Angels and demons
2010 March 8
Over at my other blog, I was “informed” that one cannot be a Catholic and not believe in angels. I was also told that, as a theologian, I have “ceased to do Catholic theology” because I do not believe in angels.
Why do I read Catholic blogs again?
Because the Church is worth fighting for.
Why don’t you believe in angels?
Is it the whole Babylonian/Zoroastrian/(insert alleged pagan religion that had angels) influence argument?
Was it a particular post you were referring to?
nevermind I found the post and read the conversation.
Thom – Yes, exactly. I just need reminding sometimes.
So what happened at the Annunciation?
Jon – Who knows? The story we have in the bible, though, appears to be a theological construction rather than a historical account.
All the references in Scripture about angels are then just a play on words? I’m not buying that. Satan doesn’t really exist then, right. Seems like that can lead to implying that there is no evil. So what then do we need a Savior for?
All the references in Scripture about angels are then just a play on words?
Not a “play on words,” but symbols of deeper realities.
I’m not buying that.
OK.
Satan doesn’t really exist then, right. Seems like that can lead to implying that there is no evil.
I don’t think Satan is a “being,” no. And while that view could lead one to deny the existence of evil, that is certainly not my view. The existence of evil is pretty damn obvious. I actually think getting beyond the idea of a literal being called “Satan” can help us to take evil much more seriously.
So what then do we need a Savior for?
And when we take evil much more seriously, we will also take the idea of salvation much more seriously.
Who was Jesus talking to in the Desert?
Who tempted Jesus?
It’s common, Zach, to view that account as well as non-literal. It makes more sense to think that Jesus was tempted throughout his life by various things, and not just in one event in which Satan explicitly tempted him in some kind of conversation. Just as you and I are not literally (I don’t think so anyway) tempted by a demonic being but through other persons, events, etc., so it was with Jesus.
Michael I appreciate you responding to me as I know you think this is stupid, but I think it is very important to the Church and so I think it should be important to you.
Who is the “who” in your first sentence? You don’t mean the Roman Catholic Church? And I think the reading only makes more sense non-literally if you first disbelieve in angels.
Angels are other persons, they are just not human persons. The Church even names them Saints! Is St. Michael the Archangel just a figurative expression of goodness? No, he is a person to whom we pray to intercede on our behalf before God.
But you are right that we should not take the devil too seriously. God beat the devil forever on the Cross, and with God, the devil has no power over us. But we should not pretend he doesn’t exist; we risk blinding ourselves to his influence. Haven’t you heard the old Catholic adage, “the first and most successful trick the devil played on the world is convincing it he doesn’t exist?”
What I think is “stupid” is the weight you are giving to the question of angels. You told me on another website that one cannot be Catholic and not believe in angels. That’s absurd.
Who is the “who” in your first sentence? You don’t mean the Roman Catholic Church?
The “who” is a large portion of the contemporary Christian world, including many Catholics. Certainly most scripture scholars.
Is St. Michael the Archangel just a figurative expression of goodness? No, he is a person to whom we pray to intercede on our behalf before God.
Michael is a character from scripture.
But you are right that we should not take the devil too seriously. God beat the devil forever on the Cross, and with God, the devil has no power over us. But we should not pretend he doesn’t exist; we risk blinding ourselves to his influence. Haven’t you heard the old Catholic adage, “the first and most successful trick the devil played on the world is convincing it he doesn’t exist?”
As I’ve said before, not believing in a literal Satan does not mean not taking evil seriously. In fact I think we are able to take evil much more seriously if we get beyond thinking of literal devils.
Does the Church pray to a character from Scripture?
Some of the church does.
Michael,
I know that this debate is old, but I thought about you last night at Benediction because one of the lines of the Divine Praises is “Blessed be God in His angels and His saints.” And I then I thought that many of Catholicism’s official prayers invoke the angels and I wondered how you thought about that. I’m not talking about the Guardian Angel prayer or St. Michael the Archangel prayer, which I recognize are examples of personal prayer or devotion which you can validly disregard, I suppose. Instead, I’m thinking about the fact that, off the top of my head, I can think of 3 instances mentioning angels during the Mass – which the most important prayer, the most central prayer to the life of a Catholic and the life of the whole Church. (Off the top of my head, there is the “I confess…”, right before the “Holy, Holy”, and during the Eucharistic prayer, and there may be more.) Obviously, as a Catholic you participate in the prayer that is the Mass. What do you think when you participate in that most solemn and official prayer of the Catholic Church, and the prayer expresses the existence of angels? How do you reconcile this with your current disbelief in the existence of angels? I’m asking, because I’m honestly curious, and I don’t mean to be offensive.
I know that you believe the doctrine of angels is a very minor and unimportant teaching of the Church (unlike the communion of saints, or the Incarnation, etc.), but these thoughts made me think that perhaps angels have a more important and more central role in the life of the Church than you think. At any rate, I encourage you take a second look at the importance of angels in the life of the Catholic Church.
Hi Thales – It’s simple, really. The Mass contains symbolic language, including language about angels.
You might be able to make the argument that the talk of angels in the Bible is symbolic, but it is harder to make that argument when it comes to the Mass prayers. The people who have written the Mass prayers, and the Church in its authority (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him), will tell you that the language of the Mass at those locations is not symbolic: that when the Mass prayer asks the saints and angels to pray for us, it is a request to actual entities (namely, the saints and angels in Heaven).
Which authors of the liturgical texts might I consult?
Seriously. Liturgical texts have deep symbolism, as does all theological language. Many of the liturgical texts we use are based on scripture. How is it that you admit that scripture might be symbolic but not the liturgy, when the post-Vatican II liturgy involves a return to scripture?
