Some bishops and priests don't believe in Satan?

[Larry1700]

In a recent H2O video showing an interview with Fr. Gabrielle Amorth (exorcist with the Vatican), he (or actually, the translator), said that some bishops and priests don’t believe in Satan.

The Church Needs Exorcists

Has anyone else heard of such a thing?

 

[vern_humphrey]

In a recent H2O video showing an interview with Fr. Gabrielle Amorth (exorcist with the Vatican), he (or actually, the translator), said that some bishops and priests don’t believe in Satan.

The Church Needs Exorcists

Has anyone else heard of such a thing?

Satan comes from Rabbinical tradition, not from scripture. Belief in Satan can approach Manecheanism – the proposition that there are two gods, one good and one bad. Saint Augustine, who was a Manechean before he was converted to Catholicism, rejected belief in Satan and said evil sprang not from Satan, but was merely the absense of good.

 

[Bridge]

vh, i don’t understand what you are saying. Are you really saying Satan doesn’t come from scripture? I have e-Sword and in the Douay-Rheims version there are 36 instances of Satan in the New Testament alone. Jesus Himself is reported to have mentioned Satan on various occasions. He is said to have cast out demons. He is said to have been tempted by Satan in the desert. Are these false writings? Mistaken translations? Allegorical?

 

[vern_humphrey]

vh, i don’t understand what you are saying. Are you really saying Satan doesn’t come from scripture? I have e-Sword and in the Douay-Rheims version there are 36 instances of Satan in the New Testament alone. Jesus Himself is reported to have mentioned Satan on various occasions. He is said to have cast out demons. He is said to have been tempted by Satan in the desert. Are these false writings? Mistaken translations? Allegorical?

Satan as a god-like figure doesn’t exist. We are not believers in Persian dualism.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion of the Devil, and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual punishment with the Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few words has furnished a fruitful theme for theological speculation for the Fathers and Schoolmen, as well as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez for example, have treated it very fully. On the other hand it has also been the subject of many heretical or erroneous opinions, some of which owe their origin to pre-Christian systems of demonology. In later years Rationalist writers have rejected the doctrine altogether, and seek to show that it has been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity from external systems of religion wherein it was a natural development of primitive Animism.

(My emphasis.)

 

[Pete_1]

Saint Augustine, who was a Manechean before he was converted to Catholicism, rejected belief in Satan

Are your sure? Do you have a source?

peace,

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are your sure? Do you have a source?

peace,

That Augustine was a Manechian? He says so in his confessions.

wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/enchiridion.html

St. Augustine on the Problem of Evil
Enchiridion, 10-12

---

In his struggles with the problem of evil, Augustine argues first that the fact that there are things of varying goodness makes for a greater goodness of things as a whole than if there weren’t such variety. And he further argues that evil is not something fully real but only something dependent on that which is more real, as disease (which is an evil) can exist only in a body (which is a good). Thus God, as the source of all that is, is not in contest with a positive being or an ultimate reality which is evil and would be His counterpart. Though Augustine’s ideas were bold and daring, they troubled many later Christians who felt they were unable to reconcile them with the existence of sin, Satan, and damnation.

 

[Pete_1]

That Augustine was a Manechian? He says so in his confessions.

wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/enchiridion.html

No you said St Augustine did not believe in Satan do you have a source for that?

peace,

 

[vern_humphrey]

No you said St Augustine did not believe in Satan do you have a source for that?

peace,

That’s not what I said. Saint Augustine ascribed evil to a lack of good – that is, he regarded it as we regard “cold” (which is a lack of heat) or darkness (which is a lack of light.)

St. Augustine on the Problem of Evil
Enchiridion, 10-12

---

In his struggles with the problem of evil, Augustine argues first that the fact that there are things of varying goodness makes for a greater goodness of things as a whole than if there weren’t such variety. And he further argues that evil is not something fully real but only something dependent on that which is more real, as disease (which is an evil) can exist only in a body (which is a good). Thus God, as the source of all that is, is not in contest with a positive being or an ultimate reality which is evil and would be His counterpart. Though Augustine’s ideas were bold and daring, they troubled many later Christians who felt they were unable to reconcile them with the existence of sin, Satan, and damnation.

(My emphasis)

The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism (a series of statements that form a reasoned argument): 1) God created all things; 2) evil is a thing; 3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.

Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a “thing” in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine’s approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion. First: 1) All things that God created are good; 2) evil is not good; 3) therefore, evil was not created by God. Second: 1) God created every thing; 2) God did not create evil; 3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion–evil is not a thing–automatically follows.

This is Augustine’s strategy. If evil is not a thing, then the case against Christianity stated in the original syllogism is unsound because one of its premises is false. The critical question is: What is evil?

Central to Augustine’s idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees.

With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: “Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?” To this Augustine answered: “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil.’”

Augustine does not ascribe evil to Satan (which would make Satan equal to God) but simply to the lack of good.

 

[Bridge]

I still fail to see how a belief in Satan is not stated explicitly in scripture, in both the Old and New Testament. Yes, it can be taken too far and lead to dualism, but then perhaps it can be taken too lightly and lead to unwariness and to us becoming more prone to fall for forbidden fruits.

As for St Augustine, did he say that Satan doesn’t exist? Or merely that he isn’t a counterpart to God? Someone who is completely absent of God/Good is someone who we should be aware of and should be wary of his whispers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I still fail to see how a belief in Satan is not stated explicitly in scripture, in both the Old and New Testament. Yes, it can be taken too far and lead to dualism, but then perhaps it can be taken too lightly and lead to unwariness and to us becoming more prone to fall for forbidden fruits.

