 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 03:32 pm |
|
I am reading a book called "Prayer of the Heart" by Fr. George Maloney. He was a Jesuit priest who wrote many books, and was an expert on contemplative prayer, the desert fathers, etc. I think he was also a bi-ritual priest.
Anyway, he mentions in the book that we need to "demythologize" some of the writings of the desert fathers when it came to angels and demons because, most likely, they are a literary device and not real.
Not real? I know a Catholic layman, very involved in his parish, very orthodox, who knew Fr. Maloney and was mentored by him. I haven't asked him this question yet. But I'll post it here.
Is it a dogma of the faith, that we must believe, that angels and demons are real?
I found these five references in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma regarding angels and demons:
In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing.
The nature of angels is spiritual.
The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.
The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation.
The devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin.
It sounds to me like we must believe that angels and demons are real. I chalked Fr. Maloney's statements up to the fact that maybe that is what the Jesuits believe and taught him. (Am I being to judgmental of the Jesuits?)
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:01 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote: Is it a dogma of the faith, that we must believe, that angels and demons are real?
To the best of my knowledge, it is a dogma of the faith that angels and fallen angels (demons) are real.
From the Catechism:
311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:
For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.
Cross references are to St. Augustine.
Also from the Catechism:
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."
The final quote is from the Lateran Council IV in 1215.
The section of the Catechism regarding the Fall begins at paragraph 385.
Having said that, let me also say that mystical writings, like apocolyptic writing, often uses imagery so that the visions of a particular mystic may not have been genuine angelic or demonic appearances. The Church takes no position on these private revelations, and we are free to believe or disbelieve in any private revelation.
So, yes, we must believe in the reality of angels and demons, but no, we do not have to believe they actually appeared to any particular individuals other than as recorded in Scripture. Public revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, and no additional revelation which exceeds or surpasses the Deposit of Faith is expected.
From the Catechism:
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
So while Public Revelation is complete and the Deposit of Faith is handed from the apostles to the Church, it is up to the Church through the Magisterium's sensus fidelium to discern that which has not already been discovered.
The Rosary is an example of a devotion that is not part of the original Deposit of Faith, but that the Magisterium has determined to be of value through the sensus fidelum. Nonetheless, as a private revelation, it remains an optional part of our faith that we are free to accept or not. The sacraments, on the other hand, are part of Public Revelation and so must be believed.
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:14 pm |
|
Thanks, Rick. Have you heard of Father Maloney?
Gene
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:45 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote: Thanks, Rick. Have you heard of Father Maloney?
Honestly, no, I haven't. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, as my reading tends to involve classes I am teaching or news publications. David is much more likely than me to have heard of him. I think he's read every spiritual writing ever published in the known universe.
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 05:09 pm |
|
Rick,
Can you nudge David into the discussion?
Gene
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 05:14 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote: Can you nudge David into the discussion?
Give him time. Unlike me, he is working for a living. (I am unemployed.)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 10:55 pm |
|
Hello, Gene. I’ve been quietly following your various conversations. I was kind of sick over the past couple of weeks, and working overtime to boot, so I just wasn’t up to entering the discussion.
Now as to Fr. George Maloney: I recall back in the 70s and 80s he was considered as not all that orthodox, but not so bad that the Vatican had him on their hit list.
You saw the part about the angels, demons and “demythologization.” There are some pros and some cons to his viewpoint.
First, it seems that the desert fathers liked to blame everything that happened on the angels and demons. If you’ve read the life of St. Anthony of Egypt, you know all about this.
I recall a comment from Fr. Benedict Groeschel, of EWTN fame, in the forward to an edition of the Scupoli classic The Spiritual Combat (Lester–Mohan version, 1978): “Although the author makes several direct applications of the psychological theories which were developing at the end of the sixteenth century he often ascribes directly to divine or satanic forces impulses arriving from the unconscious mind of the individual. It is not difficult for the reader to transpose the divine operations from primary to secondary causality as one does when one reads the Scriptures or any ancient classic. In the same way “diabolical” is often best understood in the very literal meaning of that word in Greek which signifies the chaotic and irrational, rather than as a direct intervention of the prince of darkness. Those who are willing to do this bit of mental editing will discover a wealth of insights into the conflicting forces, divine, natural and diabolical, which beset the individual as he seeks to grow toward God and to gain spiritual freedom.”
One could, I think, approach the desert fathers in much the same manner regarding their attribution of just about every spiritual or psychological occurrence to angels or demons. Some of these attributions may well be legitimate, but it stands to reason that if in the sixteenth century the psychological sciences were not advanced enough to separate the human from the angelic, the third to sixth centuries would be even less so.
Whether this is what Fr. Maloney did is doubtful, since he speaks of “demythologizing” the ancient writings, saying that they are nothing more than a literary device. In fact, Maloney is clearly excising the angelic powers on the basis of historical-critical methodology. Yet as you know, angels and demons are part of Catholic dogma. So I have a strong suspicion concerning his orthodoxy on this point.
Fr. Maloney was indeed a Jesuit priest early on, but later he left the Jesuits, left the Catholic Church and became Russian Orthodox. While I am not about to bad-mouth Orthodoxy, this does not bode well for Maloney’s acceptance among Catholics. And considering his lack of orthodoxy while a Catholic, it seems that one ought to be wary of his later position as well vis a vis Russian Orthodoxy. I think I would consider him a maverick somewhat along the lines of Fr. Thomas Keating, the last remaining inventor of Centering Prayer.
David
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 7th, 2007 05:55 pm |
|
Hi David,
Thanks for the insight! I will finish reading Fr. Maloney's Prayer of the Heart with a wary eye.
Have a Blessed Easter!
And a Blessed Easter to all on this Forum,
Gene
|
|
|
Current time is 08:11 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
