Must I believe in Satan?

[Kropotkin]

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

Then perhaps your argument is with The Church, for it is open to disxussion )see earlier posts)

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Then perhaps your argument is with The Church, for it is open to disxussion )see earlier posts)

Your argument is with Church doctrine.

books.google.com/books?id=_u6p14mgsZwC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=The+Catechism+of+The+Council+of+Trent-the+devil&source=bl&ots=aEBpljfQVw&sig=hgVI37smgYeUJX3_9Atw2ChNTxg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hEMAUNXpNKX62AXDntTBBA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=The%20Catechism%20of%20The%20Council%20of%20Trent-the%20devil&f=false

 

[Kropotkin]

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

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?”

As it is the weekend and I do not have access to the university library and its exegetical texts I cannot provide you with a more academic response to that one and only verse. Please withhold your uncharitable remarks until I can

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

As it is the weekend and I do not have access to the university library and its exegetical texts I cannot provide you with a more academic response to that one and only verse. Please withhold your uncharitable remarks until I can

Apocalypse 12:9
And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

I don’t know about mgoforth but I have a hard time being charitable with a heretic.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Then perhaps your argument is with The Church, for it is open to disxussion )see earlier posts)

It is not according to the Council of Trent. A few posts on a message board do not overrule a Church Council.

 

[mgoforth]

As it is the weekend and I do not have access to the university library and its exegetical texts I cannot provide you with a more academic response to that one and only verse. Please withhold your uncharitable remarks until I can

I’m certainly willing to wait until next week. My remarks were not meant to be uncharitable…I’m only interested in helping you find the answer you’re seeking here. However, I can be charitable without being blind to the obvious. The debate about Luke 10:18 began a full day before the weekend, and your only response was to brush it off as not de fide.

Plus if you know enough to make the statement “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.”, then you obviously know about a link between the passage and Isaiah. The full book of Isaiah is available online, in every historical translation, all weekend long. Numerous Catholic commentaries for Isaiah are available online as well.

And again, I feel compelled to ask whether the materials you’re going to access at the library to support an alternate interpretation are de fide? I don’t ask that to be uncharitable or sound like a broken record…but it’s the standard that you insist on. Every other document is highly suspect according to what you’ve told us here.

 

[Kropotkin]

It is not according to the Council of Trent. A few posts on a message board do not overrule a Church Council.

Any knowledgeable Catholic would know that not all of the conetnts of a council are infallible.

 

[mgoforth]

Any knowledgeable Catholic would know that not all of the conetnts of a council are infallible.

Who’s being uncharitable, Kropotkin?

 

[R_C]

with the Church’s International Theological Commission stating in 2004 that Adam may be symbolic

That is interesting indeed. I found that in the first session the following was stated:

This seems to indicate that when Genesis refers to Adam and Eve this could be a way of symbolically referring to a larger group of original human ancestors.

However - quoting again from Fr. Ott’s book, we believe with sententia certa that:

“The whole human race stems from one single human pair”

and, with regards to Adam:

• Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (sententia certa)
• Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (de fide)
• The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. (de fide)
• Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary. (de fide)

So while it may be possible that there may be a symbolism behind Adam and Eve (just like most things in the Old Testament carry many levels of meanings), that does not mean that Adam and Eve did not exist.

By the way, I found something interesting on the devil: it is de fide that “In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing” and it is sententia certa that “the fallen angels were subjected to a moral testing”.

 

[EricFilmer]

1 verse, seriously?

This is a rebuttal, seriously?

And exactly what do you mean by “1 verse”? If you are saying that you do not feel the need to debate a single verse of Scripture then explain how this amounts to a rebuttal of my post. As it stands now, your comment is a non sequitur because it does not logically follow that a theological belief needs to be drawn from more than one bible verse in order to be credible.

Moreover, numerous biblical citations have been presented in this thread, not just Luke 10:18, so no one is saying that the belief that Satan is a person is solely drawn from this Gospel passage. I’ve been focusing on Luke 10:18 because you specifically asked about it in Post #7 and said that it was relevant to this thread topic in Post #10. So why all the constant dodging when I and others bring up Luke 10:18?

