Are there any recorded dialogs between angels and saints?

...

Attached: 0ff18891595837e14d6cdeb318ebc5fe33275e3c9f1d9eda84067b1d480ad7fe.jpg (1122x847, 701.53K)

...

Don't post anime women in 1/4 outfits.

Attached: sdsdse.jpg (397x334, 26.61K)

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

Yeah, it's in the book of Tobias.

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

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

Three quick finds
mysticsofthechurch.com/2009/11/sr-maria-antonia-under-angel-wings.html
mysticsofthechurch.com/2016/02/the-miraculous-apparitions-of-st.html
returntofatima.org/2015/07/the-angel-of-fatimas-prayer/#more-2552
But also
No. Just no. Delete those from your PC. It's borderline heretical.

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

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

Any church councils and anathemas about it?
Without scholastic autism, please.

Attached: carlos-schwabe-the-death-of-the-grave-digger-1895.jpg (1000x1409, 338.74K)

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.

Pardon my autism but what does this mean?

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.

This is what was meant by scholastic autism.

...

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

...

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.

no
Also, post said to post actual documents from either ecumenical councils or official anathemas. But what did you do? You proceeded with autistic scholasticism and retarded """philosophical""" rambling

Attached: 5b155018645e6b160bb0ba4dc3e41834961365b810259a670a9f218b3bc332a7.png (162x311, 107.56K)

Attached: pp,550x550.u1.jpg (550x422, 34.81K)

Canon 251 and 252 of 1983 codex.
user 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.

Oh wow, so convenient.
You do realize that not everyone is Catholic, right?

Attached: truman_kike_slave.jpg (342x480, 53.22K)

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.

Attached: c5da59517cd9215605e94e531baee8ba141652ed161f642fa34c5ecfc45fd7e8.png (1030x1092, 1.4M)

Can we all agree that there are no female Angels?

Yes.

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

You do realise that user asked for ecumeical council?

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

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

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

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

Like all modernists when in contact with truth

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!
According to the Pius X Catechism invoking angels is actually encouraged.
Apparently angels vary in power and some can be detained by demons and stronger angels have more power over demons.
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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

You are moving goalpost. "Decree on the Training of Priests" by Vatican II says that Thomism is “forever valid”.
This is true canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/07/05/can-a-non-catholic-receive-holy-communion-in-a-catholic-church/
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.
EOs act like retards and deny their own history, who could have thought.

Don't be a retard. I used the word experts in my original reply deliberately.
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.
Be very careful! Jay Dyer might block you on Twitter.

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

Bump

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.
It is, for Hegelian dialectics have little to nothing to do with Aristotelian/Thomistic dialectics.
I didn't, and I thought that you meant Hegelian/Western dialectics

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