E
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
That does not matter. There are things that can be put forward as the opinion of whoever but cannot be put forward as if it is a fact. We should see what the Church actually teaches and then say the Church does not teach this other matter but it is the opinion of one of more of the doctors of the Church.
By the way Aquinas was not right about everything. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception but as it was not dogma in his time his view was simply his opinion.
S
Sirach2
Guest
And it is simply the opinion of “Thistle” that Aquinas is simply rendering his opinion. It is brash to state that since he did not believe in the I.C., therefore, everything he says is simply opinion. Prior to the dogma being proclaimed, many theologians struggled with this and were not therefore bound or teaching error.
T
thistle
Guest
Why is it brash? Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.I know it was not declared dogma in his time. I was making the point it was simply his opinion and his opinion on that was wrong.
Although you are trying hard to be sarcastic I forgive you.
By the way you cannot hide the fact that what I said in earlier threads is correct and that is that if it is not taught by the Church then it is simply an opinion, no matter who the opinion is from (even mine).
S
Sirach2
Guest
The reason it is brash, Thistle, is because you continually demean any attempt by a poster to quote Aquinas by depicting him as erroneous just because of his unbelief in the IC. He is a Doctor of the Church, and 99.9% of his writings are true and worthy of belief. I did not go back too far to note your consistency in doing this.
And no, I was not being sarcastic, but using a humorous pun to get across my point. Don’t the rules forbid demeaning clergy, let alone a Doctor of the Church, in painting him as wrong in general, due to this one difficulty that nobody was bound to believe in that century?
R
Richca
Guest
T
turtle18
Guest
So how are angels created? Since every human has a guardian angel, is a new angel created by God when a human is born? When we die, does our guardian angel get reassigned?
R
Richca
Guest
Vatican Council I declared that God “immediately from the beginning of time, fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely, angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.” (CCC#293, #299, footnote #155, DS 3002, and Lateran Council IV).
So, it appears that the Church teaches that the angels were created at the beginning of time when God also created the material, physical universe. This appears to mean all the angels and this is the general consensus of the theologians. So, that a new angel is created when a new human is born does not appear to be in keeping with what the Church has said. The CCC#332 says “angels have been present since creation.”
An already existing angel is assigned to a new human to be its guardian. Holy Scripture relates that there are myriads upon myriads of angels attending to God and around His throne. St Thomas Aquinas teaches that the number of angels is above the number of all corporeal things taken together of which human beings are but a part of that number of corporeal things. So, there are plenty of angels to be the guardian angels of every human being since Adam and Eve without even being reassigned after the death of some human being. Whether or not a guardian angel is reassigned after the death of a human to a new human, I don’t think we know for certain. The theologians are of the opinion though that it wouldn’t be because of a lack of number of them.
A
alcuin18
Guest
Again everything you all have said is truly fascinating, and I especially appreciate the imput of Richca, your posts are extraordinarily informative and well-referenced. I had heard of the teachings that angels directly rule over the physical world, but I was unaware that so many Church people, especially Fathers, had taught it. It is interesting too, as you said of St. Aquinas, that this doctrine was also taught, in a way, but pagan philosophers, especially Greek; indeed, if one exchanges their word “god” for “angel”, it is quite similar to the teaching of the Fathers. From what I’ve heard, it was also always believed by the ancient Jews, as is reflected in the Old Testament.
Also, as a note on guardian angels, I believe the teaching of the Church is that one’s assigned guardian angel, assigned at one’s conception, stays with you even after death and for all eternity, even through Purgatory if one goes to it, though I assume an angel would not go with one to Hell, as that is separation from grace which is impossible for a holy angel. I also wonder if Our Lord, in His human nature, also had a guardian angel; perhaps that was one of the angels who ministered to Him in the dessert, during His forty day fast. An intriguing and beautiful thought.
Thank you all again and God bless.
Also, as a note on guardian angels, I believe the teaching of the Church is that one’s assigned guardian angel, assigned at one’s conception, stays with you even after death and for all eternity, even through Purgatory if one goes to it, though I assume an angel would not go with one to Hell, as that is separation from grace which is impossible for a holy angel. I also wonder if Our Lord, in His human nature, also had a guardian angel; perhaps that was one of the angels who ministered to Him in the dessert, during His forty day fast. An intriguing and beautiful thought.