If by “1 verse” you are saying that I only believe that Satan is a person because of Luke 10:18 then you are resorting to a Straw Man fallacy because I never claimed this. I presented a variety of material in Post #87 and reminded you of this in Post #112, and you have yet to comment on that material.

So for the second time I ask you, have I and others sufficiently demonstrated in this thread that the teaching that Satan is a person is de fide or not? If we have then your question has been answered. If we have not then clearly explain why. And by “clearly explain” I mean in a manner that one expects from someone who claims to have a BA and MA in theology. And let me point out that resorting to fallacious reasoning is not what one expects from someone with has completed graduate studies.

And also, least they be forgotten, here again are my questions to you pertaining to Luke 10:18:

For the third time 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.

For the forth time 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.

 

[FrBryan]

Any knowledgeable Catholic would know that not all of the conetnts of a council are infallible.

There is a more fundamental issue in question here than the teaching on Satan or on the creation of man. You seem to be implying, in the above quote and elsewhere, that a Catholic is only obliged to believe those teachings of the Church which are infallible. This is not true. Vatican I states in De Fide Catholica,

1. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

Not only infallible statements by Councils or the Supreme Pontiff, but also statements of the ordinary magisterium must be given the consent of faith. This includes everything stated by the ecumenical councils and promulgated by the Pope, Papal documents, and documents issued by Pontifical Councils (this list is not meant to be exhaustive). That means that we are required to believe what is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because it is a church document promulgated by Pope John Paul II. You can find an article on this here.

Others have already shown that the Church does in fact teach, as part of her ordinary magisterium, that Satan does exist and is a fallen angel and that Adam refers to some real person.

This is an issue of faith. Do we have faith in the teaching authority of the Church or not? There will be times for many of us when we will be tempted to doubt certain Church teachings. We must remember that it is God Himself who gives teaching authority to the Church and protects her from error. Our submission to the teachings of the Church are rooted in our faith in God and are themselves acts of faith, so let us pray with the father of the possessed boy, “I do believe, help my unbelief (Mark 9:24 NAB)!”

 

[mgoforth]

As it is the weekend and I do not have access to the university library and its exegetical texts I cannot provide you with a more academic response to that one and only verse.

After studying Isaiah 14 briefly, I’m going to take a stab at this and guess that verses 12-15 from that chapter were what you had in mind (please correct me if I’m off base with any of this).

Isaiah 14:12-15

“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
But you said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit."

I believe your argument might be that “star of the morning” is referring to a Babylonian king or deity and not to Satan. This could certainly be true. It would fit within the context of chapters 13 and 14 of Isaiah.

Haydock’s commentary agrees, as well:

Ver. 12. O Lucifer. O day-star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer, the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God. (Challoner) (Luke x. 18.) (Calmet) — He fell by pride, as Nabuchodonosor did. (Worthington)

However, what does that prove regarding Luke 10:18? Jesus doesn’t say that He’s quoting from Isaiah, and even if we knew for certain that He was (since He did frequently quote the OT), He may have been reinterpreting an older prophecy and showing it’s true meaning to us (as He also did frequently). There are six examples of Christ’s reinterpretation in Matthew 5:21-48 alone!

Here’s Haydock’s commentary for that verse:

Ver. 18. I saw Satan as lightning, &c.

Many expound it in this manner: I, who am from eternity, saw Satan with all the rebellious angels, as glorious as they were, fall from heaven; fear then, and tremble, though you have received such favours from God.

Others take it in this sense, that Christ, by his incarnation, hath seen the power of the devils lessened and confounded, according to what he also said, (John xii. 31.) Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (Witham) —

What connexion have these words with what goes before? Some understand them thus: the reign of the devil is near at an end; this prince of darkness is going to be overturned; he will fall from the air, where he reigns, with the same precipitation as lightning, which cuts the clouds and presently disappears. It is almost the same thing he says in other places. “The prince of this world is already judged; behold now is the judgment of this world; behold now the prince of this world shall be cast forth! When I sent you to preach the gospel to the poor, I saw Satan fall; I saw his empire overturned. The last effort which this empire of darkness shall make is the death of our Saviour, as he himself says: This is your hour, and the power of darkness. Since his resurrection he has bound the dragon in the abyss for a thousand years; he has shut up the entrance, and sealed it with his seal.” (Apocalypse xii. 9. and xx. 2.)

