Satan Now Optional

[PhuturePriest]

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/02/13/bye-bye-devil-church-of-england-makes-satan-optional/

 

The Book of Revelation speaks of the Devil being vanquished and cast into a pit of fire and brimstone at the end of the world.

 

But the Church of England has consigned Satan to a decidedly less dramatic fate – being quietly designated as an optional extra.

Instead of requiring an apocalyptic battle between the forces of good and evil, the move was approved in a polite show of hands at the Church’s decision making body, the General Synod, which has been meeting in Westminster.

 

Members voted to approve a new alternative baptism liturgy with all references to the Devil removed as part of a drive to make services “accessible” to those unused to attending church.

 

Following a consultation process, a committee of liturgical experts ruled that the inclusion of Satan as “personified evil” was “unhelpful” as it was likely to be “misunderstood” by young people.

 

Female priests and bishops, and now this. Really, is more proof needed that the Anglican Church is not guided by God whatsoever?

[Ash Wednesday]

Just another reason for frustrated Anglicans to come for a Tiber swim. 

 

[truthfinder]

Well, Satan is not "personified evil" in they way they are implying it, ie. a name we give to an absolute.  Satan is the epitome of evil as an angelic spirit. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Just another reason for frustrated Anglicans to come for a Tiber swim. 

 

 

 

Yes...good...

 

Edited February 15, 2015 by Basilisa Marie

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Technically Satan has always been optional. Regardless how do you request baptism now? Do you have to tell them, "I would like one baptism and please include the optional Satan package, thank you"?

Edited February 15, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[PhuturePriest]

Yes...good...

 

 

Why would the addition of Satan "scare off" the younger generation? It makes no sense.

[Ark]

Anglicanism is slowly fading into non-existence.

[Basilisa Marie]

Why would the addition of Satan "scare off" the younger generation? It makes no sense.

 

Three words: 

 

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. 

 

 

 

 

It's either that or rampant moral relativism. But I think moralistic therapeutic deism is more popular among the young Christians these people are worried would be scared by Satan, demons, acknowledging the existence of evil and our own participation in it. 

Edited February 16, 2015 by Basilisa Marie

[PhuturePriest]

Three words: 

 

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. 

 

 

 

 

It's either that or rampant moral relativism. But I think moralistic therapeutic deism is more popular among the young Christians these people are worried would be scared by Satan, demons, acknowledging the existence of evil and our own participation in it. 

 

How condescending. "We took Satan out of the Baptism so we don't frighten you little children off. Wouldn't want to give you nightmares, would we?"

[CatherineM]

Didn't the former Archbishop of Canterbury talk about not believing in the historical Jesus?  Can't really remember, something like that.

[Didacus]

(snip)

 

Following a consultation process, a committee of liturgical experts ruled that the inclusion of Satan as “personified evil” was “unhelpful” as it was likely to be “misunderstood” by young people.

(snip)

 

I see... so if something might be misunderstood - then stick to what is sure to be understood exclusively.  Never mind clarifying, educating, explaining or any other silly approach that might require effort.  Just do what is natural, and easy, and avoid subjects that might be difficult.  Just tell them what they want to hear and stick to that.

[Didacus]

 

How condescending. "We took Satan out of the Baptism so we don't frighten you little children off. Wouldn't want to give you nightmares, would we?"

​

Just ignore real life and it won't hurt you.  Just ignore real life and it will jut go away eventually leaving you to your dreams and delusions and everything will work out nice.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I should have made this comment when this topic was first posted, but I was trying not to make trouble, and was hoping that there wouldn't be much discussion, and this post wouldn't get much attention.

The original post reports that the Angicans created an optional wording for the Sacrament of Baptism that omits use of the word "Satan." The key word here is "optional." We have no idea whether it will be in standard usage in Anglican (Episcopalian) parishes in the U.S. or Church of England parishes in the UK.

One of the guidelines on Phatmass (and I don't have the actual document so I can't quote it) is that we avoid speaking negatively of other religions.

