Why did Lucifer fall?

[fhansen]

Justice is served because the one who makes the decision to accept or reject God knows of God’s goodness. God’s law is written on our hearts and our senses can perceive God’s goodness in all of creation. We have an ego so that we may love ourselves as the image and likeness of God. It is the disordered use of that ego that causes trouble. At some level, because of the ego, the disordered use of free will in preferring the self and rejecting God was always a possibility, otherwise we have no freedom. The preference of the self and the rejection of God is clear in Genesis 3.

As to evil, again it is not a something, not an existence, but a lack of existence. It is a negative and cannot exist side-by-side with goodness, as it is a lack of goodness. It is anti-creation. Swiss theologian Karl Barth called the devil the “Null” (the zero). Imagine being locked in a vacuum chamber with no oxygen, no atmosphere. Imagine the pain and torture that would result, as the vacuum is anti-life by its nature, as is evil. Evil is anti-creation that corrodes or destroys creation. Suffering is life (creation) that is exposed to anti-life (un-creation).

So pride could be said to be the abuse of a good, namely self-love, an “inferior version” of that good, rather than the addition of something new?

Reading thru part 1, ques 63 of the a as Horatius suggested, I came up with the following:

At the end of the first article Aquinas apparently identifies the angels’ sin as lack of subordination to the rule of the divine will, i.e. disobedience of God, brought about “by seeking his own good”. *Not due to ignorance but “merely absence of consideration of the things which ought to be considered”. He says that the “defect which induces sin is only on the part of the choice which is not properly regulated, but not on the thing chosen.” IOW, free will, unregulated, can cause one to selfishly and erroneously choose lesser goods over greater goods. The next article tells us that only the sins of pride and envy can exist in an angel, since they aren’t influenced by physical passions. In the third article Aquinas concludes that the devil desired to be like unto God, having dominion over others. And in the next article he tells us that the demons are not naturally wicked.
*
I guess I can’t get much further with this. The problem comes from trying to resolve how an imperfect choice made by an unavoidably imperfect being can merit eternal torment. But the angels did possess a “perfection” proper to their own nature, as all creation does, and that perfection included knowledge that humans don’t possess- at least not yet. Adam, also, apparently would’ve had at least sufficient knowledge to refrain from sinning and yet things are different for humans-we’re given time and grace to learn of the foolishness of sin, of opposing God’s will, so we may gain the wisdom to turn back and follow Him after all.

I’m not quite done with this, tho. It intrigues for some reason me to explore that fine point or instant where a free choice opened up a whole new reality for God’s creation.

 

[po18guy]

So pride could be said to be the abuse of a good, namely self-love, an “inferior version” of that good, rather than the addition of something new?

Reading thru part 1, ques 63 of the a as Horatius suggested, I came up with the following:

At the end of the first article Aquinas apparently identifies the angels’ sin as lack of subordination to the rule of the divine will, i.e. disobedience of God, brought about “by seeking his own good”. *Not due to ignorance but “merely absence of consideration of the things which ought to be considered”. He says that the “defect which induces sin is only on the part of the choice which is not properly regulated, but not on the thing chosen.” IOW, free will, unregulated, can cause one to selfishly and erroneously choose lesser goods over greater goods. The next article tells us that only the sins of pride and envy can exist in an angel, since they aren’t influenced by physical passions. In the third article Aquinas concludes that the devil desired to be like unto God, having dominion over others. And in the next article he tells us that the demons are not naturally wicked.
*
I guess I can’t get much further with this. The problem comes from trying to resolve how an imperfect choice made by an unavoidably imperfect being can merit eternal torment. But the angels did possess a “perfection” proper to their own nature, as all creation does, and that perfection included knowledge that humans don’t possess- at least not yet. Adam, also, apparently would’ve had at least sufficient knowledge to refrain from sinning and yet things are different for humans-we’re given time and grace to learn of the foolishness of sin, of opposing God’s will, so we may gain the wisdom to turn back and follow Him after all.

I’m not quite done with this, tho. It intrigues for some reason me to explore that fine point or instant where a free choice opened up a whole new reality for God’s creation.

We have the advantage of possessing a perfected human body in the resurrection, which angels, being pure spirits, do not have. Thus, we will enjoy God’s presence in all spiritual as well as bodily senses. The fact the the angesl saw God and rebelled, while man has not seen, may indicate that a higher level of unity between God and man exists in heaven, even as it does on earth via the Sacraments - particularly the Holy Eucharist. Angels cannot eat and drink the Lord’s physical presence as we can. Being originally made in God’s image and likeness, as well as having all bodily senses in His presence, will be a higher degree of union, a higher degree of ecstasy than that which pure spirits can realize. From Genesis, we see that God made man last of all things. I see a parallel here with John 2:10, in which the finest wine at Cana was saved for last. We are the penultimate creation of God; are we then intended for either the highest ecstasy in heaven by His mercy, as well as the most profound deprivation of His presence as justice in hell?

Consider also what our Lord said to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.” (John 20:29). Angels, fallen or not, have seen and believed, but is an even greater reward held for those who have not seen, yet have believed?

 

[october_baby]

I don’t know if this is off topic, but I’m curious, if 1/3 of the angles rebelled, is it possible that 1/3 remained neutral?

 

[po18guy]

I don’t know if this is off topic, but I’m curious, if 1/3 of the angles rebelled, is it possible that 1/3 remained neutral?

No. They had a forced choice: Choose God or reject God. And, they chose once for all eternity. Having 1/3 as non-commital would raise the possibility that the spiritual realm would be split 50/50 and that God might not triumph in the end. Impossible! As well, Revelation states that 1/3 were swept form the sky.Heaven or hell. It’s a done deal.

