The Church has very few official teachings on angels (CCC 328-336, 391-395). However, theologians have come to a consensus on certain topics relating to the angels. Most of these teachings come from St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as St. Bonaventure, and Dionysius.
Below are some of the most mind-blowing things we know about angels.
1. They Exist
The very fact that they exist should blow your mind. There are a multitude of TV shows that search for ghosts (spirits without bodies), but Catholics have as an article of Faith the teaching that Angels (pure spirits) exist.
But, is it logical to believe in angels?
“Below us are intelligent animals, like apes, then less intelligent animals, like fish, then barely intelligent animals, like slugs and TV producers, then plants, then minerals. The strategy of the Creator seems to be fullness, not emptiness…if there were no angels, there would be a great gap between us and God.” – Dr. Peter Kreeft, Angels (and Demons): What Do We Really Know About Them?
In short, just as there are creatures increasing in complexity from the basic one celled organism all the way to humans, there are creatures in increasing complexity from Humans to God, as well.
If you can prove the existence of God, then you can prove the existence of angels. St. Thomas Aquinas can prove angels exist.
2. Immediately after They Were Created, the Angels Were Tested by God
We do not know for sure what this test was, but the consensus of theologians is that they were given the knowledge of the Incarnation and that they would be called upon to worship Jesus. Most angels assented to God’s will, but Lucifer (meaning “light bearer”) refused to worship anything that had a human nature. Furthermore, it was revealed that the Incarnation would be happen through a woman and that woman from that moment forward would be venerated as “Queen of Angels.” Upon learning this, Lucifer cursed God and uttered “I will not serve.”
3. Hollywood Has Lied to You about Angels
Hollywood is notorious for misinformation on angels. They often depict angels as puny, feminine, and winged. Sometimes they are depicted as naked babies.
Remember that cute little kid at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life?
“Teacher says, ‘Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings.'”
Angels are spiritual beings and do not have matter. Therefore, they do not have bodies on which wings could attach.
What do they actually look like? Nothing. They are pure spirits, and we cannot see them. God can choose to allow us to see them, however. They could appear to be human or a winged creature, but they are almost always frightening to behold.
Another Hollywood lie about angels is that people become angels when they die.
Angels are angels and always have been. No one has ever become an angel.
Although, it is generally considered “in poor taste” to explain this to a grieving individual who has just posted a Facebook status that begins, “Heaven just gained another angel…”
4. Angels Move by Quantum Leaps
Well, sort of….
If you really want to understand quantum leaps, read this. For our purposes, a quantum leap is basically when something moves from A to Z without passing through B, C, D, etc. An angel can move from one place to another without passing through any in between places. When I need to get from Sioux Falls, South Dakota to Minneapolis, Minnesota, I am forced to pass through exciting towns like Windom and Lake Crystal. However, an angel could get from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis without passing through all of the small towns along Highway 60.
Here is where things get even more confusing: This is a flawed way of looking at this. Angels do not have matter, so they do not technically move at all. They are spiritual and not subject to the laws of physics like we are. However, when God wills it, they can and do appear in our world and may appear as though they
Confused? Me too. Let’s move on.
5. Angels Have Their Own Taxonomy
Remember back in school when they made you memorize King Phillip Climbs Over Fences Gathering Sticks so you could remember the classification system for living organisms?
Similarly, angels have their own taxonomical structure. They are organized into three hierarchies and nine choirs. Each hierarchy contains three choirs. The hierarchies do not have cool names, but the nine choirs do.
First Hierarchy
1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
Second Hierarchy
4. Dominions
5. Virtues
6. Powers
Third Hierarchy
7. Principalities
8. Archangels
9. Angels
There may be more groupings within these groups, but they have not been revealed to us.
6. Each Angel Is the Sole Member of His Own Species
The simplest way of explaining and proving this is to say, “St. Thomas Aquinas said it, and you cannot argue with Aquinas.”
“In things of one species there is no such thing as “first” and “second” [prius et posterius], as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iii, text 2). But in the angels even of the one order there are first, middle, and last, as Dionysius says (Hier. Ang. x). Therefore the angels are not of the same species…For such things as agree in species but differ in number, agree in form, but are distinguished materially. If, therefore, the angels be not composed of matter and form, as was said above (Article 2), it follows that it is impossible for two angels to be of one species…” – Summa Theologica P1, Q50, A4
Dixit Aquinas. Ergo est.
7. You Have a Guardian Angel
How do we know this? Jesus said so (Matthew 18:10).
