Ah, Karl Rahner, S.J. ...
The "existence of the angels cannot be disputed by a sincere Christian. They are mere creatures and like man, they are created for a supernatural goal. Their saving grace came from Christ, who is their Head too, and round the Word they form a true society of persons. They are a part of the Christian Message." (Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology, from the EWTN website)
Perhaps you can quote that to him next time you see him - the priest, I mean. The whole thing about "Angels are actually from Persia" is specious, anyway. Even if the explicit idea was, how would that disprove their existence? Are they not testified to us in Scripture, even if their existence was not known to the Jews before the Captivity? The whole matter is because of a denial of the authority of revealed truth, without which the entire edifice of the Christian religion tumbles, since religion becomes a matter of private opinion - in short, the imaginary fantasy of each man, to be determined as he pleases.
Thanks for that quote. I'll keep it handy in case I need it.
I suspect however that he'll have some other reason for disagreeing. He rejected "anonymous Christianity" and defended "magisterial infallibility" in one of the most clever ways I've seen yet. Aquinas is wrong now because it was correct during Medieval times. But now that we have such a deeper understanding of God, Transubstantiation is no longer correct.
Modernists like to pick and choose from other modernists. Part of what they say is actual solid Catholic teaching and then there's a twist somewhere from someone that will throw doubt on that teaching.
It was interesting to see how he kept toggling back and forth between Eastern Uniate terminology and Mysticism and the Germanic School and modern science all to undermine Thomistic philosophy.
He was saying that St. Thomas and Augustine both suffered from the fallacy of creating a dualism. I asked him if he'd read the Summa Contra Gentiles and he said, "No." So, I checked my copy and it seems Aquinas dealt with all of his arguments. They were just simply ignored because they are not in the more famous book.