Malachi Martin's take on Lucifer and Satan
#11
(10-26-2010, 10:42 PM)Walty Wrote: So Lucifer is a generic name for demons?  Or is there one specific demon named Lucifer?  Satan, then, is the Prince of Darkness, the head of the opposition to God?  Lucifer serves under Satan?

These are the English uses of the word.

Lucifer is a name, which original referred to the planet Venus. It was used twice in the Bible to refer to two different things (the D-R only uses it once however, otherwise it is translated as "light bearer" or something).

Identification of the demons in the Bible is not consistent. The Bible rarely makes it clear that the same being is directly referenced again. In fact, the tempter the Garden of Eden is not actually identified either.

Linguistically, "Devil" and "Satan" can refer to an individual or a type of being.

It seems that exorcists in the Church associate the name "Satan" and "Lucifer" with two different beings, at least, in their perception. So, there probably is a demon who in some sense thinks of itself what we would name "Lucifer", but for the Church, it isn't.
Reply
#12
I wonder which name is more proper for the great Evil One, the chief of the fallen angels.
Reply
#13
(10-27-2010, 07:24 PM)Walty Wrote: I wonder which name is more proper for the great Evil One, the chief of the fallen angels.
It prefers the name "Henry".

Seriously though:

Apocalypse 20:1-2 Wrote:And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand.  And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

I think this verse does show that the serpent in the Garden is Satan, and identifiable as the chief of the fallen angels.

This may indicate association with animal imagery:
Luke 10:18-19 Wrote:And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.  Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you.
Also, "satan" is used as a type of being elsewhere in the Bible, so specific verses have to be understood with that in mind. Any tempter could be called a satan.

Luke 11:18 Wrote:And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because you say, that through Beelzebub I cast out devils.
A being suitably named "Satan" is the head of the damned (I think this means he suffers the most, not that he rules in any sort of personal glory).

Now, who is "Lucifer"? It seems, whoever deserves the name.
Reply
#14
There seems to be a consensus among exorcists that many of the well known demonic names are separate fallen angels.  I'd have to look at the quotes directly to see where "Lucifer" falls into the mix, but Fr. James Lebar commented on an interview with Raymond Arroyo that Satan, Beelzebub, Belial etc were different and he found Beelzebub to be a particularly nasty demon to deal with and when he would hear that name, he would know it was going to be a real hard battle. 

William Biersach also read in his lecture "Out of Context" from a 13th century occult book that considered them all separate demons. 
Reply
#15
Satan and Lucifer are the same fallen angel.  There is no Catholic teaching that I know of that distinguishes them.
Reply
#16
(10-26-2010, 10:42 PM)Walty Wrote: This was one of Fr. Martin's claims that I could never make sense of either.  The fact that Baglio (and, apparently Fr. Amorth) agree with him makes me think it must certainly be true.

Exorcists are exorcists because they are skilled at and have a charism for exorcism.    An exorcist's experience or personal belief doesn't make something true.  If they're basing in on what demons tell them at exorcisms, they could very obviously be being misled.

Quote:So Lucifer is a generic name for demons?  Or is there one specific demon named Lucifer?  Satan, then, is the Prince of Darkness, the head of the opposition to God?  Lucifer serves under Satan?

Lucifer can refer to any fallen angel, or to a fallen human for that matter.  Most often it is used to refer to Satan aka The Dragon aka The Serpent.

The theory of a hierarchal governance in demonology comes from mirroring angelology.  The Angels are organized hierarchically as explained by Pseudo-Dionysius (go Neo-Platonists!) in his work, The Celestial Hierarchy.    The actually hierarchy of demons is apocryphal and I don't know of any authentic Church teaching on the subject.  In fact, AFAIK the Church, while teaching a hierarchy of angels, doesn't teach a hierarchy of demons but allows it in the sense that it doesn't speak against it.

Reply
#17
(10-26-2010, 10:42 PM)Walty Wrote: This was one of Fr. Martin's claims that I could never make sense of either.  The fact that Baglio (and, apparently Fr. Amorth) agree with him makes me think it must certainly be true.

So Lucifer is a generic name for demons?  Or is there one specific demon named Lucifer?  Satan, then, is the Prince of Darkness, the head of the opposition to God?  Lucifer serves under Satan?

No.  Exactly the opposite.  Fr. Martin said that Lucifer is the "Prince" whose preference is to "sit" in authority (I'm paraphrasing and expanding on his actual words a bit).  Satan is a kind of "generalized spirit" that does what Martin called "the dirty work."

I don't remember which interview he says this in, but it very well could have been one of his radio appearances.
Reply
#18
(11-05-2010, 01:21 PM)Gerard Wrote: William Biersach also read in his lecture "Out of Context" from a 13th century occult book that considered them all separate demons. 

You can go back to the Book of Genesis and find different names used for different demons.

Demonology is almost a separate mythos that has certain premises.  Most demons are named according to office, as are angels (the names of angels we know to be true at least).   Which brings up an interesting question: is the name of a demon the name of a particular fallen angel or the name of a group of fallen angels that have a particular function?   If the name is really a category of demons, it would explain a lot, but AFAIK that theory isn't widely held.

Thence comes the theory that the vice of a particular demon is a corruption of its original office: a fallen angel of love became a demon of lust, etc.

Another problem with demonology that makes it a mythos is a lot of the information was gleaned from Necromancy books, "confessions" of Necromancers and such, many of which are clearly frauds written to make money.  Heavy Metal bands weren't the first to use the devil as a marketing tool for their wares.  

The good news is, we don't have to care.  The other good news is, exorcists don't have to have a working and accurate knowledge of demonology to succeed because it's the authority of the Church and Christ that casts out demons, not academic skills.

So while interesting, the whole subject is mostly irrelevant.
Reply
#19
It is helpful though to have a basic understanding and a knowledge of the nature of what we are up against.  It should be reasonably balanced as part of  comprehensive understanding of the faith.  I don't like to read or study up on demonology without at least an equal study and devotional increase towards the Angels and Our Lady as well as St. Joseph all in Our Lord's name.  Frequent confession and the Eucharist should also be already in practice before someone studies anything like this in depth.

A person in a depression may try therapy, medication and really mess up their lives if they don't even know to consider that the source may be demonic oppression.  Or anyone blessed or cursed with psychic abilities or fooled into thinking they have psychic abilities may get some helpful perspective (ie. reading in Hostage to the Devil the distinction between psychic power and the spiritual world as well as the folly of trying to reach or control angels or demons through psychic channels. )  Or anyone who has heard that sickening knock on the door of their mind can know some of the basic defenses recommended and where to look for help and how to call on them.

There is very little that is doctrinally "de fide" but still doctrinally sound and I take most of what I read from Catholic sources as either probably true or possibly true and most non-Catholic stuff as probably false. 

The solutions are all the same, Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Joseph, St. Michael, St. Raphael, Our Guardian,  the Sacramentals, the Sacraments, the Priest. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)