Thank you all again and God bless.
T
thistle
Guest
That makes no difference. It is not taught by the Church.
A
alcuin18
Guest
Many things aren’t taught as official doctrines of the Church, but are apart of the tradition (lower case) of the Church. St. Aquinas’ teachings have been frequently used as the basis of Church doctrine, and he derived much of his thought from doctrinal sources such as the Scriptures, and so while we are not obligated to accept everything he says we should still give it due consideration and have a good reason not to believe it.
M
MrSnaith
Guest
It’s also not declared false by the Church, which leaves it open for belief or disbelief. And given that it was taught by St. Thomas, and it makes a lot of sense, I don’t see any reason whatsoever to disbelieve it, since the vast majority of what he did teach was confirmed by Church teaching.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have sometimes wondered whether angels are fundamentally “principles” that are conscious and self-knowing.
So, for example, (not being a science person, I will do this badly, but the best I can) if “E=MC squared” and if that formulary principle is found in action as widely as it is said to be, is it possible that “E=MC squared” is an angel or perhaps some smallish aspect of a much bigger reality that is an angel.
We think of the principles governing the universe (most of which we probably have no knowledge of) as inert; as something that just operates on their own by virtue of some kind of inherent necessity. But, understanding as we at least should, that our knowledge of the principles governing this (and perhaps others) universe is extremely limited, can we really preclude the possibility that they’re part of a complex emanating from the Mind of God, Himself which, when He created them, gave them consciousness and personhood?
What does a garden slug know about Shakespeare? Nothing. And we could recite Shakespeare to the slug for a thousand years and it would still know nothing of Shakepeare. We are on a different plane from the slug. Our consciousness is utterly removed from what consciousness it has, and impenetrable of its very nature.
And so, are angels sufficiently removed from us that, try as we might, we will never see anything except that “E=MC squared” works mathematically and appears to work physically, explaining certain things insofar as our minds can comprehend them? Are we like the garden slug that can perceive our presence if we touch it, but does not comprehend our simultaneous recitation of Shakespeare? Does the slug even know that what touched it is a conscious, self-aware creature? Does it only know “touched by something, move away?” And is our knowledge of creation no better than that when it comes to its real complexity? Will it ever be?
For myself, I have a suspicion that the “world” of angels is far, far removed from our own; that they know about us; that some are created to be involved with us, but that some aren’t except to the extent that what we think are only, say, “principles of physics” affect us in a physical way.
Which brings me to the “name” of any given angel. We read angelic names in the bible. But those are human names, descriptive to some degree, of what they do, like Indian names of old. But if angels are as powerfully complex as I suspect they are, could we have one’s true name delivered by one and survive the experience? Would the power and the complexity and, yes, the beauty, be so overwhelming that our synapses would all explode? I do wonder about all of that, just as I sometimes think the Hebrew prohibition against “naming” God had more to it than simply avoiding the anthromorphism to which pagans attributed their gods. Is God’s name His very essence? Will we spend eternity plumbing the endless depths of that nature, such as He chooses to share and as we can stand? I suspect so.
So, for example, (not being a science person, I will do this badly, but the best I can) if “E=MC squared” and if that formulary principle is found in action as widely as it is said to be, is it possible that “E=MC squared” is an angel or perhaps some smallish aspect of a much bigger reality that is an angel.
We think of the principles governing the universe (most of which we probably have no knowledge of) as inert; as something that just operates on their own by virtue of some kind of inherent necessity. But, understanding as we at least should, that our knowledge of the principles governing this (and perhaps others) universe is extremely limited, can we really preclude the possibility that they’re part of a complex emanating from the Mind of God, Himself which, when He created them, gave them consciousness and personhood?
What does a garden slug know about Shakespeare? Nothing. And we could recite Shakespeare to the slug for a thousand years and it would still know nothing of Shakepeare. We are on a different plane from the slug. Our consciousness is utterly removed from what consciousness it has, and impenetrable of its very nature.
