted by his exorcisms, whom he had encountered in the desert and in his Passion, cannot be simply the product of the human faculty of inventing fables and personifying ideas, nor can he be an erroneous relic of a primitive cultural language.

   Satan certainly leads on to sin, but he is distinct from the evil which he causes to be committed.

   This is why the Fathers of the Church, convinced from Scripture that Satan and the demons are the adversaries of the Redemption, have not failed to remind the faithful of their existence and activity.

   It is true that in the course of its twenty centuries the Magisterium has devoted only a small number of strictly dogmatic declarations to demonology.

   The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) …] We firmly believe and simply confess… one principle of the universe, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who by his omnipotence from the beginning of time created all things from nothing, both spiritual and corporeal, namely, the angels and the world, then the human creature, which belongs in a certain way to both, for it is composed of spirit and of body. For the devil and the other demons were created naturally good by God, but it is they who by their own action made themselves evil. As for man, he sinned at the instigation of the devil

   Pope Saint Leo the Great to Turibius, Bishop of Astorga …] spoke …] "The true faith on the other hand, the Catholic faith, professes that the substance of all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, is good, and that evil is not a nature, since God, the Creator of the universe, made only what was good. This is why the devil himself would be good if he had remained in the state in which he had been created.

   I won’t quote the long and extensive document which goes over basically the entire history of demonology. I conclude with the conclusion itself:
   

   It is to faith in fact that the Apostle Saint Peter leads us back when he exhorts us to resist the devil, “strong in faith”. Faith teaches us that the reality of evil “is a living spiritual being, perverted and corrupting” (124). Faith can also give us confidence, by assuring us that the power of Satan cannot go beyond the limits set by God. Faith likewise assures us that even though the devil is able to tempt us he cannot force our consent.

   It certainly remains true that the demonic reality attested to in the concrete by what we call the mystery of Evil, remains an enigma surrounding the Christian life. We scarcely know any better than the Apostles knew why the Lord permits it, nor how he makes it serve his designs. …] Through their menace which stops us short they enable us to grasp that there exists a beyond which has to be deciphered, and then to turn to Christ in order to hear from him the Good News of salvation graciously offered to us.

 

[underacloud]

R_C,

Thanks for the information posted.

I don’t dispute the reality of Satan at all. The OP has rejected any and all evidence thus far as not being strictly de fide, and I was merely trying to suggest that Catholics are bound to accept it even if it isn’t explicitly de fide.

We always see these arguments, about what is and isn’t de fide, going around in circles. But the point, as raised by Thistle, is that Catholics can’t just reject Church teaching because it isn’t explicitly de fide. We accept it all, humbly, and work within the context of current teachings.

If you believe that your sources are sufficient to establish this teachign as de fide, I’ll leave that for you and the OP to discuss; it doesn’t bother me either way.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m amazed by Don Bosco’s writings, and believe in The Creed; neither of which mention Satan.

The Creed’s statement about believing in that which is invisible includes belief in angels and devils.

Nor can I find any Church document that states that the belief in a personal being called Satan is De Fide

CCC #328: The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls “angels” is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition. (emphasis added)

This establishes that belief in angels (in general) is de fide (i.e., “truth of faith” = de fide).

CCC #391: Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.” (emphasis added)

Here the Catechism points out that Satan is a fallen angel (and belief in angels is* de fide*). Moreover, this section of the Catechism draws upon both Scripture and Sacred Tradition in identifying Satan as a fallen angel. Despite your objections to 1ke in Post #16, this is definitely de fide language.

almost all scholars agree that the dragon in The Apocalypse is Nero not Satan.

Uh, no they don’t. Most Scripture scholars believe that the imagery in Revelation has multiple levels of meaning. In other words, the dragon is identified by many scholars as referring to Nero (in the context of being an agent of Satan who persecuted the ancient Christians) and Satan himself (in the overall battle between good and evil). If a scholar were to say that the dragon in Revelation “is Nero not Satan” then he would be contradicting the plain words of Scripture in Rev. 12:9 - “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world…” (RSV).

Jesus came to save us from sin not from Satan; read your Bible.

He saves us from both:

“We come face to face with sin which is a perversion of human freedom and the profound cause of death because it involves detachment from God, the source of life. And then sin in its turn becomes the occasion and the effect of interference in us and our work by a dark, hostile agent, the Devil. Evil is not merely an absence of something but an active force, a living, spiritual being that is perverted and that perverts others. It is a terrible reality, mysterious and frightening.” *(emphasis added) *

• Pope Paul VI, Confronting the Devil’s Power

 

[EricFilmer]

Luke 10:18 Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky."

That is not correct and I noticed you made no comment on the actual words of Jesus. Are you saying he lied?

Luke 10:18 Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky."

