"Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
3 but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:1-5 RSV)
"...but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it." (Wis 2:24 RSV)
What could he have been envious of in man though? Man is, after all, lower in terms of natural capacity than the angels. Angels are pure spirit, they have an intellect a matter of magnitude more powerful than our own and besides all of this they were created before man, "God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Back to the initial question, "What was the Devil specifically envious of in man?" I believe the Devil was envious of the glory to which Jesus Christ would raise man through His passion, death, resurrection and glorious assumption. Ambroggio Catarino, a fourteenth century Dominican commentator on Saint Thomas Aquinas, taught that the Devil fell not only because of pride but also on account of envy when God revealed to him the mystery of His will (C.f. Ephesians 3:9); namely that God would become a man and not an angel and by means of this becoming man, He would raise man to glory, a glory higher than the angels. Satan, Ambroggio Catarino reports, went insanely mad upon receiving this revelation of God's plan, so much so that He rebelled and hated Jesus Christ and thus all men. "For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man." (Gaudium et Spes, 22) The deep hatred the Evil One bears toward Jesus Christ also explains why Satan hates priests so much; the priest extends the saving mission of Jesus Christ through time and space by acting in persona Christi capitis (in the person of Christ the head) when celebrating the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.
Finally, I must say that Ambroggio Catarino's interpretation of the Devil's fall is by no means binding on Catholics and for that matter it should be said that there is theological debate concerning whether or not the second Person of the Blessed Trinity would have become man, had man not sinned. I hold that even if man had not sinned in the Garden of Eden, the Person of the Word would still have become man as Glorificator (Glorifyer). Obviously, because the sin of Adam actually took place in history, the Word became flesh to "save his people from their sins" (Redemptor) but, nevertheless, He still glorifies us (Glorificator) by sending the Holy Spirit into our hearts, so that we might become sharers in the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4) Jesus is our redeemer and our glorifyer and for this the Devil hates Him and is envious of us with a hatred that frightens to the core.
Let us listen to the beautiful words of Pope Saint Leo the Great in response to the question, "Why did God not prevent the first man from sinning?" "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away." (St. Leo the Great, Sermo 73, 4:PL 54, 396)
9 comments:
Campion,
Thank you for your reflection on the fall of Satan and what this means for man as well.
I think your interpretation fits well with Rev. 12, where the serpent revolts against the Incarnation and then falls from the sky.
However, I believe you are mistaken in thinking that the sin of Satan was envy in its first instance (especially in your insistence that it was not pride).
St. Thomas is quite clear in his opinion: "Such is precisely the sin of pride--not to be subject to a superior when subjection is due. Consequently the sin of the angel can be none other than pride.
Yet, as a consequence, it was possible for envy also to be in them." (ST I, q.63, a.2)
St. Thomas continues to explain why envy could only follow after pride:
"Yet, as a consequence [of pride], it was possible for envy also to be in them, since for the appetite to tend to the desire of something involves on its part resistance to anything contrary. Now the envious man repines over the good possessed by another, inasmuch as he deems his neighbor's good to be a hindrance to his own. But another's good could not be deemed a hindrance to the good coveted by the wicked angel, except inasmuch as he coveted a singular excellence, which would cease to be singular because of the excellence of some other.
So, after the sin of pride, there followed the evil of envy in the sinning angel, whereby he grieved over man's good, and also over the
Divine excellence, according as against the devil's will God makes
use of man for the Divine glory."
So, Satan was first prideful, desiring to be great of his own power and not by the grace of God; then he became envious--envying God's greatness, then also envying the great dignity which God bestows on man.
Envy and pride are, of course, connected. But, as the Catechism says, "envy often comes from pride." (CCC 2540)Pride is first and envy follows.
This was the case with the angels, since they could not desire to be like God (envy) until they had first rebelled against the supremacy of God (pride).
The Catechism passage you quote simply affirms that envy is at work when the fallen angels tempt men...this is also what St. Thomas himself states (ST I, q.63, a.2, ad 1: "It is wholly through envy that demons take pleasure in all sorts of human sins, so far as these are hindrances to a man's good.")
Reginaldus,
Thanks for your comment. I think you are certainly correct, with Saint Thomas and the tradition, that pride was the first sin and envy followed. I should not have made undue dichotomy between pride and envy as you mentioned they are closely connected.
My article is more a reflection of mine on an article I recently read in Nova et Vetera on Ambroggio Catarino and the fall of the Devil through envy.
I do think the Catechism is referring to the fall of the angels in connection with envy. The Latin editio typica makes it more clear: "Electioni in oboedienti nostrorum protoparentum vox subest seductix, Deo opposita, quae propter invidiam eos in mortem cadere facit." (CCC, 391)
Nevertheless, your point on the primacy of pride in the fall of the angels as that which precedes envy is well taken.
