Catholic Catechism on the Angels

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Angelology/Angelology_027.htm | Unknown | Fr John Hardon

[stfassisi]

The most influential form of Materialism in modern times is Marxism. According to Karl Marx, nothing really exists but matter, which contains within itself the principle of its own development. In other words, even what we call "spirit", developed from matter. Man is the spearhead of this necessary evolution.

Obama is promoting this marxist agenda!

[stfassisi]

The Sadducees among the Jews, the Socinians in the Middle Ages, and the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century regarded the angels as only metaphorical personifications of divine power. Modern Rationalists unanimously reject the existence of an angelic world.

[vladimir998]

Best handbook I’ve ever seen on angels: http://books.google.com/books?id=SLQCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=aquinas+angels&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CcDnT50ch5_pAe320d4O&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=aquinas%20angels&f=false

[annalex]

Would you put me on the list for similar posts, please?

[dadfly]

excellent. bookmark.

[RobbyS]

Modern rationalists postulate that the natural order of things subject to scientific inverstigation is all that exists.

[Boogieman]

“9. Were the angels not originally created in heaven?

No, the angels had to cooperate with the grace of God to reach heaven.

10. Why then does Jesus say, “I saw Satan like lightening falling from heaven”(Luke 10:18)?

The word “heaven” in this context does not mean the possession of God in the Beatific Vision. Rather it means that the angels fell from sanctifying grace which gave them a title to heaven.

11. What then does it mean that some of the angels entered heaven ?

It means that those angels who cooperated with God’s grace merited to see God face to face. It further means that all the angels were originally on probation. They were, in theological terms, in via, that is “on the way” to heaven. It finally means that those who reached heaven by using their free will to cooperate with the will of God.”

Seems to be contradicted by Jude 1:6 -

“6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

Isaiah 14:12 -

“12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

and especially Ezekiel 28:14-16 -

“14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.”

Your catechism says that Satan and the Angels were not created in Heaven, but had to “cooperate with the grace of God to reach heaven”. Yet, the Bible says that the angels fell from their first estate and habitation, not their second, and that Satan (and his angels by implication) fell from heaven, not a sanctifying grace. Most importantly, it says that Satan was set as a covering cherub, one of the highest angels in Heaven, by God himself. If Satan was in a “period of probation”, outside of Heaven, when he sinned, then he could not have been a covering cherub.

[raygunfan]

they have no choice or their house of cards of the church of secular humanism collapses...

[cll]

Bump. Thanks.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It is impossible for any creature which experiences the Beatific Vision, seeing God “face to face,” to reject God, because such a creature would possess perfect happiness.

So the angels must have been created in a state short of the Beatific Vision.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm

I can’t offer an infallible interpretation of your Bible verses, but they have to be reconcilable with the theology, which is very sure.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[Boogieman]

Well, you say they have to be reconcilable with the theology, but I see no way for them to be reconciled. It seems to me that or the other must be wrong. Here’s something from the Catholic Encyclopedia that illustrates why:

“Pope Gregory divided the nine angelic orders into three choirs, the highest choir being: thrones, cherubim, and seraphim. Of the cherubim he says (Hom. in Ev., xxxiv, 10), that cherubim means “the fulness of knowledge, and these most sublime hosts are thus called, because they are filled with a knowledge which is the more perfect as they are allowed to behold the glory of God more closely”. This explanation of St. Gregory is ultimately derived from Philo’s similar statement, and was already combined with the Old Testament function of the cherubim by St. Augustine in his sublime comment on Ps., lxxix, 2, “Who sitteth upon the Cherubim”:

Cherubim means the Seat of the Glory of God and is interpreted: Fullness of Knowledge. Though we realize that cherubim are exalted heavenly powers and virtues; yet if thou wilt, thou too shalt be one of the cherubim. For if cherubim means, Seat of God, remember what the Scripture says: The soul of the just is the Seat of Wisdom.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03646c.htm

The phrase “covering cherub” implies even more intimacy and full knowledge of God than just a cherub, since these were the cherubim that were in direct contact with God, like his personal entourage. The covering cherubim are represented surrounding God’s throne, facing the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant, inside the Holy of Holies, demonstrating that they most certainly were “face to face” with God.

So, either the Bible is wrong, or the Catholic theology is wrong on this point, and the angels with the most direct, face to face contact with God could reject God, since that is exactly what Satan did.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—the angels with the most direct, face to face contact with God could reject God, since that is exactly what Satan did.——

Except the Church teaches that the angels did not possess the Beatific Vision when they rejected God, right?

You’re free to interpret Scripture as you see fit, under your belief system. Catholics must reconcile Scripture with authoritative Church teaching. I’m doing my best, given the information provided.

[Boogieman]

“Except the Church teaches that the angels did not possess the Beatific Vision when they rejected God, right?”

Apparently, that’s what they are saying.

“Catholics must reconcile Scripture with authoritative Church teaching. I’m doing my best, given the information provided.”

Alright, fair enough. I just can’t see how it can be reconciled. It seems to me the theology, which is supposed to interpret the Scriptures, has been built up to a point where it has lost sight of the plain things that Scripture says. Maybe I’m not seeing some angle that could bring them into harmony, but that’s my impression.

[boatbums]

Your catechism says that Satan and the Angels were not created in Heaven, but had to “cooperate with the grace of God to reach heaven”. Yet, the Bible says that the angels fell from their first estate and habitation, not their second, and that Satan (and his angels by implication) fell from heaven, not a sanctifying grace. Most importantly, it says that Satan was set as a covering cherub, one of the highest angels in Heaven, by God himself. If Satan was in a “period of probation”, outside of Heaven, when he sinned, then he could not have been a covering cherub.

Thank you. I had the same questions. We know that the angel that was named Lucifer, or son of the morning, became Satan when he, through pride, decided to rebel against God and take His place upon the throne of Almighty God. "I will be like the most high.", is what Scripture says was his sin. He was cast out of heaven along with a third of the angels that went along with his rebellion and they were cast out of heaven by the archangel Michael.

In Fr. Harding's thesis on angels, I wonder if he considers his teaching on this specifically as being dogma, doctrine or permissible?

[SaraJohnson]

The liberal elite’s infatuation with Marxism and their effort to cleanse faith and spirit from the public expression and experience is why our people, public square and institutions have become so materialistic; dead in wisdom, inspiration and love. Today’s public entertainment reflects Marxism’s dread.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—the angels with the most direct, face to face contact with God could reject God, since that is exactly what Satan did.——

Except the Church teaches that the angels did not possess the Beatific Vision when they rejected God, right?

You’re free to interpret Scripture as you see fit, under Luther’s rubric of “the Bible alone.” Catholics must reconcile Scripture with authoritative Church teaching. I’m doing my best, given the information you provided.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Sorry about the double-post.

[stfassisi]

“”Except the Church teaches that the angels did not possess the Beatific Vision when they rejected God, right?””

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains this well

SIN OF THE FALLEN 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 sin.

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 a 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.

[stfassisi]

Would you put me on the list for similar posts, please?

Certainly!