Help me out here...these stills are suggesting "Waiting for Godot" to me. Thank God my guardian angel doesn't have to wait till I DO something stupid, but can poke me while I'm still thinking about it. Maybe, per Aquinas, we all have some flashing light on our foreheads, visible only to the angels, that goes off as a "Stupid Thought Alarm".
"Help me out here...these stills are suggesting "Waiting for Godot" to me."
I'm afraid the stills are from the much less celebrated The Black Imp by Georges Méliès from 1905.
"Maybe, per Aquinas, we all have some flashing light on our foreheads, visible only to the angels, that goes off as a "Stupid Thought Alarm"."
Well, if I understand Aquinas properly (never guaranteed) that's sort of the idea. He seemed to suggest the soul gives off subtle signals visible only to the trained eye. No actions on our parts are necessary. That allows spiritual beings to recognize our thoughts without "knowing our hearts" which only God can do. But if I've got that wrong, I'm sure one of you can set me straight.
well, speculative theology isn't my schtick. But some saints, like Padre Pio, have had the gift of reading souls. Obviously, that's not a perfect knowledge like God's. But it seems reasonable to suppose that if a saint could have a limited knowledge of another's soul for that person's spiritual benefit, so could our guardian angels.
No doubt. I think that's what Aquinas was getting at when he stated angels could gain knowledge of a person's soul through "certain signs of the body" although "it cannot be asserted how this is done." He just wanted to make sure there was a distinction between God's knowledge and that of his creations'.
I always figured folks like Padre Pio and Fr. Vianney were granted their insights directly by the Holy Spirit, Who of course does know exactly what is in our hearts. Of course, it could not be known if the Holy Spirit grants such insight to our guardian (or other) angels, and He certainly would not to the fallen angels.
That could work too. It's not like Aquinas was infallible, I'm just dealing with his take on things because I'm trying to muddle my way through parts of the Summa again.
If it helps at all, I remember Alice von Hildebrand saying in an interview that the devil is a master psychologist, but that he cannot see into our minds. That is, he could still get things wrong--which wouldn't be surprising!
Sounds like Hildebrand read his Aquinas. I've only skimmed through Hildebrand, but that's the second time his name has come up today, so I'm gonna have to move his books to the top of the list.
11 comments:
Help me out here...these stills are suggesting "Waiting for Godot" to me. Thank God my guardian angel doesn't have to wait till I DO something stupid, but can poke me while I'm still thinking about it. Maybe, per Aquinas, we all have some flashing light on our foreheads, visible only to the angels, that goes off as a "Stupid Thought Alarm".
"Help me out here...these stills are suggesting "Waiting for Godot" to me."
I'm afraid the stills are from the much less celebrated The Black Imp by Georges Méliès from 1905.
"Maybe, per Aquinas, we all have some flashing light on our foreheads, visible only to the angels, that goes off as a "Stupid Thought Alarm"."
Well, if I understand Aquinas properly (never guaranteed) that's sort of the idea. He seemed to suggest the soul gives off subtle signals visible only to the trained eye. No actions on our parts are necessary. That allows spiritual beings to recognize our thoughts without "knowing our hearts" which only God can do. But if I've got that wrong, I'm sure one of you can set me straight.
I think I've got the sound bite answer. They can tell what's on our minds, but not what's in them. How's that.
well, speculative theology isn't my schtick. But some saints, like Padre Pio, have had the gift of reading souls. Obviously, that's not a perfect knowledge like God's. But it seems reasonable to suppose that if a saint could have a limited knowledge of another's soul for that person's spiritual benefit, so could our guardian angels.
No doubt. I think that's what Aquinas was getting at when he stated angels could gain knowledge of a person's soul through "certain signs of the body" although "it cannot be asserted how this is done." He just wanted to make sure there was a distinction between God's knowledge and that of his creations'.
I always figured folks like Padre Pio and Fr. Vianney were granted their insights directly by the Holy Spirit, Who of course does know exactly what is in our hearts. Of course, it could not be known if the Holy Spirit grants such insight to our guardian (or other) angels, and He certainly would not to the fallen angels.
That could work too. It's not like Aquinas was infallible, I'm just dealing with his take on things because I'm trying to muddle my way through parts of the Summa again.
+JMJ+
If it helps at all, I remember Alice von Hildebrand saying in an interview that the devil is a master psychologist, but that he cannot see into our minds. That is, he could still get things wrong--which wouldn't be surprising!
Sounds like Hildebrand read his Aquinas. I've only skimmed through Hildebrand, but that's the second time his name has come up today, so I'm gonna have to move his books to the top of the list.
Sounds like Hildebrand read his Aquinas.
Better than how you read Enbrethiliel's comment.
Hahahahahhaha!
Dietrich, Alice. Alice, Dietrich. I say it wasn't really a mistake since they were joined in one flesh by marriage.
(And if you buy that...)
Post a Comment