And so, are angels sufficiently removed from us that, try as we might, we will never see anything except that “E=MC squared” works mathematically and appears to work physically, explaining certain things insofar as our minds can comprehend them? Are we like the garden slug that can perceive our presence if we touch it, but does not comprehend our simultaneous recitation of Shakespeare? Does the slug even know that what touched it is a conscious, self-aware creature? Does it only know “touched by something, move away?” And is our knowledge of creation no better than that when it comes to its real complexity? Will it ever be?
For myself, I have a suspicion that the “world” of angels is far, far removed from our own; that they know about us; that some are created to be involved with us, but that some aren’t except to the extent that what we think are only, say, “principles of physics” affect us in a physical way.
Which brings me to the “name” of any given angel. We read angelic names in the bible. But those are human names, descriptive to some degree, of what they do, like Indian names of old. But if angels are as powerfully complex as I suspect they are, could we have one’s true name delivered by one and survive the experience? Would the power and the complexity and, yes, the beauty, be so overwhelming that our synapses would all explode? I do wonder about all of that, just as I sometimes think the Hebrew prohibition against “naming” God had more to it than simply avoiding the anthromorphism to which pagans attributed their gods. Is God’s name His very essence? Will we spend eternity plumbing the endless depths of that nature, such as He chooses to share and as we can stand? I suspect so.
L
laircy
Guest
Yes, his essence is his existence, and the name “I AM WHO AM” expresses that quite well.
Interesting thread.
R
Richca
Guest
An angel is as far removed from E=MC squared as a human being from a rock or a spirit from matter. E=MC squared involves matter, electric charges and electromagnetism, light, and probably gravity. This equation involves matter and the physical properties of matter, all of which are inanimate. An angel is a spirit with intelligence and will and they are persons like us. We also have a spiritual soul with spiritual powers of intellect and will. The angels by nature are a more perfect creature than us though because they are pure spirits which is more like God. They also possess greater knowledge than us. Our spiritual soul, an angel, or God himself is not an electric charge, electromagnetism, matter or particles of matter, gravity, light, or a photon. All such things are part of the material, physical, inanimate creation. They have nothing to do with intelligence and will which are purely spiritual, immaterial powers by which we are made in the image and likeness of God. The angels are personal beings with lots of intelligence and love and they are very beautiful at least the ones in heaven. It will be wonderful to know them in heaven some day. E=MC squared is not a person.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I was afraid I wasn’t expressing myself well. My lack of scientific and mathematical knowledge makes it almost impossible for me to express what I speculate about this.
God is not utterly divorced from matter, else He would not/could not have created it. Jesus certainly wasn’t divorced from matter. Matter and spirit both exist in the Mind of God and would cease instantly to exist if He did not hold both in His mind. Being God, He can.
I thought I was careful enough with my ignorance to avoid saying E=MC squared is an angel. I didn’t mean to communicate that. What I meant to say is that such things as that; the principles upon which the universe (and whatever else there is that we don’t know about) functions are, themselves, creatures of God. He formulated them. He invented every mathematical formula ever imagined by physicists, and more. And he gave them operation. Angels, we are told, are servants of God and serve some function for him in the operation of the universe.
If they do that, then necessarily they have something to do with the operation of matter notwithstanding that they are, themselves, immaterial. That is precisely why I, at least, speculate that they are not direct “movers” of matter, but the principles by which matter is moved, and according to plan both incredibly intricate and grand at the same time.
Medieval man (and 1950s school nuns
) believed that angels moved clouds into place and caused them to rain, for example, as part of the service we are told is their function. How much more “angelic” if they govern Divine principles through the Divine power, being “conduits”, so to speak, of that power.We’re assured by physicists (some, at least) that nothing can be known of almost anything prior to the “Big Bang” because the nature of the Big Bang was such that it would have changed everything, including the way physics worked. Energy, particles, everything, some say, would have behaved differently, and according to different “rules”. And can intellects be so titanic that through manipulation of principles they can affect what matter does? Obviously God can do that, but we don’t know how.
