Must I believe in Satan?

[mgoforth]

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.

I didn’t say I rejected the document…I’m just trying to illustrate that your logic is quite hypocritical. Please consider the quote I responded to:

thistle said: “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 replied (emphasis mine): “Not true, read for yourself… Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.”

“Not true” and “you are incorrect” imply that there is a right or wrong answer…while your latest reply to me says “you are entitled to reject this official Church document”.

So which is it?

Are we free to reject the documents you put forward to defend this theory about Adam? If that is the case, you should retract your statement to thistle.

On the other hand, if we’re not free to reject official Church documents, whether or not they’re de fide, then you must accept the teaching that satan is a real individual as binding. Many official Church documents have been provided to support the position.

I think this is the crux of what this debate has morphed into, so please don’t dodge or ignore the question. Which do you choose?

 

[Kropotkin]

I didn’t say I rejected the document…I’m just trying to illustrate that your logic is quite hypocritical. Please consider the quote I responded to:

thistle said: “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 replied (emphasis mine): “Not true, read for yourself… Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.”

“Not true” and “you are incorrect” imply that there is a right or wrong answer…while your latest reply to me says “you are entitled to reject this official Church document”.

So which is it?

Are we free to reject the documents you put forward to defend this theory about Adam? If that is the case, you should retract your statement to thistle.

On the other hand, if we’re not free to reject official Church documents, whether or not they’re de fide, then you must accept the teaching that satan is a real individual as binding. Many official Church documents have been provided to support the position.

I think this is the crux of what this debate has morphed into, so please don’t dodge or ignore the question. Which do you choose?

I think you misunderstand, Thistle was wrong in saying that the Church does not allow for the speculation on the allegorical nature of Adam, it does.

 

[mgoforth]

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

I’m afraid you’re too quick to cling to individual words. This sentence simply says that Adam was the symbol of something greater than himself…but being a symbol doesn’t mean that Adam didn’t exist. Consider this statement in a letter from John Paul II, “Concerning pilgrimage to the places linked to the history of salvation”:

“At the end of the Exodus journey, there rises another peak, Mount Nebo, from which Moses could see the Promised Land (cf. Dt 32:49), without the joy of setting foot there but certain in the knowledge of having reached it. His gaze from Nebo is the very symbol of hope. From that mountain he could see that God had kept his promises. Once more, however, he had to abandon himself trustingly to the divine omnipotence for the sake of the final accomplishment of the plan that had been foretold.”

Now, by your logic used above, is it safe to assume that Moses never actually stood on Mt Nebo and looked into the Promised Land? The act of gazing is called a symbol, so then it never took place, correct?

What if the phrase “Christ is the symbol of God’s infinite love and mercy” was to be included in a Church document someday? Would you begin to question whether Christ Himself ever really existed? No, it would simply show that real people can also be symbols of greater truths, without losing any of their historical reality.

“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.”

“Common genetic lineage” only means they had common ancestors. And if they had common ancestors then those people seem like prime candidates for Adam and Eve. Again, I see nothing here that rules out Adam as a historical person.

“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.’”

So we’re left with one statement that does seem to support your position - a sidenote contained in parentheses. If you’re willing to base a belief that Adam was not real on one tiny qualifying remark, then why (oh why) would you not be willing to accept a belief in satan as a real individual when the supporting evidence for that belief dwarfs the evidence for this Adam theory??

 

[mgoforth]

I think you misunderstand, Thistle was wrong in saying that the Church does not allow for the speculation on the allegorical nature of Adam, it does.

Likewise, I think you misunderstand the larger point I’m trying to make. Thistle may have been correct or incorrect to have said that. I’m not arguing that you don’t have the right to speculate on the allegorical nature of Adam.

What I’m asking you to confirm for me is whether YOU were correct or incorrect to have used a non-de fide Church document as evidence that thistle was incorrect, when you will not permit others to do exactly the same thing in your case regarding satan’s personhood. I’m asking you to address the logical contradiction you’ve created.

Simply answering this one question will be sufficient to address it:

Are we allowed to submit official (but not de fide) Church documents as valid support of our positions?

 

[mgoforth]

I think you misunderstand, Thistle was wrong in saying that the Church does not allow for the speculation on the allegorical nature of Adam, it does.