Campion,
Not to belabor the point, since I do think that your article is quite good on many levels...still I must comment on the Latin of CCC 391 and your insistence that this text is "referring to the fall of the angels in connection with envy."
"Quae" refers to the "vox", the subject of "facit." Meanwhile "eos" is the subject of "cadere" (indirect speech) and refers to "protoparentes".
Thus, "the seductive voice (quae), on account of envy, makes Adam and Eve (eos) fall into death."
The fall referred to here is not the fall of the angels, but the fall of our first parents.
Now it is true that this text (CCC 391) comes under the section dealing with the fall of the angels, but the text itself is speaking about the work of the fallen angels in bringing about man's fall (as is clear from the Scripture texts cited, which refer to Satan as tempting man and bringing death into the world; not to Satan's own fall).
Satan's envy is the first step in the fall of man.
Satan's pride is the first step in the fall of the wicked angels.
Still, I am grateful for the very clear connection you have made between Satan's envy of man on account of the Incarnation...even setting aside the question of what made the Devil envious of man in the beginning, it is certainly true that he revolts all the more now that Christ has taken a human nature into the glories of heaven.
Also, your point about why Satan hates priests is well taken: he wanted to be like God, but fell; the priest of Jesus Christ is raised to such a degree that he acts in the very person of Christ and so is the object of Satan's envy and hatred..."Great is this mystery and great is the dignity of priests, to whom has been given that which has not been granted even to angels." (Imitation of Christ 4,5)
To all who read this: PLEASE PRAY FOR PRIESTS!
Pax.
Reginaldus,
Thanks for your response. I think the "propter invidiam" of the Catechism can be applied either to the "protoparentum" or the "vox... seductrix"
I interpreted it to go be refering to the devil on account of the Catechism's reference to Wisdom 2:24 which says, "...but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it." (Wis 2:24 RSV)
I agree with you, Campion. "Propter ividiam" should be taken with "vox facit eos cadere". That is, Satan made Adam and Eve to fall on account of his (Satan's) envy of them (of Adam and Eve).
Thus, Satan's envy is the cause of the fall of men; but this does not mean that envy was the cause of the fall of the angels.
Rather, pride was the cause of the angels' fall. This pride then led to envy, which drove the demons to tempt men and lead Adam and Eve into sin.
Thus, in answer to your article title "Why did the devil fall?" I would say "Pride".
In answer to the question: "Why did the devil cause man to fall?" I would answer "Envy".
The text of Wisdom you mention definitely confirms this: Satan's ENVY is the cause of the fall of man, Satan's envy caused death to enter the world (of men).
However, Satan's PRIDE caused his fall and the fall of the other wicked angels.
My main point with CCC 391 is simply to point out that the fall (caused by Satan's envy) referred to here is the fall of Gen 3 (the fall of man), not the fall of the angels.
However, I will admit that envy did play a role in the fall of the angels...this is attested to by Rev 12 (the serpent strikes down 1/3 of the stars in the sky, symbolizing the fall of the wicked angels)...hence, secondarily, envy was the cause of the fall of the angels; but primarily it was pride.
Pride in the first instance, led to envy and, through envy, the demons are then guilty of all sins (since, out of envy, they tempt men to commit all sins).
I do not have the intellect or learned knowledge to comment directly to the discussion but I can say this is a very interesting article and discussion. So I leave more learned then when I came, thank you!
I have one comment -that is perhaps a topic someone could write about-Campion you state this is "becauseof Adam actually took place in history" in your article. I am perplexed by the new trend in theology that dismisses the first 11 chapters as pure analogy and myth because Adam is a prototype of Christ. I know for certain some Professors are presenting this assertion as the official stance of the Church. I am not convinced of either assertion because if Adam did not actually exist then how does he typify Jesus.
You are claiming that Adam actually took place in history (I tend to agree with you). Has there been a discovery of some sort that would testify to the actual existence of "Adam".
Thanks for the discussion opportunity, Campion!
I am confused by this;
Deceipt:
1. The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.
2. A dishonest act or statement.
God told Eve she would die if she ate of the fruit, then Satan said she would not.
Eve ate of the fruit and lived.
@E. Messenger,
Eve did die ... eventually.
She would have never died, had she not sinned.
Further, she experienced a spiritual death (mortal sin) immediately.
I hope it is clearer now. +
Post a Comment
If you want your comment to be published: Use a name or pseudonym, and keep it short (generally, less than 100 words), to the point, and civil.
All comments must be approved by a blog-administrator. If your comment is deleted, please don't take it personally.