Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers!

1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers! · 3) Debate with Craig Crawford Continues · 4) Update with Craig Crawford

Craig Crawford

The responses are too long. Not interested in a lengthy scholastic debate over the schism of the Latin West, which is off-topic here.

The Scriptures explicitly say that God is the mover of the celestial objects, and nowhere mentions the necessity of the angels in this task. The notion that angels are charged with the task of providing motion to the heavenly bodies is patently absurd. The fathers did not need to spend much time focusing on or refuting something that was such a ridiculous notion.

St. Augustine - On the Trinity, Book VIII

"Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are "thousands of thousands," were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God."

Since you attempted to enlist St. John of Damascus to your cause (ineffectively):

St. John of Damascus - Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

"The course which the Creator appointed for them to run is unceasing and remaineth fixed as He established them. For the divine David says, The moon and the stars which Thou establishedst, and by the word 'establishedst,' he referred to the fixity and unchangeableness of the order and series granted to them by God."

St. John, following the sayings of Scripture, says the Creator appoints the movement of the celestial bodies. Nowhere is any mention of the necessity of the intervening action of angels spoken of.

Thomas Aquinas is in error. Even your fellow Roman Catholic, Robert Sungenis rejects these absurd notions of angels giving movement to celestial bodies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Craig Crawford taking it bit by bit:

"The Scriptures explicitly say that God is the mover of the celestial objects,"

At least for their common movement westward each day.

"and nowhere mentions the necessity of the angels in this task."

But does mention stars (i e celestial bodies, not just fixed stars, since difference between planets and fixed stars is beyond Hebrew culture) actually having some conscience - either we must assume that means stars are beings intermediate between angels and us, corporeal, but bodies of celestial matter (Ramandu/Coriakin hypothesis, if you get allusion), which was condemned by St John of Damascus and by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris, and explicitly rejected by St Thomas Aquinas, OR stars beyond attached to a conscience about as a bike is attached to that of a biker - in which case angels are moving them.

"The notion that angels are charged with the task of providing motion to the heavenly bodies is patently absurd. The fathers did not need to spend much time focusing on or refuting something that was such a ridiculous notion."

I see no "patent" absurdity and feel free to differ. Unless you prefer to start giving scholastic proofs why this would be absurd.

St Augustine:

"Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are "thousands of thousands," were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God."

He just said clearly, angels who deal with stars are not God, but they are there.

It is funny to deal with someone citing what he has not learned to read.

Like St Francis of Assisi called "Mr Sun" brother, not Father. Like St Thomas Aquinas in a popular seermon on the Creed compared a man worshipping the sun as God to a poor man approaching the palace of a king and taking a simple palace guard in fine livery for the King.

So, apart from Sts Francis and Thomas, you just provided me with another authority, a patristic one, from St Augustine. Nice! Keep it up!

As to your quote from St John:

"The course which the Creator appointed for them to run is unceasing and remaineth fixed as He established them. For the divine David says, The moon and the stars which Thou establishedst, and by the word 'establishedst,' he referred to the fixity and unchangeableness of the order and series granted to them by God."

This clearly teaches that God provides the form of the orbit, but does not teach that there be no angel providing its propulsion, according to that order given by God. Indeed, the word "run" reminds of a psalm where the sun is considered comparable to a hero running forth. In other words, though St John of Damascus clearly rejected stars having souls, he did NOT clearly reject stars being moved by angels.

"St. John, following the sayings of Scripture, says the Creator appoints the movement of the celestial bodies."

Yes, APPOINTS. Meaning someone is executing that APPOINTMENT. That someone being for each star an angel.

"Thomas Aquinas is in error."

You have given neither Patristic nor Biblical proof thereof.

"Even your fellow Roman Catholic, Robert Sungenis rejects these absurd notions of angels giving movement to celestial bodies."

Because he prefers the "appointment" of God being some kind of clockwork mechanism of inertia and gravitational pulls. Sts Augustine and John, Francis and Thomas give him no support therein.

I wonder if, considering Bergoglio as pope or perhaps rather Ratzinger as still pope he can fully count as Catholic.

Especially since he adds error to the mix.