 

[Horatius]

I’m not quite done with this, tho. It intrigues for some reason me to explore that fine point or instant where a free choice opened up a whole new reality for God’s creation.

Then you would like Anselm’s De casu diaboli. Most of it explores that fine point, slicing it more and more finely. Don’t get your hopes up, though. Assuming I understand both your question and his argument, I don’t think the latter quite answers the former. But if it does, please let us know.

 

[po18guy]

I’m not quite done with this, tho. It intrigues for some reason me to explore that fine point or instant where a free choice opened up a whole new reality for God’s creation.

Here is a short interview with an exorcist Priest that provides some interesting details regarding evil: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=14318&se=364&ca=118&te=782

 

[fhansen]

Here is a short interview with an exorcist Priest that provides some interesting details regarding evil: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=14318&se=364&ca=118&te=782

Thank you. That offered some good insights.

 

[fhansen]

Then you would like Anselm’s De casu diaboli. Most of it explores that fine point, slicing it more and more finely. Don’t get your hopes up, though. Assuming I understand both your question and his argument, I don’t think the latter quite answers the former. But if it does, please let us know.

I’m about half way through so far, but already going back and rereading! Quite deep. Anyway thank you. I’ll probably be reporting back on it- if I can get it all digested, that is.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you. That offered some good insights.

I think that, as with the origin and perfection of goodness, the origin and imperfection of evil is simply beyond us. We are allowed sufficient knowledge so as to make an informed choice.

 

[fhansen]

OK. So according to De Casu Diaboli the bottom line reason why Lucifer fell- or “deserted justice”-is…drum roll please…not because he was able to desert justice (even the good angels were able to do that), but simply because he willed to desert justice. That’s it, that’s as far as Anselm could take it, and that may well be as far we can go. Other points, most of which were already made on this thread include:

Evil and injustice are nothing, because evil is the absence of good, and injustice is the absence of justice. However, evil and injustice result in something, because of the harm and suffering they cause.

All evil is committed with a desire to obtain some perceived benefit or good, choosing a lesser good over a greater one.

Angels (and man) were created to will both happiness and justice. Lucifer “deserted justice” by attempting to attain a greater happiness, which he thought he would obtain by being like God, an evil act of the will due to it’s inordinacy/injustice.

 

[Shachath]

*The question has several, overlapping answers, and none of them are mutually self-contradictory, necessarily.

Ha-Satan originally was the crown-prince of God, agent of His justice. But from vindicator to prosecutor (literal meaning of “Satan”, in the Hebrew)…there occurred some sort of profound cosmic-ontological radical change of being, however phrased…Lucifer became a kind of anthropocidal principium, metaphorically now stylized as over-zealous persecutor of Adam-kind: metaphysical justice was abdicated in horrific malfeasance: diabolus, adversarial slanderer now, from original justiciar of God, illustrates the deadly sin and deadly consequences of MALICE, not exclusively pride, but the deadly sin of MALICE is interwoven in the fallen condition of Satan-Lucifer…

I want to know how all of you interconnect the mystery of Leviathan as primal enemy of God into the profound question; more significantly, the Enochian heavenly warfare narrative, the esoteric GERM of which can be found in Genesis 6, and the story of the vampiric tyranny of the NEPHILIM hybrids of fallen angels establishing pandemonium on earth, – how does this intersect into this question…?

The Enochian Nephilim narrative cannot be glibly dismissed… Catholic scholars sort of shy away unmanly from the question; I do not like such exegetical dodging…

 

[october_baby]

No. They had a forced choice: Choose God or reject God. And, they chose once for all eternity. Having 1/3 as non-commital would raise the possibility that the spiritual realm would be split 50/50 and that God might not triumph in the end. Impossible! As well, Revelation states that 1/3 were swept form the sky.Heaven or hell. It’s a done deal.

Thanks for the info!!!

 

[Holly3278]

I believe he fell because of his grave sin of pride.

 

[Horatius]

OK. So according to De Casu Diaboli the bottom line reason why Lucifer fell- or “deserted justice”-is…drum roll please…not because he was able to desert justice (even the good angels were able to do that)…

If this is a reference to my comments, then I misspoke. I didn’t mean to say that free will always results in evil choices. I meant that when God gives a creature free will, the possibility for evil choices is now present. Material cause, that is, rather than efficient cause.

… but simply because he willed to desert justice. That’s it, that’s as far as Anselm could take it, and that may well be as far we can go.

Yeah, I wondered if you would find the argument satisfying.

This reminds me of the theological problem of free will versus predestination. On theological problems like these, there seems to be a point beyond which our intellects cannot reach.

 

[fhansen]

If this is a reference to my comments, then I misspoke. I didn’t mean to say that free will always results in evil choices. I meant that when God gives a creature free will, the possibility for evil choices is now present. Material cause, that is, rather than efficient cause.

The drum roll was meant to emphasize the final conclusion only- that the will, in the final end, is responsible- no other explanation at hand. I included the point about free will (merely the ability to choose) not being the direct (efficient) cause because the question had come up in the thread and Anselm did address it.

Yeah, I wondered if you would find the argument satisfying.

Yes, I remembered that you’d said that. Thanks for the direction on this in any case-it was helpful. But I can’t help but wonder if it’s possible to take it further than Anselm did.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It seems like those who are closest to the source of power are those most tempted to want to be the one with that power, however, considering there was no devil at this moment who was there to tempt Lucifer into pride and into falling?

I heard that Satan rebelled because he did not want to serve us lowly humans.