I admit that portions of scripture may not describe literal events, especially in certain OT accounts (such as Genesis, most obviously). Scripture has multiple levels of meaning, and clearly, there are symbolic levels to Scripture. That is why I concede that some angel stories of Scripture may not have literally occurred as described, but may be more symbolic.
Now, granted, the prayers of the Mass are often taken from Scripture. But even so, a biblical allegory is much different from the portions of the Mass that are direct prayers. Take the “I confess prayer”:
“......... and I ask blessed Mary,
ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you,
my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
This or a version similar to this has been an important prayer said during the Mass since at least 1570 (based on my cursory Internet search), as probably has an older origin. The reference to angels here is not in the form of a story or allegory, but instead, as a direct listing of various entities who can “pray for me to the Lord our God”. In fact, considering the very language itself, it would be illogical to read the list of “Mary”, “saints”, “brothers and sisters” as literal, but “angels” as symbolic.
In addition, your interpretation of this passage as symbolic would certainly be the minority position, considering the long tradition of popes and bishops who acknowledged the existence of angels and would read (and have read) this passage in a non-symbolic sense.
Again, I encourage you to take a second look at angels and their importance in the life of the church. I’m no expert on angels, so I’m not sure what resources I can point you to. I do know that various Doctors of the Church discussed them, sometimes at length (Aquinas comes to mind). I haven’t read this book, but it may be useful:
http://www.amazon.com/Angels-Catholic-Teaching/dp/0895555158
Thales – I don’t think the angel-talk in liturgical prayers was written intentionally as symbolic. I think when they were composed the existence of angels was assumed. This carried over into the post-Vatican II liturgy and into a period when less and less people believe in the literal existence of angels. There is nothing wrong with that language; I’m not in favor of getting rid of it just because I can’t buy it. I think angel language expresses nicely, among other things, the fact that human beings are limited in our knowledge of the universe. We Catholics believe God created things seen and unseen, and I think there is a lot that remains unseen. But I don’t think that requires belief in literal angels.
Belief in angels is fine by me. I don’t have a problem with people believing in them, like I don’t have a problem with people believing in Marian apparitions. I just don’t buy it, and I don’t find them to be all that important to my faith.
Why are you, on the other hand, so concerned about it? What is at stake in your attempt to convince me that they exist?
Michael,
You don’t have a problem with believing in the existence of spiritual beings, per se, right? I suppose the Holy Spirit would be an example, which you believe in, right? And you believe in the existence of our spiritual souls, right? (And that they persist after the death of our physical bodies?) Assuming you just said yes to these questions, I find it a little curious that though you apparently accept the existence of the spiritual realm, you don’t accept angels. I would have thought that the Holy Spirit and the existence of the soul to be more difficult articles of faith to accept and understand than angels, but that if you accepted the Holy Spirit and the existence of the soul, angels wouldn’t be that much more difficult to wrap one’s head around.
Why am I so concerned about angels and what is at stake? [shrug] Don’t know. Maybe because it is an article of faith proposed by our Church as definitively true, and it bothers me a little to see you not believe it. Again, as I said above, I think that maybe the existence of angels is a more important teaching in the life of the Church than you think now. In addition, I wouldn’t want you to go down this path: namely, if you don’t accept one definitive article of faith of Church teaching, what is stopping you from not accepting any other article of faith the Church proposes, and what is stopping you from leaving the Catholic Church entirely?
I came back to this debate, like I said earlier, when I realized that the primary prayers of the Church invoke the angels and ask for their intercession, and I wondered to myself how you could pray these prayers given by the Church for our celebration of the Mass, and not fully believe in the words. If you don’t believe the Mass prayers when they say that the angels pray for us, why believe the Mass prayers when they say that this is the Body of Christ? More importantly, the Church suggests to us, members of the Church, that angels are individual members of the communion of saints who can help us in our Christian life and can intercede for us to God, and that we should avail ourselves of this help. I guess it makes me a little sad that you are unaware of this extra source of help in our struggle to live the Christian life.
Yes, I believe in spiritual beings. Human beings are spiritual beings. The Holy Spirit is not merely a “spiritual being” alongside other “spiritual beings,” but the third person of the Trinity.
[I]f you don’t accept one definitive article of faith of Church teaching, what is stopping you from not accepting any other article of faith the Church proposes, and what is stopping you from leaving the Catholic Church entirely?
You don’t seem to have much of a sense of the hierarchy of truths. It’s as if all church teachings are on the same level and must be embraced at all costs.
C’mon, what’s with the suspicion? What’s with your house-of-cards approach to the faith? Really, are you suggesting that if one doesn’t believe in, say guardian angels, the entire faith will collapse? Are you serious?
I suppose nothing is stopping me from leaving the church, but I have no desire to do so. Are you suggesting that I should leave the church if I don’t believe in angels? Really?
What a bizarre conversation.
Certainly there is a hierarchy of truths. But in all of our discussion, I haven’t seen by what principle you decide to accept a longstanding truth of the Church or decide to not accept it, and I find that curious.
I know the existence of angels is not a primary or central truth of the Catholic faith. But when I realized a couple of nights ago that the invocation of angels was a longstanding part of the most important prayer of our faith (the Mass), I thought it was therefore unlike a particular private devotion (like Marian apparitions), and I thought that that maybe indicated that angels played a larger role in the life of the Church than you were willing to give them credit for.
Anyways, I encourage you in the future to take a second look at angels (esp. at serious considerations by theologians and Church fathers – you can disregard “Touched by an Angel”).
Thanks for the discussion.