Angels And Demons, Fasting And Abstinence

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the angels--both the good and the fallen, and the importance of fasting and abstinence. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Angels and Demons, Fasting and Abstinence

by John Gregory

There was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me (2 Corinthians 12: 7). — The devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved (Luke 8: 12)

 

The entirety of this article is quoted directly from the Catechism of Trent (COT), A Tour of the Summa, By Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, and A Companion of the Summa Volume 3, by Walter Farell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.  The source and page numbers of each source will be provided in their proper place.

 

CREATION OF THE WORLD OF SPIRITS

 

God created out of nothing the spiritual world and Angels innumerable to serve and minister to Him; and these He enriched and adorned with the admirable gifts of His grace and power. 

 

That the devil and the other rebel angels were gifted from the beginning of their creation with grace, clearly follows from these words of the Sacred Scriptures: He (the devil) stood not in the truth. (John 8: 44) On this subject Saint Augustine says: In creating the Angels He endowed them with good will, that is, with pure love that they might adhere to Him, giving them existence and adorning them with grace at one and the same time.  Hence we are to believe that the holy Angels were never without good will, that is, the love of God.

 

As to their knowledge we have this testimony of Holy Scripture: Thou, my Lord, O king, art wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to understand all things upon earth. (2 Kings 14: 20) Finally, the inspired David ascribes power to them, saying that they are mighty in strength, and execute his word; (Psalm 102: 20) and on this account they are often called in Scripture the powers and the armies of the Lord.

 

But although they were all endowed with celestial gifts, very many, having rebelled against God, their Father and Creator, were hurled from those high mansions of bliss, and shut up in the darkest dungeon of earth, there to suffer for eternity the punishment of their pride.  Speaking of them the Prince of the Apostles says: God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment. (2 Peter 2: 4) [COT p. 27 – 28]

 

GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS

 

1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

 

2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.

 

3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory.  Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

 

4. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

 

5. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it.  The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.

 

6. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.

 

7. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.

 

8.  Beatified angels cannot sin.  Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively.  There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.

 

9. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude.  A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.

 

SIN OF THE FALLLE ANGELS

 

1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin.  If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature.  While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin.  And some of them did.

 

2. The sinning angels (or demons) are guilty of all sins in so far as they lead man to commit every kind of sin.  But in the bad angels themselves there could be no tendency to fleshly sins but only to such sins as can be committed by a purely spiritual being, and these sins are two only: pride and envy.

 

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God.  This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible.  Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater.  On this point man sometimes deceives himself by trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being.  But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion.  The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible.  Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be.  What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God’s help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

 

4. Every nature, that is every essence as operating, tends to some good.  An intellectual nature tends to good in general, good under its common aspects, good as such.  The fallen angels therefore are not naturally evil.

 

5. The devil did not sin in the very instant of his creation.  When a perfect cause makes a nature the first operation of that nature must be in line with the perfection of its cause.  Hence the devil was not created in wickedness.  He, like all the angels, was created in the state of sanctifying grace.

 

6. But the devil, with his companions, sinned immediately after creation.  He rejected the grace in which he was created, and which he was meant to use, as the good angels used it, to merit beatitude.  If, however, the angels were not created in grace (as some hold) but had grace available as soon as they were created, then it may be that some interval occurred between the creation and the sin of Lucifer and his companions.

 

7. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels.  But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels. 

 

8. The sin of the highest angel was a bad example which attracted the other rebel angels, and, to this extent, was the cause of their sin.

