/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>696450

>creatures

>>696450

Yeah, it's called the Bible

>>696458

Ezekiel 1:5-6

(5)  Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.

(6)  And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.

>>696459

The Bible is hard to interpret though. With all those sapphire belts and four headed beasts it seems like you need an angel to understand most parts of it. I want something less contextually removed from our time, even the middle ages would be good.

>>696474

Then just learn about the context in which the Bible was written.

Michael Heiser's book on angels is set to release latter this month, and he's usually pretty solid in his scholarship.

>>696458

>implying angels aren't created

>>696486

>green text is a valid criticism

Speaking of Japan. We really should attempt to convert them to christianity.

>>696459

Yeah, it's in the book of Tobias.

>>696450

St. Gemma in particular remarked quite a bit on own personal guardian angel.

>>696508

They continually reject our attempts. Is there a point where you are supposed to stop?

Three quick finds

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2009/11/sr-maria-antonia-under-angel-wings.html

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2016/02/the-miraculous-apparitions-of-st.html

https://www.returntofatima.org/2015/07/the-angel-of-fatimas-prayer/#more-2552

But also

>Women angels

No. Just no. Delete those from your PC. It's borderline heretical.

>>696508

Guess the names of the two central cities of christianity in japan before world war 2 ended.

>>696619

I know this! It's the ones the jews controlling America nuked.

>>696625

Scholasticism is official teaching of the Church as the only true philosophy and theology, with full accordance with Patristic and Biblical accounts.

And those accounts are clear - Angels are pure spirits. They are forms, and as thus, acts without potency in their essence. And acts is masculine for it is man that actualises potency in women.

>>696651

>acts without potency in their essence

Pardon my autism but what does this mean?

>>696652

In brief - act is perfection, potency is a capacity for perfection. God alone is pure act, for he is simple and perfect. Angels are pure spirits, therefore their essence is simple -they are forms without matter. But angels are not absolutly simple (angels are not God after all). That means that they are composite. And this compostion is twofold - of essence (what thing is, potency) and exitence or esse (that thing is, act of thier essence), and of essence and it's accidents such as quality.

>>696690

This is what was meant by scholastic autism.

>>696694

>I am too stupid to understand reality so I will call those who do autistic

>>696690

Uh… so they're things that do stuff but can't be changed?

>>696695

>I'm so autistic that only I completely understand reality, and I will call anyone who thinks I don't stupid.

>>696697

Define changed. The don't change as bodies do - they are incorruptible. But they have reason and free will, though they are not as human reason and will.

>>696700

>I am so butthurt that I don't understand clear concepts of scholasticism that I project it upon one person even though there is 2000 years of thought by millions of people with him

>>696767

>>696784

Canon 251 and 252 of 1983 codex.

Anon wanted ecumenical council, and ecumenical council gave him this - Thomism is true philosophy and theology of the Church. Accept it or don't ask for it.

Angels are spirits and spirits are simple for God is Spirt and He is simple. Yet spirts are not as simple as God for God is pure essence without accidents (and that reality of accidents and essence are confirmed by dogma of Transubstantiation) and his essence and exitence are the same thing, for God is I am who I am - Subsistent Act of Existing Itself.

And to this reality, of angels being acts, Bible and tradition bear wittness - there is no female angels in Bible, nor in Holy Icons.

>>696794

>Laws based on Thomism by Catholic church

Oh wow, so convenient.

You do realize that not everyone is Catholic, right?

>>696794

I am not Catholic and ecumenical councils are 7, last one held about iconoclasm.

So for one you ignore what I said about scholasticism and then you proceed with posting canon based on scholasticism.

I knew that this was futile to ask and would end with autism like this. I'll just go.

>>696450

Can we all agree that there are no female Angels?

>>696833

Yes.

>>696833

There are no "male" angels either. Spirits are not biological.

>>696795

You do realise that anon asked for ecumeical council?

>>696798

>I am not Catholic and ecumenical councils are 7, last one held about iconoclasm.

First ecumecial council alredy dogmatised that essence is reality. And if essence then accidents and existence too.

>So for one you ignore what I said about scholasticism and then you proceed with posting canon based on scholasticism.

<Ask for ecumenical council

<Ask not for scholasticism

<Ecumiecial council dogmatize scholasticism

<be butthurt that ecumenical council overwrites your bias

You act as if Saints Isidore, John Damascene, Augustine and Dionysus didn't say the same as Scholstics in the same manner even.

>>696810

>he said, while posting the most vague and illogical of reformers

>>696903

And those spirits do not appear female when they appear visible or or when they are talked about or shown by the church and those who insist on "female angels" are just people who have serious problem with sixth and ninth commandment

>>697077

1983 codex has nothing to do with ecumenical council and is not recognized outside Catholicism, you bloody autist.

>>697077

>>696651

>>696690

>>696695

>>696794

I feel physical fukking pain, just by reading all this mental gymnastics and lengths of spectrum you people go.

>>697090

It has, for it refrences ecumeical council, namely VII.