You keep avoiding answering my question.
What did Jesus mean when he spoke these words?

Luke 10:18 Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky."

Kropotkin, I would also like to see your answer to Thistle’s posts pertaining to Luke 10:18 (seeing as you stated in Post #10 that you feel a discussion on this particular Gospel passage is, indeed, on-topic). As far as I can tell, the only response you have given so far is to suggest that Thistle’s interpretation of Luke may not be perfect (Post #14). To be quite honest, this sounds like a dodge to me, because you did not actually try to refute Thistle’s interpretation, nor did you offer any interpretations of your own. So in light of this I ask you to…

1. Give an interpretation of what is being described as “Satan” in Luke 10:18.
2. Clarify how “Satan” was in heaven to begin with and then explain how and why he fell from heaven.

If Satan is an angelic person, who was initially good but then rebelled against God, then these questions are readily answered. On the other hand, I think formulating a credible non-personal interpretation of Satan makes this a pretty tough challenge.

 

[Kropotkin]

Kropotkin, I would also like to see your answer to Thistle’s posts pertaining to Luke 10:18 (seeing as you stated in Post #10 that you feel a discussion on this particular Gospel passage is, indeed, on-topic). As far as I can tell, the only response you have given so far is to suggest that Thistle’s interpretation of Luke may not be perfect (Post #14). To be quite honest, this sounds like a dodge to me, because you did not actually try to refute Thistle’s interpretation, nor did you offer any interpretations of your own. So in light of this I ask you to…

1. Give an interpretation of what is being described as “Satan” in Luke 10:18.
2. Clarify how “Satan” was in heaven to begin with and then explain how and why he fell from heaven.

If Satan is an angelic person, who was initially good but then rebelled against God, then these questions are readily answered. On the other hand, I think formulating a credible non-personal interpretation of Satan makes this a pretty tough challenge.

I don’t have an answer just yet, however if one’s interpretation of that passage is dependent upon an incorrect interpretation of Isaiah it should be scrutinised.

 

[Kropotkin]

Thanks everyone for your posts. Its clear many people have strong opinions about this issue; however I should remind you all that we belong to a dynamic Church, with the Church’s International Theological Commission stating in 2004 that Adam may be symbolic I wonder how many of you would agree with that either. Many things are up for debate.

 

[thistle]

Thanks everyone for your posts. Its clear many people have strong opinions about this issue; however I should remind you all that we belong to a dynamic Church, with the Church’s International Theological Commission stating in 2004 that Adam may be symbolic I wonder how many of you would agree with that either. Many things are up for debate.

You seem to be forgetting that doctrines CANNOT change.
It has also been proven to you using Church documents that belief in Satan is De Fide.
You also have not responded to my comment that Catholics are bound by all Church teachings whether infallible or non-infallible.
You are bound to believe Adam is a real person. No teachings are up for debate if it means you are looking for them to be changed.

 

[Kropotkin]

You also have not responded to my comment that Catholics are bound by all Church teachings whether infallible or non-infallible.

I couldn’t agree more.

You are bound to believe Adam is a real person. No teachings are up for debate if it means you are looking for them to be changed.

Not true, read for yourself… Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.

 

[thistle]

**I couldn’t agree more.
**

Not true, read for yourself… Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.

That means you know you are bound to believe Satan exists and plenty of proof has been shown to you on the Church teaching.

You are also bound to believe Adam and Eve were real people and not symbolic. The Church is clear and unambiguous on this.

CCC 416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

CCC 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

CCC 359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says,** became a living soul**, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”

HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)
Pope Pius XII

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Regarding the link to the paper by the Commission I have read that before but went through it again. There is nothing in that paper which states or even suggests Adam was not a real person.

 

[Kropotkin]

That means you know you are bound to believe Satan exists and plenty of proof has been shown to you on the Church teaching.

You are also bound to believe Adam and Eve were real people and not symbolic. The Church is clear and unambiguous on this.

CCC 416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

CCC 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

CCC 359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says,** became a living soul**, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”

HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)
Pope Pius XII

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Regarding the link to the paper by the Commission I have read that before but went through it again. there is nothing in that paper which states or even suggests Adam was not a real person.

“In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called ‘an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.’”

 

[mgoforth]

Not true, read for yourself… Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.

Kropotkin…is this document de fide? If not, why do you post it in defense of your argument, when you won’t accept others posting similar documents in defense of theirs? Again, I sense hypocrisy my friend.

 

[Kropotkin]

Kropotkin…is this document de fide? If not, why do you post it in defense of your argument, when you won’t accept others posting similar documents in defense of theirs? Again, I sense hypocrisy my friend.

So you don’t accept this document? As you stated it is not de fide, therefore you are entitled to reject this official Church document; so too am I able to question anything that is not infallible, that is my right as a member of The Church.