 

9. The faithful angels are a greater multitude than the fallen angels.  For sin is contrary to the natural order.  Now, what is opposed to the natural order occurs less frequently, or in fewer instances, than what accords with the natural order. (A Tour of the Summa, By Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, pages 53 – 55)

 

 

VENERATION AND INVOCATION OF ANGELS AND SAINTS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

 

In explanation of this Commandment it should be accurately taught that the veneration and invocation of holy Angels and of the blessed who now enjoy the glory of heaven, and likewise the honor which the Catholic Church has always paid even to the bodies and ashes of the Saints, are not forbidden by this Commandment.  If a king ordered that no one else should set himself up as king, or accept the honors due to the royal person, who would be so foolish as to infer that the sovereign was unwilling that suitable honor and respect should be paid to his magistrates?  Now although Christians follow the example set by the Saints of the Old Law, and are said to adore the Angels, yet they do not give to Angels that honor which is due to God alone.

 

And if we sometimes read that Angels refused to be worshipped by men, (Apocalypse 19: 10; 22: 9) we are to know that they did so because the worship which they refused to accept was the honor due to God alone.

 

IT IS LAWFUL TO HONOR AND INVOKE THE ANGELS

 

The Holy Spirit who says: Honour and glory to God alone, (1 Timothy 1: 17; Exodus 20: 12; Leviticus 19: 32) commands us also to honor our parents and elders; and the holy men who adored one God only are also said in Scripture to have adored, that is, supplicated and venerated kings. If then kings, by whose agency God governs the world, are so highly honored, (Genesis 23: 7; 2 Kings 24: 20; 1 Paralipomenon 29: 20) shall it be deemed unlawful to honor those angelic spirits whom God has been pleased to constitute His ministers, whose services He makes use of not only in the government of His Church, but also of the universe, by whose aid, although we see them not, we are every day delivered from the greatest dangers of soul and body?  Are they not worthy of far greater honor, since their dignity so far surpasses that of Kings.

 

Add to this their love towards us, which as we easily see from Scripture, (Daniel 10: 13) prompts them to pour out their prayers for those countries over which they are placed, as well as for us whose guardians they are, and whose prayers and tears they present before the throne of God. (Tobit 12: 12; Apocalypse 8: 3) Hence our Lord admonishes us in the Gospel not to offend the little ones, because their angels in heaven always see the face of their Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 10)

 

Their intercession, therefore, we ought to invoke, because they always see the face of God, and are constituted by Him the willing advocates of our salvation.  The Scriptures bear witness to such invocation.  Jacob entreated the Angel with whom he wrestled to bless him; (Genesis 32: 26) nay, he even compelled him, declaring that he would not let him go until he had blessed him.  And not only did he invoke the blessing of the Angel whom he saw, but also of him whom he saw not.  The angel, sad he, who delivers me from all evils, bless these boys. (Genesis 48: 16)

 

IT IS LAWFUL TO HONOR AND INVOKE THE SAINTS

 

From all this we may conclude that to honor the Saints who have slept in the Lord, to invoke them, and to venerate their sacred relics and ashes, far from diminishing, tends considerably to increase the glory of God, in proportion as man’s hope is thus animated and fortified, and he himself encouraged to imitate the Saints.

 

This is a practice which is also supported by the authority of the second Council of Nice, the Councils of Gangra, and of Trent, and by the testimony of the Fathers.  In order, however, that the pastor may be the better prepared to meet the objections of those who deny this doctrine, he should consult particularly Saint Jerome against Vigilantius and Saint Damascene.  To the teaching of these Fathers should be added as a consideration of prime importance that the practice was received from the Apostles, and has always been retained and preserved in the Church of God.

 

But who can desire a stronger or more convincing proof than that which is supplied by the admirable praises given in Scripture to the Saints? For there are not wanting eulogies which God Himself pronounced on some of the Saints.  If, then, Holy Writ celebrates their praises, why should not men show them singular honor? (Ecclesiasticus 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49; Hebrews 11)

 

A stronger claim which the Saints have to be honored and invoked is that they constantly pray for our salvation and obtain for us by their merits and influence many blessings from God.  If there is joy in heaven over the conversion of one sinner, (Luke 15: 7, 10) will not the citizens of heaven assist those who repent?  When they are invoked, will they not obtain for us the pardon of sins, and the grace of God?