Others think that Jesus speaks here of the fall of Lucifer, at the beginning of the creation. Wishing to give his disciples a lesson in humility, on account of the vain complacency which he saw they took in the miracles they wrought, he says to them: Beware of pride, that precipitated the first angel from heaven: I have seen him in the glory with which he was surrounded, and I have seen him hurried into the abyss. Fear, lest the same should happen to you. The former explanation appears to us more simple and literal. (Calmet)

Notice one important thing though…all of the choices Haydock speaks of imply that Satan is a real creature.

 

[LiarsAtCF]

If their was no satan, then their was no fall. So no. That is a very silly question, considering he is what draws temptation to us.

Eh, I still think people can be corrupt without the aid of Satan. 7 Deadly Sins come to mind.

 

[thistle]

The OP dismisses lightly the fact that many posters in this thread have provided him with Church documents which show the Church teachings on Satan and also Adam.
He agrees that Catholics are bound by infallble and non-infallible teachings yet in the next instance he rejects those very teachings. He can’t have it both ways.
He rejects these teachings in favour of a paper by the International Theological Commission which is vague at best on the topic of Adam and has nothing on Satan.
It is not even a teaching of any kind, neither infallible nor non-infallible.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Adam and Satan both are used as proper names in Sacred Scripture. While Adam might be a type for all mankind in places, and the Book of Job might refer to “the satan,” that does not negate the fact that Adam was a person and or that Satan is a fallen angel.

To say that there was no person named Adam, or to say that there is no fallen angel named Satan, is heresy, simply because Jesus Christ is descended from Adam as evidenced by his genealogy, and Jesus came to die for our sins which we would not have if Adam had not fallen from grace through the influence of the devil. Denying that there was a person Adam is to deny that Jesus Christ is who he actually is. Denying that there is a Satan is to deny that Jesus Christ is who he actually is.

If Adam did not exist, then the parts of Sacred Scripture which refer to him as an actual person are lies. If Satan does not exist, then the parts of Sacred Scripture which refer to him as a fallen angel are lies. If either one of these two did not exist, then neither did Jesus Christ, since Jesus is descended from Adam and came to defeat the devil.

One cannot maintain that Adam or Satan did not exist and remain Christian. The two of them are linked to who Jesus Christ is.

Professing to believe in Jesus Christ is a more profound profession than it might appear at first glance.

†God Bless!

 

[Kropotkin]

The OP dismisses lightly the fact that many posters in this thread have provided him with Church documents which show the Church teachings on Satan and also Adam.
He agrees that Catholics are bound by infallble and non-infallible teachings yet in the next instance he rejects those very teachings. He can’t have it both ways.
He rejects these teachings in favour of a paper by the International Theological Commission which is vague at best on the topic of Adam and has nothing on Satan.
It is not even a teaching of any kind, neither infallible nor non-infallible.

I have never, not once stated that I reject the teaching of the Church. I am merely discussing it, which most certainly does not constitute heresy. Personally I am glad that we have this right as Catholics; we are not extremists. The reason we can discuss this is because none of the Church Documents presented here carry the language of de fide. (BTW thankyou everyone for presenting those references)

I just think it is a very interesting subject. A personified Satan is not a Jewish concept, I am curious as to when the relatively new understanding of Satan came about; presumably sometime between the completion of the OT and the advent of the Christian faith. Perhaps it was the pagan influence of the Greeks? The Jews would never attribute such power to anyone but God; such attributions are perceived as pseudo paganism.

 

[thistle]

I have never, not once stated that I reject the teaching of the Church. I am merely discussing it, which most certainly does not constitute heresy. Personally I am glad that we have this right as Catholics; we are not extremists. The reason we can discuss this is because none of the Church Documents presented here carry the language of de fide. (BTW thankyou everyone for presenting those references)

I just think it is a very interesting subject. A personified Satan is not a Jewish concept, I am curious as to when the relatively new understanding of Satan came about; presumably sometime between the completion of the OT and the advent of the Christian faith. Perhaps it was the pagan influence of the Greeks? The Jews would never attribute such power to anyone but God; such attributions are perceived as pseudo paganism.

You are BOUND to believe in Satan.
You are BOUND to believe Adam was a real person.

So none of us misunderstand your position will you please confirm if you accept or reject what I said as correct.

