Could Satan ever repent?
(05-31-2011, 11:39 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote: As Satan is a 'rational creature' with an intellect and free will, I don't see why he couldn't repent, at least theoretically.

No, their wills are fixed:

"while according to Catholic Faith, it must be held firmly both that the will of the good angels is confirmed in good, and that the will of the demons is obstinate in evil."

From the Summa - Whether the will of the demons is obstinate in evil?  The whole article is pretty interesting, and St Thomas makes a convincing case.
EDIT: Pheo already posted what I was going to post.
The angels exist outside of time, in the direct light of God.  Therefore, there can be no change in their character or in their minds.  Therefore, when Satan rebelled at the moment of their creation and God's unveiling to them about His plan, they made their final decision in one "moment", so to speak, in the same way that we have a lifetime to make ours.  There is no possibility that he could ever change his mind.  He is foul and will be condemned for all eternity due to his traiterous decision.
(05-30-2011, 12:15 PM)Scythian Wrote: i was always taught once angles make a decision they cannot change it, unlike humans which makes us more superior despite angles being thousands if not millions of times more intelligent and stronger than us

This does not make us more superior.  In fact, the reason that angels cannot change is because they are totally spiritual and, in many ways, much more like God than we are.  They exist outside of time, in the direct revelation and vision of God, therefore change is not possible.
(05-29-2011, 09:52 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I know this is in all likelihood impossible but is it possible since Satan is a fallen angel that he could repent and ask for God's forgiveness...and if this happened what would happen to all the damned souls? Obviously if this happened there would be no more evil. This is just a crazy question that popped into my head.

No because Angels can't change their minds. Its an "all or nothing" kinda deal with angels. At least that was what I was reading new advent is not dogma:

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Devil Wrote:This dispute, as to the time taken by the probation and fall of Satan, has a purely speculative interest. But the corresponding question as to the rapidity of the sentence and punishment is in some ways a more important matter. There can indeed be no doubt that Satan and his rebel angels were very speedily punished for their rebellion. This would seem to be sufficiently indicated in some of the texts which are understood to refer to the fall of the angels. It might be inferred, moreover, from the swiftness with which punishment followed on the offense in the case of our first parents, although man's mind moves more slowly than that of the angels, and he had more excuse in his own weakness and in the power of his tempter. It was partly for this reason, indeed, that man found mercy, whereas there was no redemption for the angels. For, as St. Peter says, "God spared not the angels that sinned" (2 Peter 2:4). This, it may be observed, is asserted universally, indicating that all who fell suffered punishment. For these and other reasons theologians very commonly teach that the doom and punishment followed in the next instant after the offense, and many go so far as to say there was no possibility of repentance. But here it will be well to bear in mind the distinction drawn between revealed doctrine, which comes with authority, and theological speculation, which to a great extent rests on reasoning. No one who is really familiar with the medieval masters, with their wide differences, their independence, their bold speculation, is likely to confuse the two together. But in these days there is some danger that we may lose sight of the distinction.

It is true that, when it fulfils certain definite conditions, the agreement of theologians may serve as a sure testimony to revealed doctrine, and some of their thoughts and even their very words have been adopted by the Church in her definitions of dogma. But at the same time these masters of theological thought freely put forward many more or less plausible opinions, which come to us with reasoning rather than authority, and must needs stand or fall with the arguments by which they are supported. In this way we may find that many of them may agree in holding that the angels who sinned had no possibility of repentance. But it may be that it is a matter of argument, that each one holds it for a reason of his own and denies the validity of the arguments adduced by others.

Some argue that from the nature of the angelic mind and will there was an intrinsic impossibility of repentance. But it may be observed that in any case the basis of this argument is not revealed teaching, but philosophical speculation. And it is scarcely surprising to find that its sufficiency is denied by equally orthodox doctors who hold that if the fallen angels could not repent this was either because the doom was instantaneous, and left no space for repentance, or because the needful grace was denied them. Others, again, possibly with better reason, are neither satisfied that sufficient grace and room for repentance were in fact refused, nor can they see any good ground for thinking this likely, or for regarding it as in harmony with all that we know of the Divine mercy and goodness.


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)