 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

 

Should it be said, as some say, that the patronage of the Saints is unnecessary, because God hears our prayers without the intervention of a mediator, this impious assertion is easily met by the observation of Saint Augustine: “There are many things which God does not grant without a mediator and intercessor.”  This is confirmed by the will-known examples of Abimelech and the friends of Job who were pardoned only through the prayers of Abraham and of Job. (Genesis 20)

 

Should it be alleged that to recur to the patronage and intercession of the Saints argues want or weakness of faith, what will (the objectors) answer regarding the centurion whose faith was highly eulogized by the Lord God Himself, despite the fact that he had sent to the Redeemer the ancients of the Jews, to intercede for his sick servant. (Matthew 7: 10; Luke 7: 3)

 

True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us. (Hebrews 9: 12; 7: 25) But it by no means follows that it is therefore unlawful to have recourse to the intercession of the Saints.  If, because we have one Mediator Jesus Christ, it were unlawful to ask the intercession of the Saints, the Apostle would never have recommended himself with so much earnestness to the prayers of his brethren on earth. (Romans 15: 30; Hebrews 13: 18) For the prayers of the living would lessen the glory and dignity of Christ’s Mediatorship not less than the intercession of the Saints in heaven.

 

THE HONOR AND INVOCATION OF SAINTS IS APPROVED BY MIRACLES

 

But who would not be convinced of the honor due the Saints and of the help they give us by the worders wrought at their tombs?  Diseased eyes, hands, and other members are restored to health; the dead are raised to life, and demons are expelled from the bodies of men!  These are facts which Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine, most unexceptionable witnesses, declare in their writings, not that they heard, as many did, nor that they read, as did many very reliable men, but that they saw.

 

But why multiply proofs? If the clothes, the handkerchiefs, (Acts 19: 12 and 5: 15) and even the very shadows of the Saints, while yet on earth, banished disease and restored health, who will have the hardihood to deny that God can still work the same wonders by the holy ashes, the bones and other relics of the Saints?  Of this we have a proof in the restoration to life of the dead body which was accidentally let down into the grave of Eliseus, and which, on touching the body (of the Prophet), was instantly restored to life. (4 Kings 13: 21)

 

“Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth: thou shalt not adore them nor serve them” (Exodus 20: 4)

 

Some, supposing these words which come next in order to constitute a distinct precept, reduce the ninth and tenth Commandments to one.  Saint Augustine, on the contrary, considering the last two to be distinct Commandments, makes the words just quoted a part of the first Commandment.  His division is much approved in the Church, and hence we willingly adopt it.  Furthermore, a very good reason for this arrangement at once suggests itself.  It was fitting that to the first Commandment should be added the rewards or punishments entailed by each one of the Commandments.

 

THE ABOVE WORDS DO NOT FORBID ALL IMAGES

 

Let no one think that this Commandment entirely forbids the arts of painting, engraving or sculpture.  The Scriptures inform us that God Himself commanded to be made images of Cherubim (Exodus 25: 18; 3 Kings 6: 23), and also the brazen serpent (Numbers 21: 8, 9).  The interpretation, therefore, at which we must arrive, is that images are prohibited only inasmuch as they are used as deities to receive adoration, and so to injure the true worship of God. [COT p. 369 – 373]

 

The angels have the fortune of not being capable of committing sins of the flesh such as gluttony, but they also have the “misfortune” of not being able to merit through fasting and abstinence though they can sure aid us in our endeavors to do so, especially if we seek their assistance through prayer.

 

FASTING AND ABSTINENCE: THEIR ADVANTAGES

 

In hunger and thirst, in fastings often (2 Corinthians 11: 27)

 

Naturalness

 

From all this it might be erroneously gathered that fasting was the product of Christian asceticism.  Nothing is further from the truth.  The value of fasting as a means of satisfying for sin, controlling and elevating the mind has always been common knowledge among men; so much so that fasting was a common practice even among primitive peoples, so common as to justify Thomas’ statement—long before anthropology elbowed its way into the halls of science—that fasting is a command of the natural law precisely for these three reasons.