>>697117

Like all modernists when in contact with truth

>>697147

>VII

>modernists

Did you know that most of the theological experts who crafted the documents of Vatican II were anti-Thomist? Notably the then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, later known as Pope Benedict XVI, advocated ressourcement or a neo-patristic exegesis based in the modern spirit rather than classical Thomistic notions of truth, essence, justice, and so forth. The 1983 Codex is directly based upon the ideas of this so-called nouvelle theologie, which is why for example (in virtue of post-scholastic ecclesiology) it provides for the distribution of communion to non-Catholics.

But this ought to speak to the concerns of your Orthodox interlocutor, since a church authority free from the taint of Western dialectics was precisely what he wanted.

I did research and found actually enough to answer my current questions, yay!

>Yes, we should have a particular devotion to our Guardian Angel; we should honour him, invoke his aid, follow his inspirations, and be grateful to him for the continual assistance he affords us.

>No, it is not forbidden to honour and invoke the Angels and Saints; on the contrary, we should do so, because it is a good and useful practice highly commended by the Church; for they are God's friends and our intercessors with Him.

According to the Pius X Catechism invoking angels is actually encouraged.

>But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. (Daniel 10:13)

Apparently angels vary in power and some can be detained by demons and stronger angels have more power over demons.

>“Why did you doubt what I have told you? Because you have not done as I requested, you too will be stricken with the plague that is devastating your people.”

>More often than not if an angel shows up to an event in the Hebrew Bible it is to harm someone. On one occasion, during the reign of King David, when the Angel of the Lord is about to destroy Jerusalem, God has to tell it to put his sword away. This is small fry for the Archangels. They lead armies into battle and are in training for the final showdown at Armageddon.

I highly suspected they could harm people if God allowed it despite everyone telling me the contrary, and it seems St. Michael himself and the Bible have verified my suspicions.

Given their ability to answer prayers and capacity for world altering events they seem to very similar to the pagan """gods""" (larping demons), with the obvious difference being they serve the one true God and do not demand worship of themselves. They also seem to have varying power and rank too. Just thought I'd post this itt in case someone had the same questions.

>>697156

>documents of Vatican II were anti-Thomist? N

Paragraph 15 of the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Training of Priests stated that seminary “students should rely on that philosophical patrimony which is forever valid…."When asked just two months later what was to be the concrete understanding of the Council’s reference to a philosophical system “forever valid”, the Congregation for Seminaries and Universities replied Saint Thomas

>it provides for the distribution of communion to non-Catholics.

For Orientals and Easterners (which already was a practice) and for protestants if they make profession of catholic faith especially when it comes to Eucharist.

>taint of Western dialectics

<Aquinas

<Dialectics

And here we see, that you have no idea what you are talking about

>>697173

>Paragraph 15, etc.

Yes, yes, the documents were written by committee. Of course the Sacred Congregations were for the most part willing to adhere to a conservative interpretation. My point is that that experts were explicitly and virulently anti-Thomist: and here I refer to Rahner, Congar, de Lubac, Schillebeeckx, Ratzinger, et al. It was their understanding of the documents that ultimately carried the day, as evidenced by the nature of the reforms, particularly of the seminary curriculum. It should be obvious that none of this was legitimate, but it should be equally obvious that that is beside the point.

>if they make a profession

This is false. It is left up to the judgment of the priest whether a non-Catholic has manifested signs of the Catholic faith. There is no requirement for a profession or (more pertinently) even an abjuration, or for the communicant even to be baptized.

>And here we see, that you have no idea what you are talking about

Dialectics has nothing to do with Hegel, my friend. It is the first course in the standard Thomistic seminary curriculum. It's also the word that EO people throw around when they want to reject something for sounding scholastic. Either way of using it would be appropriate in this context.

>>697178

>Yes, yes,

You are moving goalpost. "Decree on the Training of Priests" by Vatican II says that Thomism is “forever valid”.

>This is false.

This is true http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/07/05/can-a-non-catholic-receive-holy-communion-in-a-catholic-church/

>Dialectics has nothing to do with Hegel, my friend.

Western dialectics do however, at least in common context. Thomistic dialectics however, even though made by Boethius, are eastern in nature, based on Aristotelian logic.

>It's also the word that EO people throw around when they want to reject something for sounding scholastic.

EOs act like retards and deny their own history, who could have thought.

>>697224

>muh goalposts

Don't be a retard. I used the word experts in my original reply deliberately.

>Western vs Eastern dialectics

This is a distinction without a difference. What Hegel means by "the dialectic" is clearly very different – his "science of logic" is an idealist metaphysic – from the classical science of dialectics which, as you rightly outline, goes back to Aristotle, but which is a common heritage to East and West and is not specifically either Thomistic or even scholastic. You know how I intended to use the term from the specific context.

>EOs act like retards and deny their own history

Be very careful! Jay Dyer might block you on Twitter.

Could the mods just remove all the off-topic bickering?

Bump

>>697244

>Don't be a retard. I used the word experts in my original reply deliberately.

You claimed "documents of Vatican II were anti-Thomist".

Decree on the Training of Priests is document of Vatican II.

Decree on the Training of Priests is pro-thomist.

You are moving goal posts by claiming that it doesn't matter.

>This is a distinction without a difference.

It is, for Hegelian dialectics have little to nothing to do with Aristotelian/Thomistic dialectics.

> You know how I intended to use the term from the specific context.

I didn't, and I thought that you meant Hegelian/Western dialectics

>>699277

Why? It was all over. Why did you had to start this autism again?