The Creator of the universe gave us an angel so that we would never be alone. Our angels are to protect us, guide us, and lead us into Heaven. It is like having your own personal Batman following you around for protection and to tell you when you should not do something.
8. Guardian Angels Are Not Recycled
The Infinite Being (God) created a being specifically for your benefit. Your guardian angel was created to get you to Heaven.
When is the last time you talked to your angel?
9. You Are Not Allowed to Name Your Guardian Angel
“The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture.” – Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, 217
To name something is to assume authority/control over them. Angels are not like pets or children. We are not given power over our guardian angels.
Could your guardian angel reveal his name to you in prayer? Yes, but a demon could also attempt to trick you by giving you a name for your angel that is not your angel’s name.
10. No One Knows You Better, nor Loves You More than Your Guardian Angel
Except for God.
Further Reading:
- Dr. Mark Miravalle, Time to Meet the Angels: The 9 Choirs and Much More
- Dr. Peter Kreeft, Angels (and Demons): What Do We Really Know About Them?
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
- Anything from Dr. Daniel Van Skyle
Mind blown?
If angels of the same species could not be distinguished (because they do not have “matter” along with their “form”) then how are the human souls of the dead distinguished prior to the resurrection?
Disclaimer: I’m just a guy who reads stuff on the internet and likes thinking about this sort of stuff, so if someone who actually knows things disagrees with what I say here, they’re probably right. That said, in the best traditions of the internet, I’ll go ahead and respond anyway, even though I don’t really know all that much:
My uninformed guess at an answer: “able to be distinguished” does not mean that a particular person can, with the powers of observation/knowledge that they have, tell one from another. In fact, prior to the resurrection, I, at least, have absolutely no clue how dead humans could be distinguished by any particular being, since I have no idea what existence will be like for us at that point.
Rather, as I understand it, “able to be distinguished” means more along the lines of “there is something about these beings, observable or not by anyone else, which is different.” In this way, dead humans still have their bodies, their matter, associated with them, even if they are not currently “occupying” them (and even if these bodies are in, shall we say, a state of disrepair). The fact that there are bodies which are in fact part of us and that can be distinguished means that even when dead we are distinguishable, in that there is something about each of us that is different from that about another.
Whereas for angels, there simply is nothing except their form to distinguish between them as individuals. Suppose angel A and angel B have the same species. Then they would be exactly identical in every possible way, and there would be no way to say that “this bit of spirit that exists as part of a being in this form is associated with this angel over here, and this other bit with this other angel over there” because there aren’t bits of angels to talk about in that way (such bits would, as I understand, by definition be matter) .
There is nothing about angels to distinguish them except their form, and hence if two angels can be distinguished, then they must have different forms. And so if angel A and angel B are the same species, they must in fact be the same angel, since if there was some thing other than their form that could be used to distinguish them, this thing would (from what I understand) by definition be matter (possibly an exotic type of matter entirely different from what we mean when we use the term scientifically, but something that would be called matter nonetheless) – and angels do not have matter.
If any of this doesn’t make sense, see the disclaimer above, though I think it’s not too far off.
So, what he’s saying is that it is our bodies that individuate us. After our soul is separated from our body, it remains forever changed by its former union with the body, so in that way, the body continues to be the individuating principle. This is also why the saints in heaven long for the resurrection of their bodies.
no, our bodies do not individuate us. Our bodies are all of the same human form. Our souls are unique.
Um, what make it a individual is that that soul inform that particular matter. Granted, the soul is what informs the matter, giving it unique characteristics, but it is the fact the it informs particular matter that is not other matter that makes it individuated.
This is an an excellent question. The word species does not mean the same thing to St. Thomas Aquinas writing in the 13th century as it does to you after the revolution in biology in the 19th century needed a bunch of words and took them. The best word we have for what Aquinas called species is form.
To Aquinas, each human is the sole member of its species as well, in contrast to animals and plants, where each blade of grass is of the same species.
“8. Guardian Angels Are Not Recycled”
How do we know? We know that some angels have charge of entire nations (see Daniel 10) so why couldn’t the same guardian angel have charge of multiple persons?
I agree that maybe they are recycled. For example, if a soul is damned, maybe they get to have another whom God knows will be saved.
We don’t know the total number of the angels, we don’t know how many fell (Revelations suggests “one third of the stars” fell, but that could be just symbolic), and we don’t know the total proportion of the saved humans. We don’t know whether only the lowest choir acts as guardians, or all Angels.
