I swear, some of the Jesuits are just bucking to have a heresy named after them. “The Jesuitical Heresy” or “Jesuiticism” maybe? It’ll be hard to pin down exactly what defines it, though, since they have chosen sooooo many to embrace. The “Kitchen Sink Heresy” perhaps? I’m sure the readers will come up with some doozies.
Vatican City, Aug 21, 2019 / 01:44 pm (CNA).- The superior general of the Society of Jesus said Aug. 21 that the devil is a symbol, but not a person.
The devil, “exists as the personification of evil in different structures, but not in persons, because is not a person, is a way of acting evil. He is not a person like a human person. It is a way of evil to be present in human life,” Fr. Arturo Sosa, SJ, said Wednesday in an interview with Italian magazine Tempi.
He’s bending truth again. True, the devil is not a person. The devil is a fallen angelic being. But he’s very real, despite the fact that many Jesuits have been trying to dispel this reality forever.
We’ve been told time and again by many holy people that one of the devil’s main tactics is to try to get us to believe he does not exist. The Superior General is using that tactic himself. What does that tell you about him?
From the Catechism regarding the fall:
II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
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.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 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.”268
392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271
393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”272
394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”275
Man’s first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279”
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).
414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.
Fr. Sosa goes on…
“Good and evil are in a permanent war in the human conscience and we have ways to point them out. We recognize God as good, fully good. Symbols are part of reality, and the devil exists as a symbolic reality, not as a personal reality,” he added.
Sosa’s remarks came after he participated in a panel discussion at a Catholic gathering in Rimini, Italy, organized by the Communion and Liberation ecclesial movement.
Sorry, Fr. Sosa. The devil is a real being, not a state of the mind.
The Catechism of the Catholic 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.’”
Angels, the Catechism says, are “spiritual, non-corporeal beings.”
“They are personal and immortal creatures,” it adds, who “have intelligence and will.”
Tsk..tsk…tsk..Father Sosa! It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that non-corporeal beings are fantasy or merely symbolic. There is really one of three things going on here: (1) you are stupid enough to think this; (2) Satanists in Ottawa that just held a black mass have more of belief in the devil, the Real Presence and Christ than you; or (3) you know darn well the devil is way more than merely symbolic and you are doing his will in promoting that he does not exist. Which is it?
Sosa, 70, was elected the Jesuits’ superior general in 2016. A Venezuelan, he has a pontifical licentiate in philosophy and a doctorate in political science. He served as a Jesuit provincial superior in Venezuela from 1996 to 2004, and in 2014 began an administrative role at the general curia of the Jesuits in Rome.
OK, I guess I left one off: (4) he’s 70 and dementia is kicking in? Look, I’m not saying many Jesuits don’t believe EXACTLY as Fr. Sosa, but at least they’re cunning enough not to spell it out. I’m guessing he’ll be getting a pink slip soon.
Sosa has offered controversial comments about Satan in the past. In 2017, he told El Mundo that “we have formed symbolic figures such as the Devil to express evil.”
After his 2017 remark generated controversy, a spokesman said that “like all Catholics, Father Sosa professes and teaches what the Church professes and teaches. He does not hold a set of beliefs separate from what is contained in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”
Oh, all’s good then. Not.
30 thoughts on “Next Up on Wheel of Heresy…the Jesuit Superior General!”
Who Does the Cino Jesuit. Fool in charge. Think tempted Jesus After his Jesuses 40 days and nights in the Desert..??? … ..Time to reform or abolish the Jesuits. Put Father Pactwa of Ewtn. In Charge or shut down the Jesuits. Completely as Colonial Spain and Portugal plus Italian Modern Piedmontese monarchy did in Italy many yrs. Ago… How did these fool Jesuits get through the Seminary.??
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was all in His head, Ed. Come on, keep up with the great Jesuit theologian….
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine…sounds like the Profession of Faith for today’s secular world.
Many Jesuits mistake it for the Creed all the time.
Same fool WHO insists Jesus did not mean his repeated references to ban on Divorce and remarriage intje Gospels…. Go figure. Blind leading the blind at the Jesuits AND the Vatican .
Arrgghh! C’mon, OMM!
I *loathe* that song. Now you’ve got it stuck in my head. ;^)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, Kevin but you have to admit it describes the Jesuit majority belief system perfectly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “I did it My way” Hereso
LikeLiked by 2 people
See, I knew this would be fun!
Most Jesuits these days are not only not faithful, they aren’t even smart. Jesuits used to be the intelligentsia of the Church. The Society of Jesus should not be allowed to rest on those laurels any longer. Between this superior general and Thomas Reese and James Martin, they show themselves to be ignorant fools. I must confess that my first thought when I hear someone is a Jesuit is that he is a poorly informed and unfaithful Catholic who gets to enjoy a comfy living doing “social justice” work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… some of the Jesuits are just bucking to have a heresy named after them. ” Well, Dialectical Materialism is already taken, so, perhaps, it could be called Manichean Materialism? You get all the duality, without having to actually believe in much of anything at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See? They’ll have their heresy name by the end of week!