I'm not sure this original post was really necessary in a Catholic forum.

I try my best not to make a big deal about things like this, but yes, I get offended when someone makes a negative post about Anglicanism. It hasn't happened much recently, but in the past, it seemed as if there would be negative threads about the Anglicans, but no posts about other non-Catholic Christian denominations, all of which hold at least some beliefs that are contrary to Catholic beliefs.

Because this is a Catholic forum, I try very hard to be fully respectful of Catholic teachings and beliefs. Virtually all the time, if there is a Catholic point of view that I am not able to fully embrace without question, I simply remain silent, and don't post in that thread. There is no requirement that a Phatmass member make a post in every thread.

I am not the only non-Catholic member of Phatmass. Probably even more important is that we don't know anything about Phatmass' many "guests." We could, without realizing it, offend a "visitor" who could have become a future Phatmass member.

All I am asking is that fellow Phatmassers try to think of the guideline about being respectful of other religions (particularly other Christian religions) when making posts and making comments.

Thanks!

 

[Ash Wednesday]

Hi Ignatius,

From where I stand, I am a new Mediator of Meh and I am not entirely sure where one draws the line as far as what is enforceable and warrants a formal warning or censorship with regards to criticizing other religions because it runs into a pretty grey area, with some obvious exceptions like "islam is for terrorists." The guidelines are also missing for me to actually reference and I've mentioned it on the Mediator of Meh phorum but nothing has been done about it. To a certain extent, being rude isn't enforceable -- if that were the case, a lot of phatmass would have been banned a long time ago. 

Within reason, people do have the right to point out what they disagree with regarding other religions. But in the future if there are issues you are struggling with or points of contention, feel free to engage in the discussion rather than sit on the sidelines. It will be more helpful for us, and you.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Ash Wednesday

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Hi Ignatius,

From where I stand, I am a new Mediator of Meh and I am not entirely sure where one draws the line as far as what is enforceable and warrants a formal warning or censorship with regards to criticizing other religions because it runs into a pretty grey area, with some obvious exceptions like "islam is for terrorists." The guidelines are also missing for me to actually reference and I've mentioned it on the Mediator of Meh phorum but nothing has been done about it. To a certain extent, being rude isn't enforceable -- if that were the case, a lot of phatmass would have been banned a long time ago.

Within reason, people do have the right to point out what they disagree with regarding other religions. But in the future if there are issues you are struggling with or points of contention, feel free to engage in the discussion rather than sit on the sidelines. It will be more helpful for us, and you.

​Thanks Ash Wednesday!

In all fairness, there have been very few threads, especially recently, that criticize the Anglicans. I only decided to make my earlier post because I had been hoping that this particular thread would simply "go away on its own," but a new post was made in the thread today. In hindsight, I should have said something when the thread was first created.

My feeling is that on a Catholic Web site, there isn't much need for posts discussing decisions made by non-Catholic Christian denominations or congregations, unless they have taken an action that is specifically critical of Catholicism or Catholics, or that could be a threat to individual Catholics. The reason I feel this way is that, in the past, I've seen general posts (not related to Catholicism) about other denominations that quickly became disrespecful, or made fun of other denominations.

However, I agree with your point that in reading posts that criticize other religions, it's often difficult to determine when a thread changes from a poster simply saying that they disagree with a certain viewpoint and why, versus strongly disrespectful criticism. My personal preference would be that the subject of other non-Catholic denominations not even come up, unless there is an issue that specifically relates to Catholicism. For example, someone might have a question on the Catholic belief on baptism vs. the Baptist belief, or someone might report that a Christian group has mounted an anti-Catholic campaign.

In my experience, the vast majority of Phatmassers are very respectful and friendly. I don't feel "stifled" when I choose not to post in a thread. I usually choose not to post, not because I am opposed to the Catholic view, but because I'm not totally sure what I think. Phatmass teaches me the orthodox Catholic view, and I can go to other places if I want to hear other points of view.