Sorry for the double response…but I also wanted to point out that “allegorical” does not equal “fictional”. The entire OT can be interpreted allegorically, since it all points to Christ. That doesn’t mean the OT is fiction.

 

[Kropotkin]

Likewise, I think you misunderstand the larger point I’m trying to make. Thistle may have been correct or incorrect to have said that. I’m not arguing that you don’t have the right to speculate on the allegorical nature of Adam.

What I’m asking you to confirm for me is whether YOU were correct or incorrect to have used a non-de fide Church document as evidence that thistle was incorrect, when you will not permit others to do exactly the same thing in your case regarding satan’s personhood. I’m asking you to address the logical contradiction you’ve created.

Simply answering this one question will be sufficient to address it:

Are we allowed to submit official (but not de fide) Church documents as valid support of our positions?

Your argument is very convoluted. Thistle stated that the Church was not willing to discuss such long held beliefs, but it is.

Unless you are a fundamentalist or an extremeist I’m sure you’ll agree that democratic discourse is a good thing.

 

[mgoforth]

Your argument is very convoluted. Thistle stated that the Church was not willing to discuss such long held beliefs, but it is.

Unless you are a fundamentalist or an extremeist I’m sure you’ll agree that democratic discourse is a good thing.

Of course it’s a good thing…but you’re still avoiding my question. Why is it so hard to answer?

 

[Kropotkin]

Of course it’s a good thing…but you’re still avoiding my question. Why is it so hard to answer?

Your question is, why do I present non de fide documents? Because that is all that has been presented to me.

 

[EricFilmer]

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.

You’re still dodging. Let me remind you that you claimed that a discussion of Luke 10:18 was meritorious to the topic at hand, and yet you have refused to actually engage this topic despite many invitations to do so. Concluding that the situation ascribed to Satan in Luke 10:18 is likewise a situation describing a person has nothing to do with Isaiah. If you feel that it does then clearly explain why.

And so that it does not get forgotten among the various material being posted in this thread, here again is the challenge concerning Luke 10:18 that I specifically asked you to address:

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.

 

[mgoforth]

Your question is, why do I present non de fide documents? Because that is all that has been presented to me.

Well, no…that’s not my question. But I accept that you may never be willing to answer the actual question, so I’ll go with your variation.

First…I believe the commandment of our Lord is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and not “do unto others what others have already done unto you”.

So to re-quote thistle:

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.

You would have us only present de fide documents to support our positions. Perhaps you could lead us by example then, and present a de fide document which outlines our freedoms to disregard all documents that are not de fide? I’m not trying to be convoluted…that’s the simplest way I could think to phrase a complex issue.

 

[Kropotkin]

You’re still dodging. Let me remind you that you claimed that a discussion of Luke 10:18 was meritorious to the topic at hand, and yet you have refused to actually engage this topic despite many invitations to do so. Concluding that the situation ascribed to Satan in Luke 10:18 is likewise a situation describing a person has nothing to do with Isaiah. If you feel that it does then clearly explain why.

Is your belief in Satan dependent upon one verse? I can’t say any of my beliefs are.

 

[mgoforth]

Is your belief in Satan dependent upon one verse? I can’t sat any of my beliefs are.

Then could you please reference more supporting material for the theory that Adam was not an historical person, preferably de fide (leading us by example)? You may still respond to my earlier arguments against the evidence you presented…but so far I can only find one very minor phrase in that evidence to support your position. The other two excerpts do not seem to mean what you think they mean.

 

[EricFilmer]

Thanks everyone for your posts. Its clear many people have strong opinions about this issue;

You got a lot more than “strong opinions” on this subject. I and a number of others have presented you exactly what you asked for: Church documents demonstrating in a manner consistent with de fide that Satan exists and that he exists as a person. Do you accept these citations, or do you have a rebuttal for them?

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.

And many things are not up for debate. What you are trying to say here is that because some things in the Bible may be interpreted symbolically, the biblical descriptions of Satan may be interpreted symbolically. That’s bad reasoning, and another dodge on your part. This time, what you are dodging is whether or not I and others in this thread have demonstrated that the teaching that Satan is a person is de fide. If it is de fide then we are not permitted to believe otherwise without being in danger of heresy. If this teaching is not de fide then, yes, one can interpret it symbolically. So the question as to whether or not this teaching is de fide is the key to this entire discussion.