 

[Kropotkin]

You are BOUND to believe in Satan.
You are BOUND to believe Adam was a real person.

So none of us misunderstand your position will you please confirm if you accept or reject what I said as correct.

Yes, you are indeed correct; we are bound to believe but free to discuss.

 

[EricFilmer]

…none of the Church Documents presented here carry the language of de fide. (BTW thankyou everyone for presenting those references)

Is that all you have to say after the variety of material posted here yesterday? Seeing how I and others took the time to give you exactly what you asked for (Church documents demonstrating a de fide belief in the existence of Satan as a person), you could at least have the courtesy of giving a clear explanation as to why you feel we didn’t do the job. This is, after all, a debate, and in debates both sides not only express their opinions, but also make the case for their position. You claim to have a BA and MA in theology so let me ask you this, do you honestly feel that a comment like, “none of the Church documents presented here carry the language of de fide” (with absolutely no follow-up) is an authentic rebuttal in a debate? Keep in mind that we are using our free time to answer your question, so it would be nice if you were to give a more substantive response than simply saying, “none of this is de fide”. Or do you seriously think that you’ve made a case for your position?

At this point I think this thread needs some clarity. Therefore…

**1) **Please give us your definition of the term “de fide” (just so we all know exactly how you are critiquing the posts in this thread, because there seems to be a difference between your understanding of this term and mine).

2) Give a rebuttal of the material provided from the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship’s Christian Faith and Demonology. This was linked by DavidFilmer in Post #6 (and with all due respect to my brother, I disagree with his conclusion; de fide teachings are, indeed, often conveyed in the language he described but do not have to be as a rule). Moreover, R_C later provided additional quotes from this same document in Post #85, so be sure to address them in your critique of Christian Faith and Demonology.

3) Give a rebuttal to the Catechism citations presented by 1ke in Post #15 which teach about the existence of Satan and describe him as a “fallen angel” a “creature”, and a “created spirit” who was good but freely chose to become evil. Your response to 1ke (in Post #16) was simply to say that not everything in the Catechism is de fide, but you did not explain why the paragraphs cited by 1ke were not. Incidentally, the Satan being described in the section posted by 1ke has to be a person who possesses a moral capacity. If you disagree then clearly explain why.

4) Give a rebuttal to the quotations from Ott provided by Joan M in Post #23 and R_C in Post #85. So far, the only response you gave was to say that Ott did not cite the Council of Trent (Post #26). Clearly explain why doctrine has to be cited by the Council of Trent in order to be valid de fide. And just so you’ll know, I intend to critique your response in light of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Doctrine of the Assumption.

5) Give a rebuttal of FrBryan’s material presented in Post #80 & Post #126. So far you have ignored both of these posts (except to presumably include them in your universal dismissal of everything that has been posted thus far).

6) Give a rebuttal of my own material from Post #87. So far you’ve ignored it (except to presumably include it in your universal dismissal of everything that has been posted thus far). Incidentally, this is now the third time that I have reminded you of Post #87.

Incidentally, you’re not the only one on this thread with a graduate degree in theology. I actually have two, a MDiv and a M.A. in Systematic Theology (and FrBryan, by virtue of his priesthood, would have one or more graduate degrees in theology as well, and perhaps others in this thread also have such credentials). I thought this was worth pointing out, because I know the sort of responses to expect from someone who has completed such studies. At the risk of sounding mean-spirited (which is not my intent) I have found your contributions to this debate to be curiously lacking. I’m not accusing you of misrepresenting yourself as having attained a BA and MA in theology, but I am starting to wonder if there is something about this topic which is effecting your academic performance. And let me be clear, I mean no insult by this, but I’m simply giving you my honest assessment of the quality of the statements you have made in this thread thus far. I will also admit that I am feeling a little bit exasperated because if all you intend to do is dismiss my contributions with your unsubstantiated opinion as to what does and does not constitute a de fide teaching (and snarky comments such as “1 verse, serious?”) then it appears that my participation in this thread has been a waste of time. If you think I am being unfair by saying all this then, by all means, specify the posts you have made herein that you feel demonstrate what one expects from someone who has completed graduate studies in theology.

 

[novusCatholic]

Must I believe in Satan?

Jesus did.