 

The natural law did not, of course, tell an Iroquois that he must fast on Friday, nor the African pygmy that he must observe the Ember Days; it said nothing to the Eskimo about Lent.  The actual times for fasting are positive law’s determinations of the indeterminate general precept of natural law.

 

This explains the universal character of the Church’s insistence on fasting.  It does, of course, recognize special impediments, such as exist in children, working men and beggars.  But even here, the dispensation from the fast does not make an excuse from mortification; otherwise it would hardly be a privilege, a favor done for an individual, rather it would be a tragic deprivation.  Saint Basil could not understand why anyone could not fast: the guest list of the rich was incomplete without fasting, it was an old table companion of the poor, to women it was as natural as breathing, to children it was like water to a young plant, while as for the old, why the long years had made it second nature to them.

 

Allotted times

 

With the purposes of fasting well understood, the fast days appointed by the Church take on new beauty.  Surely there is no more fitting time to satisfy for our sins and prepare our minds for the consideration of eternal things than in the days that prepare us for Christ’s death and resurrection; how can we better appreciate the great saints’ entry into heaven, the full meaning of the great feasts, than by preparing our minds to appreciate the splendid goals they hold before our eyes?  But it is not enough to lift ourselves to the plane of the angels now and then; that is where we belong all of our lives.  To bring this truth home, we are made to fast in each of the four seasons of the year and for three days as a symbol of the three months that make up the divisions of the year: we call those days Ember Days.  During those days priests are ordained and all the major orders given; a fitting time in which to prepare ourselves to celebrate the birthdays of these other Christs.

 

Its opposite—gluttony; Its modes

 

The delicate fineness achieved by fasting is quickly perceived by a contrast with the effects of gluttony.  It is much the same contrast as that between the perfectly conditioned dancer and the man who has let himself go to seed.  On one side there are clean, hard muscles, moving rhythmically under perfect control with a grace that is almost fluid, the grace in motion that a woman so often possesses in repose.  On the other side there is the puffy flabbiness, the disintegration, the softness of a man many years older than his age.

 

It is to be understood that gluttony is not merely a matter of pleasure in food nor of quantity; rather it is a desire for food or an enjoyment of it that surpasses the bounds of reason.  If we think of gluttony only in terms of quantity, we might well echo Augustine’s delightfully human confession: “Who is it, Lord, that does not eat a little more than necessary?  Gluttony must be thought of, not in terms of quantity, but in terms of reason.  As a matter of fact, it can be committed—a sin of desire—on a desert island with no food to be had, or at the breakfast table buoyant under the airy weight of two pieces of toast.  It may be accomplished by the man who goes at his food too ardently or by the kitchen nuisance, the nibbler, who simply cannot wait for his food.  The varieties of gluttony are really extraordinary: the gourmand, for instance, who gravely superintends every step of his food’s preparation; the dainty one to whom an undisguised piece of beef would be obscenity; the man who eats by the dollar sign, subsisting on a diet equivalent roughly to caviar and champagne.  The real epicurean (those who seek pleasure as an end in itself, the goal and purpose of life on earth), sinning by a wholesale perversion on the side of quantity, is at present somewhat rare; at least there is little trace in modern records of architects designing a vomitorium as the logical companion of a dining room.

 

Intrinsic gravity

 

In itself, gluttony is usually a venial sin.  It is only when we make food our goal to the extent of turning our backs on God for it that it becomes a mortal sin.  Certainly the man who would deliberately eat himself to death for the pleasure of his food has carried this sin to its extreme.  This inherent lightness of the sin of gluttony may be puzzling by reason of its very close parallelism to contraception.  Both are against nature in exactly the same way: by perversion of a faculty, using for an end that which is meant by nature as a means, deliberately frustrating (in the case of the epicureans) the end to which those means are ordained.  The difference between the two is that gluttony does not impede the primary physical end of nature—the preservation of the species; not does it, usually, seriously impede the secondary physical end of nature, the conservation of the individual's own life.  The sins against nature are not grievous simply because they are against nature; their gravity is in exact proportion to the impediment they place to the attainment of the ends of nature.

