Are there any recorded dialogs between angels and saints?

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?