Must I believe in Satan?

[Kropotkin]

I very much appreciate the time and effort you have contributed; however, and I mean this with all due respect, any resentment on your part is unwarranted as posting on an internet forum is not my principle priority, nor am I responsible for your, all be it commendable, level of participation. I am disappointed that you doubt my integrity, but I assure you I do not doubt yours.

Out of respect I will admit that this teaching is Sententia Communis, and if this represents de fide I concede. However it does not change the fact that such matters may be debated.

 

[Kropotkin]

I’d like to add that I completed my degrees over a decade ago, and having since developed a career in the Defence Force, which includes many deployments on your “war on terror” I have not often had the opportunity to practice or expand upon them, so I apologise if you do not feel my time limited responses are appropriate.

 

[EricFilmer]

I very much appreciate the time and effort you have contributed;

And I would likewise like to see some more “time and effort” put into this debate on your part. Brief unsubstantiated opinions and snarky comments do not serve as authentic rebuttals.

…however, and I mean this with all due respect, any resentment on your part is unwarranted as posting on an internet forum is not my principle priority,

What does CAF not being your “principle priority” have anything to do with it? You have already committed time and energy into reading and responding to various issues raised in this thread. I’m simply talking about the manner in which you made those responses.

…nor am I responsible for your, all be it commendable, level of participation.

I did not ask you to be “responsible” for it, I asked you to be more considerate and to observe the standard process by which a debate is conducted.

I am disappointed that you doubt my integrity,

In saying that you are “disappointed” you are likewise saying that you expected something otherwise. Looking back at the quality of your various responses I can’t imagine why. In light of this I will once more state what I did at the end of Post #134: 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.

…but I assure you I do not doubt yours.

Thanks, but if I failed to provide proper rebuttals in a debate then I would not be disappointed if my integrity was, indeed, called into question.

Out of respect I will admit that this teaching is Sententia Communis, and if this represents de fide I concede.

Actually, it doesn’t. Sententia Communis means that the teaching in question is widely believed among theologians, but not considered dogmatic. Therefore, a Sententia Communis belief is not, by definition, de fide.

However it does not change the fact that such matters may be debated.

To clarify my own involvement in this thread, I have not said that this topic should not be discussed. My focus thus far is to demonstrate that the teaching concerning Satan’s existence as a person is de fide, and that Church documentation properly demonstrates this to be so. If you still disagree then clearly explain why the various material presented in this thread failed to do the job. When doing so, I would appreciate it if you used the outline I presented in Post #134.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’d like to add that I completed my degrees over a decade ago…

And, FWIW, I completed my degrees over eight years ago.

…and having since developed a career in the Defence Force, which includes many deployments on your “war on terror” I have not often had the opportunity to practice or expand upon them, so I apologise if you do not feel my time limited responses are appropriate.

I commend you for your service in helping with “our” war on terror.

As to your other comments, am I to understand that limited time suddenly makes unsubstantiated opinion a valid rebuttal in a debate? If you only had limited time to invest in this discussion then why did you start a thread to begin with?

Plus, I want you to reflect upon the following responses you have made to people (including myself) in this thread:

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

“Wow, not sure what to say to something like that, you’re Catholic right?”

“I think you should read up on the subject.”

“Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.”

“1 verse, seriously?”

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

Personally, I find these comments to be condescending (or, to use my earlier term, “snarky”). But, according to what you implied in your last post, others are expected to deem them appropriate due to your time limitations. So how about working that one out for me? How does a time limitation justify making a condescending remark as opposed to a courteous remark, especially considering that such remarks are being made to people who took the time and effort to respond to your thread?

 

[Kropotkin]

And, FWIW, I completed my degrees over eight years ago.

I commend you for your service in helping with “our” war on terror.

As to your other comments, am I to understand that limited time suddenly makes unsubstantiated opinion a valid rebuttal in a debate? If you only had limited time to invest in this discussion then why did you start a thread to begin with?

Plus, I want you to reflect upon the following responses you have made to people (including myself) in this thread:

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

“Wow, not sure what to say to something like that, you’re Catholic right?”

“I think you should read up on the subject.”

“Stubbornness with regard to one’s faith can be a good thing but in this case you are incorrect.”

“1 verse, seriously?”

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

Personally, I find these comments to be condescending (or, to use my earlier term, “snarky”). But, according to what you implied in your last post, others are expected to deem them appropriate due to your time limitations. So how about working that one out for me? How does a time limitation justify making a condescending remark as opposed to a courteous remark, especially considering that such remarks are being made to people who took the time and effort to respond to your thread?

No need to be cross. How about this… I completely and unequivocally concede this teaching is de fide in return for a balanced discussion on the theological development of the nature of Satan?

 

[StevenFrancis]

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

Hi Kropotkin:

Here is a very good article on Satan (Devil). I’m not sure it answers your (question/statement?), but it is enlightening as to what is being spoken of when this name is invoked.

newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

May I ask what your premise is? What are you trying to point out? There are many things which aren’t de-fide in some specific area or another. Is it your wish not to be open to the ideas of hell or satan? Are you making a case for no fallen angel, or beings off evil intent and action? It’s difficult to tell where you’re going with this, or why. I’ll read the thread and see what develops. Maybe others get what you’re driving at.

In the mean time, yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[EricFilmer]

No need to be cross.

Actually my personal feelings were more in the area of exasperation than cross (although I can certainly see why they would appear as the latter).

How about this… I completely and unequivocally concede this teaching is de fide in return for a balanced discussion on the theological development of the nature of Satan?

Yes, I think such a discussion on the theological development of the nature of Satan is a worthy topic and you can count me in.

 

[eternalrest]

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

Source for the Old Testament view of Satan?

 

[EricFilmer]

**To all recent participants in this thread…
**
This thread has now been split. Please use the thread at hand to continue discussions concerning whether or not a Catholic is required to believe in Satan.

The other discussion which initially evolved in this thread (i.e., pertaining to the question as to whether or not the devil and demons in Scripture are actual fallen angels or personifications of sin and evil) is now located in the following thread: Are There Really Fallen Angels?