As for St Augustine, did he say that Satan doesn’t exist? Or merely that he isn’t a counterpart to God? Someone who is completely absent of God/Good is someone who we should be aware of and should be wary of his whispers.

Evil is sometimes personified in scripture – but the idea of a sort of evil counterpart to God is a heresy.

To the extent that “Satan” or the “devil” is portrayed that way, he does not exist.

 

[jdnrite01]

Vern Humphrey said:

Saint Augustine, who was a Manechean before he was converted to Catholicism, rejected belief in Satan and said evil sprang not from Satan, but was merely the absense [sic] of good.

I think you have the concept of evil and the identity of Satan confused. St. Augustine of Hippo theorized in “The City of God,” (New York: Marcus Dods Translation. Modern Library Publishers, 1950) that humans and angels are divided into two societies or “cities.” One serves God and is populated by the good angels and humans. The other opposes God and consists of fallen angels and evil humans. While evil may be defined as the absence of good, it is necessary for the existence of a greater good - free will. The fact that evil or sin is impersonal, however, doesn’t contravene the existence of Satan as an incorporeal yet existent personal being.

St. Augustine’s position is in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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.”

Vern Humphrey also said:

Satan comes from Rabbinical tradition, not from scripture.

The Apocalypse of St. John 12:7-9 has this to say about Satan:

And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 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.

St. John’s reference is by no means the sole Biblical basis for a belief in Satan. See also, e.g., Jude 1:6; Job 4:18: (“In his angels he found wickedness”.); Isaiah 14:12-15.

 

[Bridge]

I hadn’t planned to comment further on this thread, but inspired by the references to St Augustine i went to read some more of his Confessions (i have been slowly making my way through an online version of it) and two paragraphs in i came across the following which i thought interesting in light of the discussion here:

And yet certain offices in human society require the officeholder to be loved and feared of men, and through this the adversary of our true blessedness presses hard upon us, scattering everywhere his snares of “well done, well done”; so that while we are eagerly picking them up, we may be caught unawares and split off our joy from thy truth and fix it on the deceits of men. In this way we come to take pleasure in being loved and feared, not for thy sake but in thy stead. By such means as this, the adversary makes men like himself, that he may have them as his own, not in the harmony of love, but in the fellowship of punishment–the one who aspired to exalt his throne in the north [Cf. Isa. 14:12-14], that in the darkness and the cold men might have to serve him, mimicking thee in perverse and distorted ways. -St Augustine, Confessions, book 10, chapter 36

 

[vern_humphrey]

The point is, bishops and priests are well within Catholic doctrine to reject Satan or the devil as the author of evil. The fact that there are fallen angels, as there are fallen men, does not mean we must accept that there is a counterpart to God who creates evil as God creates good.

 

[jdnrite01]

Vern said:

The point is, bishops and priests are well within Catholic doctrine to reject Satan or the devil as the author of evil.

I don’t recall anyone saying that Satan is the author or creator of evil, and I don’t think he is. Evil is the absence of good, and sin is the consequence of the operation of the free will in choosing evil over good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern said:

I don’t recall anyone saying that Satan is the author or creator of evil, and I don’t think he is. Evil is the absence of good, and sin is the consequence of the operation of the free will in choosing evil over good.

And that’s the whole point.

 

[jdnrite01]

Vern, I think confusion was generated by this statement:

Saint Augustine, who was a Manechean before he was converted to Catholicism, rejected belief in Satan

What I think you meant to say is “Saint Augustine . . . rejected belief in Satan as the originator of evil,” and not that Satan doesn’t exist as an actual being. If my understanding of your statement is correct, then I completely agree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I think confusion was generated by this statement:
What I think you meant to say is “Saint Augustine . . . rejected belief in Satan as the originator of evil,” and not that Satan doesn’t exist as an actual being. If my understanding of your statement is correct, then I completely agree.

That’s correct – the difference between what Satan is, and **if **he is.

 

[jdnrite01]

Vern said:

That’s correct – the difference between what Satan is, and if he is.

I think you lost me there. What does “and if he is” mean?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern said:
I think you lost me there. What does “and if he is” mean?

I have a brother. He is President of the United States.

One of those statements is true.

 

[GodsGadfly]

I’m confused. I can’t find the linked article, but does Fr. Amoreth say in this article that he thinks the Devil is a counterpart to God or somehow an “evil God”? If not, isn’t this discussion a bit off track?

While it is heretical to think of the Devil as God’s opposite, it is also wrong to deny that the Devil is a very powerful being. Jesus called him the Prince of this World.

The Saints do not question the very real power and danger of the Devil–both in his functions as tempter and as attacker.

But many priests and bishops today do deny the reality of Satan as a being, saying instead that the Devil is merely an intellectual construct to symbolize evil. The realities of possession, oppression and other “extra-ordinary” demonic phenomena are under-emphasized, ignored, and outright denied.

Just walk up to your parish priest and ask him if he believes that the devil is real. That’s a very good litmus test for priests. Every truly holy, dedicated and orthodox priest I’ve known is very open about the reality of the Devil. I’ve known several priests who will talk openly–albeit in private conversation, and not from the pulpit–about their firsthand encounters with the Enemy. I’ve also known many priests who would call you a loon for even asking if the devil exists.