We humans imagine that somehow mind can move matter. Padre Pio, it is said (along with some other saints) could somehow go from one place to another without passing the space between or even, perhaps, being in two places at once. Jesus passed through a door without opening it. If things like that are possible, they are possible either because God somehow suspended the usual “rules” regarding physical bodies or, perhaps more wonderously, placed a “carve out” within the laws of physics from the dawn of time that would allow such things to happen within one space and one time, and that contradict nothing of the laws about which we know. And are thoughts necessary for such things to happen either way (or by some other way) in the Mind of God alone, or does he, from immense distances away in time, express the thought and direct an angel to execute?
We are told that it is the function of some angels to sing before the throne of God. What is the song? Is it an incredible harmony of things immensely complex and profound about which we know nothing, but are, perhaps expressions of the very cores of reality.
Anyway, it’s fun to think about.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
S
Sarcelle
Guest
The material world is a subset of the created world. They are not one and the same.
R
Richca
Guest
Speaking of light which according to scientific theory is the fastest moving phenomena in the universe though according to some recent findings that may be under suspicion, we can also consider the local movement of angels according to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. The speed of physical light is as a turtle’s or snail’s pace to the swiftness of the angels. For example, light takes over 8 minutes to go from the sun to the earth. An angel can go from the sun to the earth in an instant without any time intervening or even from one end of the universe to the other end in an instant. According to our present knowledge of the universe, the farthest known light has taken roughly 15 billion light years to reach us. The angels’ speed from one place to another is as swift as their thoughts and will acts. They just have to think and will to be in some place and they can be there in an instant.
According to St Thomas, an angel can go from say point A to point B by either traversing through the intermediate space such like we must here on earth or he can go from point A to point B by not traversing though the middle or intermediate space. For example, if we drive a car from California to New York, we must traverse through all the middle states to get to New York. An angel can locally move from one place to another after a fashion like this too; Aquinas calls this sort of movement continuous. Alternatively, an angel could go from California to New York without traversing through the middle as in continuous movement and which would take more time, but in an instant be in New York without anytime intervening as there would be if he traversed through the middle; St Thomas calls this non-continuous movement.
St Thomas says that the local movement of an angel is not instantaneous though, it is in time. This is a little more difficult to understand and at first glance it seems to be in contradiction to what he says that an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant. This is what I gather from it: I think St Thomas means that an angel cannot be say at place A in one now of time and in the same now of time be in another place B. He cannot be at both place A and place B in the same time now of time which if I’m not mistaken is what Aquinas means by instantaneous. When an angel moves from place A to place B by non-continuous movement, the same now of time cannot be assigned to both places. Apparently, it takes an instant of time or one now of time. An instant appears to be indivisible (I think he says this in the supplement to the Summa Theologica where he writes about the local movement of glorified bodies). Now, what is more intriguing is that if an angel moves from place A to place B without traversing through the middle (this again, Aquinas calls non-continuous movement as well as non-continuous time), then we cannot assign any time elapsing for the middle part. An angel can be at place B in an instant sort of like a quantum leap according to some sources I’ve read. For between the whole numbers 2 and 3 there aren’t any.
We can also take into consideration here as St Thomas says, the angels local movement is not subject to the same kind of time as like we are which time is measured by the motion of heavenly bodies such as the earth and its rotation and orbit around the sun. Aquinas says:
“If the time of the angel’s movement be not continuous, but a kind of succession of ‘nows,’ it will have no proportion to the time which measures the movement of corporeal things, which is continuous; since it is not of the same nature. If, however, it be continuous, it is indeed proportionable, not, indeed, because of the proportion of the mover and the movable, but on account of the proportion of the magnitudes in which the movement exists. Besides, the swiftness of the angel’s movement is not measured by the quantity of his power, but according to the determination of his will.” (ST, Part I, q. 53, art. 3).
Be it said that an angels’ local movement is extremely swift. The speediest kind of local movement in all of creation.
T
turtle18
Guest
So once we are all in heaven (hopefully) what will our relationship be with our guardian angel? Are we going to be at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb and be like, “hey, remember that time you saved me from Satan or from xyz disaster?”
- Status