There were traditionally ideas saying that A) the number of saved humans will equal the good angels OR B) the saved humans are meant to “fill up the slots” of the fallen angels.
So there’s an implicit traditional idea (though never fleshed out anywhere before as far as I know) if we reconcile the two that half of angels fell (interpreting “one third” as not a literal statistic), and half of humans will be saved.
In this idea, every human in heaven both “matches” an angel and “fills up the slot” of a fallen angel.
Under this model, we might imagine every human having both a guardian angel but also (a rather medieval idea) a familiar demon. And each angel and demon having two humans: one who gets saved and one who gets damned (though not necessarily paired with each other both times).
It’s also possible that guardians from the higher choirs (of whole groups of humans) may accomplish this by being the guardian of the “head” member. So, for example, a Throne guardian of a kingdom also being the guardian of the first King (and of the current generation specifically, that of the current monarch; groups might have multiple guardians).
If St Michael is the chief guardian of the Church, it maybe implies he is Christ’s own most proper guardian (I know Aquinas argues against Christ learning anything from angelic infusion; but then He was like us “in all things but sin.”)
We might also imagine Gabriel as our Lady’s guardian, and Rafael as St Joseph’s (the top three angels). Since Pope John Paul said all three “of the order of the incarnation” (JMJ) were above the highest angels, this might also imply that there were three slots open at the top (ie, that Lucifer was the chief angelic nature and that the next two down also fell).
Yeah, would be great if Alex Hey would provide some citation / reference for that theological statement, as he did with most of the other ones.
If angels exist outside of time, how is it that they not know future events? (It has been said that demons in possessed persons can only make educated guesses about the future.)
They only know what God wishes them to know.
I’ve been intrigued for years about the idea that heaven must have sequentiality without time and disappointment without suffering.
At least that’s the mystery I see when contemplating saints. Why would they intercede if they knew our destination ultimately? How could they not be disappointed if we fail to make it to heaven? How could they suffer from that dissapointment while beholding God in the beatific vision?
An example of sequentiality without time is seen in the Holy Trinity: the generation of the Son precedes the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, though all three Persons are co-eternal.
An example from the final moment of a baseball game:
1. A fastball settles in the catcher’s glove
2. The third strike occurs
3. The last out occurs
4. One team wins & the other loses
Well, they do exist in time, but it is a different sort of time, traditionally called aveternity.
A Sioux Falls to Minneapolis example, eh? You must live in my neck of the woods.
That’s a pretty good “neck” of the woods. I love the northern midwest.
Uh, this article has several grave errors: (1) the opinion that every angel is its own species, is that of St. Thomas, refuted ably by St. Bonaventure: the Church has taken no position; (2) the Church as never taught, nor has any Saint (as far as I know) that God created any specific angel to be the guardian of any specific man; that’s absurd; Angels were created for God, not for man; (3) Christ and the Blessed Virgin and certain Saints certainly would love you more than your Guardian angel might love you, because in the case of Christ His love for you in His sacred humanity surpasses that of every creature; likewise for the Virgin, but to a lesser degree; similarly, some Saint might have a special predilection for a soul and thus love it more than even that souls’ guardian angel does. Here I speak of the human love; but all of these are also true regarding divine charity. (4) the Choirs of Angels are not a taxonomy based on biology or speciation, but on ministry, and thus are not properly a taxonomy at all, but a ministerial classification; that these might be based on their speciation, is an opinion possibly held by non-Thomists, though I don’t recall at the moment even St. Bonaventure holding such an opinion. (5) Angels do not move by quantum leaps, because a quantum leap properly so called is movement associated with quantum particles which have matter; rather Angels can move thru space as is above described correctly, just don’t call it quantum movement. (6) the argument for the existence of Angels really needs a work over: we know they exist because God says so in Scripture; that they do exist is reasonable inference from the continuity and perfection of creation as Dr. Kreeft, my former prof, says.
“Grave errors”? Okay? I didn’t see where you listed a “grave” error. Do you know what that means?
Sorry to disappoint you. We ran this by a set of Ph.D Theologians with no red flags.
It is a grave error to say Angels were created for men, not for God, because in saying such you take away the final ordination of the Angels to God, diminish their dignity and purpose in creation, making them a tool for man, not servants of God directly. It is a grave error to say the Church teaches what is only an opinion of some theologians, because an opinion can be in error, the Church cannot. It is a grave error to say that your guardian Angel loves you more than anyone, because you denigrate the love of your Redeemer Jesus Christ and His Mother for you, and possible that of some saints. It is a grave error to call the Angelic orders a taxonomy, because it misuses the word and leads to the confusion of biological and spiritual realms; it is a grave error to say that Angels move by the movement of a quantum particle which has mass, because Angels do not have mass….so yes, I do know what the term “grave error” means. As for your panel of theologians, I exhort them to read Aquinas or Bonaventure’s commentary on the Second Book of Master Peter Lombard’s sentences.