Moreover, you are well aware of this because this was the point you initially hammered home time after time yesterday, demanding that people back up their position with Church documentation. But after people did just that you now want to change gears with a discussion on Adam, using faulty reasoning as to how it is applicable to a discussion on Satan. So once more I ask you, have we properly demonstrated that the belief that Satan is a person is de fide or not? If we have then the question has been answered and the thread can be closed. If we have not then clearly explain why.

 

[Kropotkin]

Then could you please reference more supporting material for the theory that Adam was not an historical person, preferably de fide (leading us by example)? You may still respond to my earlier arguments against the evidence you presented…but so far I can only find one very minor phrase in that evidence to support your position. The other two excerpts do not seem to mean what you think they mean.

There is no theory, nor do I ascribe to such. The ONLY pyrpose of that reference was to demonstrate that the beliefs that some people have are not infallible . As The Church has stated even the existence of Adam is up for debate.

 

[mgoforth]

As The Church has stated even the existence of Adam is up for debate.

Where has it stated such? If the only references you have for this claim are the snippets you provided in post #94, then I think it would be beneficial to address the counter-arguments in post #99. Because I believe those sources do not make such a statement.

 

[EricFilmer]

Is your belief in Satan dependent upon one verse? I can’t say any of my beliefs are.

Obviously my belief that Satan is a person stems from more than one verse. I will remind you of the various material I presented yesterday from Post #87, which you have yet to comment on. My belief is also based upon things others have mentioned in this thread, which I did not repeat for the sake of avoiding redundancy.

But you are still dodging what I asked you about Luke 10:18. So once more I ask you to clearly explain what a faulty understanding of Isaiah has to do with interpreting Satan in Luke 10:18 to be a person. This is now the second time I’ve asked this.

Also, least it be forgotten, here again is my other challenge to you concerning Luke 10:18:

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.

 

[Kropotkin]

Obviously my belief that Satan is a person stems from more than one verse. I will remind you of the various material I presented yesterday from Post #87, which you have yet to comment on. My belief is also based upon things others have mentioned in this thread, which I did not repeat for the sake of avoiding redundancy.

But you are still dodging what I asked you about Luke 10:18. So once more I ask you to clearly explain what a faulty understanding of Isaiah has to do with interpreting Satan in Luke 10:18 to be a person. This is now the second time I’ve asked this.

Also, least it be forgotten, here again is my other challenge to you concerning Luke 10:18:

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./QUOTE

1 verse…seriously?

 

[Kropotkin]

Obviously my belief that Satan is a person stems from more than one verse. I will remind you of the various material I presented yesterday from Post #87, which you have yet to comment on. My belief is also based upon things others have mentioned in this thread, which I did not repeat for the sake of avoiding redundancy.

But you are still dodging what I asked you about Luke 10:18. So once more I ask you to clearly explain what a faulty understanding of Isaiah has to do with interpreting Satan in Luke 10:18 to be a person. This is now the second time I’ve asked this.

Also, least it be forgotten, here again is my other challenge to you concerning Luke 10:18:

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.

1 verse, seriously?

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

There is no theory, nor do I ascribe to such. The ONLY pyrpose of that reference was to demonstrate that the beliefs that some people have are not infallible . As The Church has stated even the existence of Adam is up for debate.

Not according to the Council of Trent.

douglawrence.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-does-the-catholic-church-officially-teach-about-origins-and-evolution/

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)

· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be
Adam.)

God’s creation of Adam and Eve is de fide and if you argue with that then you are a heretic.

 

[mgoforth]

1 verse, seriously?

I think many of us on this thread would say “Yes, seriously.”

… However I have a BA and a MA in Theology from a Catholic university, and I disagree with your opinion; …

You are giving a poor testimony to the value of those degrees if you can’t apply critical thinking skills to one verse. I don’t believe that’s the case though…I think you feel backed into a corner at this point, as you should given the faulty logic you’ve employed, and thus we receive little quips like “1 verse, seriously?”