The Jesuit train to hell. Move over Amtrak, make way on the desert of dry bones and rotting souls.
I know a good Jesuit priest who recently confided that there are Jesuit goings on that if he’d know about them, he would not have become a Jesuit. He’s on my prayer list by name even though I pray daily for all priests!
LikeLiked by 1 person
For example, the vow of chastity is honored in the breach. Oh, but their Jesuitical casuistry says that if it’s with a man it’s not a violation of the vow of chastity. Such are the Jesuits today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The pretzel twisting of the sjs is fantastical. I’ll give them that.
Every angel, good or bad, is a person.
I believe the correct term is non-corporeal being as opposed to a person who has a body and soul which are united.
The persons of the Trinity are persons. A body is not required to be a person.
Hmmm…i’m just pointing out the terminology used in the Catechism. If i had to ponder on, Christ did have a physical body and He is One…theologians? Regardless, the devil, other fallen angels and angels are very real beings.
One can only hope that he is not convinced of the evil one’s reality by first-hand experience. I am told it is not a nice experience. May God change his heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It appears Art has the same fantasy as Frank. They think there are people out there that still care about the words coming out of their mouths.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, both OneMadMom and misleading Jesuits ought to be corrected.
Angels are indeed persons. They are created to praise God, execute his will on earth and help us as intercessors and guardians from evil. Angelic nature is closer to God’s divine nature than human nature. And therein lies Jesuit Sosa’s lie: true, the devil is obviously not a person like a human being, but that doesn’t mean the devil is not a person.
Angels have intellect and will. Angelic persons are much more exalted, so much so that when humans in the bible encounter them in a modified form of their glory, those people wanted to worship them. No, Angels are not so impersonal force or power that simply exist as part of the universe. They have their own personalities, are self-directed and experience love of good and outrage against evil. That is why we are instructed to pray to our angels for assistance in this life.
A misunderstanding here can lead to other forms of heresy, like promptings to do the good (offerings of angelic assistance) should be ignored because angels aren’t persons and therefore such promptings aren’t real. Such a judgement is erroneous and malicious. Yes, I love my angel guardian, and besides striving to be attentive to his promptings, out of respect for him I do not name him as though he were a pet I owned. All of our angels have their own secret name and worships before the face of God. Our thanks go to the Angelic doctor for his invaluable insights.
I don’t disagree with you anywhere as far as I can tell. “the devil is obviously not a person like a human being, but that doesn’t mean the devil is not a person.” I don’t deny angels are unique beings with will and intellect at all. I was simply making the clarification you did. I think that the catechism is clear as I quoted here: “Angels, the Catechism says, are ‘spiritual, non-corporeal beings.’
‘They are personal and immortal creatures,’ it adds, who ‘have intelligence and will.'”
I was responding to your statement: “[The Jesuit] He’s bending truth again. True, the devil is not a person. The devil is a fallen angelic being.”
And the reason I went onto to quote the CCC and the article was to clarify, not a person with body and soul like we are but a non-corporeal being. It was meant to be taken in its entirety. You’ve got on one hand a part of society that thinks all are fantasy and another part that think people become angels when we die and still a whole other group that believe in “angelic humans:.” I was emphasizing what you were. I do, however, think that to say “person” tends to confuse some (not all) which is why the CCC probably doesn’t use it. In fact, I’m sure I’ve missed it somewhere but I’m not sure I remember any teachings, docs, etc. that refer to them that way although you have probably read far more than I have on the issue.
I laud your investigative search for the truth, OMM.
Theology is based on philosophy, or as it is traditionally said, philosophy is the handmaid of theology. From the earliest Greek philosophers (Socrates, Plato, etc.) the Latin philosophers got the word “Persona,” which describes the mask actors wore in their assumed roles. The definition, rather complex in itself, suggests an individual entity that has reason, exists in and for itself, and is separate from others.
Such verbal gymnastics were required for theology to suggest how we might conceive of God and more, his Son. Through misunderstandings and clarifications, the Church came to use the term “persona” as a way of differentiating that Jesus is one person (divine) with two natures (human and divine); I will add, as catechisms clarify, he is done so without confusion, separation, or division.
Person also applies to spiritual beings in a limited sense. They don’t have human natures, but they are a spiritual person with a spiritual nature (what was given to them when created). Perhaps you can now see why I figured your statement needed clarification.
One of the sad denials dominant in the world today is that unborn children or not persons. The right words/concepts are oh so helpful, don’t you think?
“Perhaps you can now see why I figured your statement needed clarification” Not really but I think it’s all good and I think we do agree so there you have it. Thank you for your vocation!