I agree with many of your major points, Mr. Bugnolo. Jesus mentions the status of even the lowets of angels as greater than even the greatest of men (John The Baptist). However, in Matthew 18:10 it makes mention of the angel(s) of children being often in the presence of The Father. We see that Gabriel, who may very well be one of these, makes note of the honor he has in standing in the presence of God when he rebukes Zechariah’s doubt. There is much we do not know. Whether there are more angels than men, or men than angels, for instance. Or whether this special guardian is always present, as in the case of Padre Pio, when he confronts his angel for tarrying elsewhere while he cried for help during one of his night terrors.
As for them not having mass, I must object only for the sake that I would like to better understand how the two angels in company of The Lord were able to eat the food Abraham laid out for them while they were on the way to the two cities. I think, that just as many saints were known for bi-location, that we, much as the heavenly beings, can transcend betwixt realms, as in the case of the lamb portrayed before the seated one on the throne and even John himself, being present himself (since he had counted) as one of the 24 judges in John’s revelation. Twelve for the gentiles and twelve for the Hebrews. My own insights may very well be wrong, but there is still much we do not, or cannot, comprehend yet.
Really? Item 1 defines God as complex, yet Aquinas proves God to be “altogether simple”
well if you ran it by a set of Ph.D Theologians…it must be true. I could run…cutting infidels heads off, past a set of extream islamic terroists theologians, and I am sure they would support it. If it is supported by the papistry…I would question it. There is no other single body of faith less believable, or more flawed. No other faith who finds joy in teaching the traditions of men, as the word of God. True story!
Saint Anselm says, “every soul, at the moment when it is infused into the body, is entrusted to the keeping of an angel.” “It is his angel” – Acts 12:15.
It seems that the Father hold that, in fact, each person does have a guardian Angel.
(1) is not an error, it is an opinion presented as settled fact
(2) is in keeping with Summa Theologica, part 113 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm
(3) this is difficult to say whether it is right or wrong
(6) we believe than angels exist because God has the power to create them and God told us that He created them
Actually, it is true that every man and woman that has ever lived, has been assigned a guardian angel. Yes, God did make angels for himself. But, all God wants for us is our acceptance of his word and teaching. Guardian angels, as described above, help us to reach that point. Even Adam and Eve, while they were considered perfect, before original sin, had their own guardian angels. To understand this, you have to look at the full meaning of the words “guardian angel”. Guardian is obvious. To guard and protect. The word angel actually means “messenger”. It isn’t practical to think that God always talked directly to Adam
Regarding movement, I would argue – with Aristotle on my side – that movement does not involve passing over a set of points, but rather a process of going from potentiality to act. If you take the passing over numerous points view, then you are left trying to explain how something can pass over the infinity series of points between points A and B. Movement is a far more elusive concept than it seems. Point in space are really an abstract way of explaining spatiality.
there are as many moments as points; how does one go from one second to the next through all the moments in between?
Again, if you take the position that action is being partially in act and partially in potential, then this problem is avoided. Points in time, seconds, nano seconds, etc are abstractions. They are a method we use to measure time, but time is not an aggregate of seconds or nano seconds.
You are talking about travel within the realm of time. WE do that. Angels do not.
What did Aristotle know about time?
Or angels?
Pingback: My Top Ten Favorite Saints - BigPulpit.com
Re ” that woman from that moment forward would be venerated as ‘Queen of Angels'”. What is your source for this?
Pingback: Friday, January 9, 2015 | Gus Lloyd's Reflections
most of this information is from the Koran and the Book of Enoch
Pingback: Feast of the Baptism of the Lord | St. John
Pingback: Commonplace Holiness Blog
You missed something. Although we cannot claim that the angels have any gender, Scripture only ever reveals masculine names for angels. So, it seems that no angels have feminine names.
I was disappointed: I knew those things before coming here.
I enjoyed reading this! Thanks 🙂
Pingback: How to Build a Relationship with Your Guardian Angel [Audio Post]
Pingback: 10 More Fascinating Angels Facts That Will BLOW. YOUR. MIND. – EpicPew