 

Its daughters: unseemly joy, scurrility, physical uncleanness, loquaciousness, dullness of mind

 

From this we might conclude that gluttony is a disgusting rather than a serious sin.  It is disgusting; but it is also terribly dangerous.  It is a capital sin and a list of its unlovely daughters explains a great deal of our disgust with it and all of its perils.  Gluttony brings the animal in man so emphatically to the forefront as to give the impression that the mastery of reason had been done away with.  Reason is drugged, heavy-eyed, sluggish, as contrasted with its alert vitality in the mortified man.  With reason asleep or so nearly asleep the rest of man runs wild: there is unseemly and riotous joy in the appetite, a loquaciousness in speech and a scurrility of action—all more or less out of control.  The crowning touch of distastefulness, made proverbial in the spotted vest, is a physical uncleanness that goes unnoticed by the glutton.

 

From the abuse of drink—sobriety: Its nature

 

Overindulgence in food deprives a man of his mastery stealthily, little by little and day by day.  But overindulgence in intoxicating drink has none of this cowardly finesse about it; it hits a man over the head and throws him helpless in a gutter.  It represents a very special threat to reason and so must be mastered by a very special virtue, the virtue of sobriety.  Sobriety and teetotalism (complete abstinence from alcohol) are not synonymous terms; as a matter of fact, sobriety is not interested in total abstinence.  Its interest is in the note of reason, the note of freedom and mastery that must shine forth from a man’s use of intoxicating liquors.

 

Its opposite—drunkenness

 

Saint Thomas thought that this virtue was particularly necessary in youths, in women, in the old and in those who hold positions of honor.  We confirm this contention again and again by our varying attitudes towards drunkards; to us, a drunken high school boy, a drunken mother or a drunken governor are all much more shocking sights than a drunken sailor.  Why did Saint Thomas pick out these particular classes and why are we so instinctively in agreement with him?  Well, obviously, the old and those in authority should be those in who reason is particularly flourishing; in youths and women, sobriety is more necessary because of the added inclination to concupiscence—in youths by reason of their very exuberance, in women (says Saint Thomas) because they are so apt to let their heart rule their head.

 

This does not mean that a husband can get drunk with impunity while his wife commits the same act only under penalty of sin.  Deliberate drunkenness is a mortal sin in anyone.  It involves the deliberate loss of the use of reason for the sheer love of the drink.  That is, drunkenness is a deliberately immoderate use, an unreasonable use, of intoxicating liquor with serious results to the mastery of man.  [A Companion to the Summa Volume 3, by Walter Farell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M. p. 379 - 383]

 

GLUTTONY

 

1. Gluttony is excess in eating and drinking.  It is an immoderate indulgence in the delights of the palate.  Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.

 

2. Gluttony is usually not a serious sin, but it could be such a sin.  It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating and drinking that he is ready to abandon virtue, and God himself, to obtain this pleasure.

 

3. Gluttony is a sin of the flesh, a carnal sin.  Hence, in itself, it is not so great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.

 

4. Gluttony denotes inordinate desire in eating and drinking.  It shows itself in the avidity with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or drinking too much.  Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.

 

5. A capital sin is a source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh which is the most alluring of all pleasures.  Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.

 

6. Gluttony leads to inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind, to injudiciousness of speech, to levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. [A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Paul J. Glenn – p. 277-8]

 

Conclusion

With the intercession of the Angles and Saints we will increase our chance of more consistently denying our natural inclinations in this fallen state, and merit through fasting and abstinence, thus conforming our will to God’s will.