Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors:
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
We next consider the guardianship exercised by the good angels; and
their warfare against the bad angels. Under the first head eight points
of inquiry arise:
(1) Whether men are guarded by the angels?
(2) Whether to each man is assigned a single guardian angel?
(3) Whether the guardianship belongs only to the lowest order of angels?
(4) Whether it is fitting for each man to have an angel guardian?
(5) When does an angel's guardianship of a man begin?
(6) Whether the angel guardians always watch over men?
(7) Whether the angel grieves over the loss of the one guarded?
(8) Whether rivalry exists among the angels as regards their
guardianship?
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that men are not guarded by the angels. For
guardians are deputed to some because they either know not how, or are
not able, to guard themselves, as children and the sick. But man is able
to guard himself by his free-will; and knows how by his natural knowledge
of natural law. Therefore man is not guarded by an angel.
Objection 2: Further, a strong guard makes a weaker one superfluous. But men
are guarded by God, according to Ps. 120:4: "He shall neither slumber nor
sleep, that keepeth Israel." Therefore man does not need to be guarded by
an angel.
Objection 3: Further, the loss of the guarded redounds to the negligence of
the guardian; hence it was said to a certain one: "Keep this man; and if
he shall slip away, thy life shall be for his life" (@3 Kgs. 20:39). Now
many perish daily through falling into sin; whom the angels could help by
visible appearance, or by miracles, or in some such-like way. The angels
would therefore be negligent if men are given to their guardianship. But
that is clearly false. Therefore the angels are not the guardians of men.
On the contrary, It is written (@Ps. 90:11): "He hath given His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways."
I answer that, According to the plan of Divine Providence, we find that
in all things the movable and variable are moved and regulated by the
immovable and invariable; as all corporeal things by immovable spiritual
substances, and the inferior bodies by the superior which are invariable
in substance. We ourselves also are regulated as regards conclusions,
about which we may have various opinions, by the principles which we hold
in an invariable manner. It is moreover manifest that as regards things
to be done human knowledge and affection can vary and fail from good in
many ways; and so it was necessary that angels should be deputed for the
guardianship of men, in order to regulate them and move them to good.
Reply to Objection 1: By free-will man can avoid evil to a certain degree, but
not in any sufficient degree; forasmuch as he is weak in affection
towards good on account of the manifold passions of the soul. Likewise
universal natural knowledge of the law, which by nature belongs to man,
to a certain degree directs man to good, but not in a sufficient degree;
because in the application of the universal principles of law to
particular actions man happens to be deficient in many ways. Hence it is
written (Wis. 9:14): "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our
counsels uncertain." Thus man needs to be guarded by the angels.
Reply to Objection 2: Two things are required for a good action; first, that the
affection be inclined to good, which is effected in us by the habit of
mortal virtue. Secondly, that reason should discover the proper methods
to make perfect the good of virtue; this the Philosopher (Ethic. vi)
attributes to prudence. As regards the first, God guards man immediately
by infusing into him grace and virtues; as regards the second, God guards
man as his universal instructor, Whose precepts reach man by the medium
of the angels, as above stated (Question [111], Article [1]).
Reply to Objection 3: As men depart from the natural instinct of good by reason
of a sinful passion, so also do they depart from the instigation of the
good angels, which takes place invisibly when they enlighten man that he
may do what is right. Hence that men perish is not to be imputed to the
negligence of the angels but to the malice of men. That they sometimes
appear to men visibly outside the ordinary course of nature comes from a
special grace of God, as likewise that miracles occur outside the order
of nature.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that each man is not guarded by an angel. For an
angel is stronger than a man. But one man suffices to guard many men.
Therefore much more can one angel guard many men.
Objection 2: Further, the lower things are brought to God through the medium
of the higher, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv, xiii). But as all the
angels are unequal (Question [50], Article [4]), there is only one angel between whom
and men there is no medium. Therefore there is only one angel who
immediately keeps men.
Objection 3: Further, the greater angels are deputed to the greater offices.
But it is not a greater office to keep one man more than another; since
all men are naturally equal. Since therefore of all the angels one is
greater than another, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. x), it seems that
different men are not guarded by different angels.
On the contrary, On the text, "Their angels in heaven," etc. (@Mt. 8:10),
Jerome says: "Great is the dignity of souls, for each one to have an
angel deputed to guard it from its birth."
I answer that, Each man has an angel guardian appointed to him. This
rests upon the fact that the guardianship of angels belongs to the
execution of Divine providence concerning men. But God's providence acts
differently as regards men and as regards other corruptible creatures,
for they are related differently to incorruptibility. For men are not
only incorruptible in the common species, but also in the proper forms of
each individual, which are the rational souls, which cannot be said of
other incorruptible things. Now it is manifest that the providence of God
is chiefly exercised towards what remains for ever; whereas as regards
things which pass away, the providence of God acts so as to order their
existence to the things which are perpetual. Thus the providence of God
is related to each man as it is to every genus or species of things
corruptible. But, according to Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.), the
different orders are deputed to the different "genera" of things, for
instance, the "Powers" to coerce the demons, the "Virtues" to work
miracles in things corporeal; while it is probable that the different
species are presided over by different angels of the same order. Hence it
is also reasonable to suppose that different angels are appointed to the
guardianship of different men.
Reply to Objection 1: A guardian may be assigned to a man for two reasons: first,
inasmuch as a man is an individual, and thus to one man one guardian is
due; and sometimes several are appointed to guard one. Secondly, inasmuch
as a man is part of a community, and thus one man is appointed as
guardian of a whole community; to whom it belongs to provide what
concerns one man in his relation to the whole community, such as external
works, which are sources of strength or weakness to others. But angel
guardians are given to men also as regards invisible and occult things,
concerning the salvation of each one in his own regard. Hence individual
angels are appointed to guard individual men.
Reply to Objection 2: As above stated (Question [112], Article [3], ad 4), all the angels of the
first hierarchy are, as to some things, enlightened by God directly; but
as to other things, only the superior are directly enlightened by God,
and these reveal them to the inferior. And the same also applies to the
inferior orders: for a lower angel is enlightened in some respects by one
of the highest, and in other respects by the one immediately above him.
Thus it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately, and
yet has other angels beneath him whom he enlightens.
Reply to Objection 3: Although men are equal in nature, still inequality exists
among them, according as Divine Providence orders some to the greater,
and others to the lesser things, according to Ecclus. 33:11,12: "With
much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and diversified their ways:
some of them hath He blessed and exalted, and some of them hath He cursed
and brought low." Thus it is a greater office to guard one man than
another.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the guardianship of men does not belong only
to the lowest order of the angels. For Chrysostom says that the text (@Mt. 18:10), "Their angels in heaven," etc. is to be understood not of any
angels but of the highest. Therefore the superior angels guard men.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says that angels "are sent to minister for
them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation" (@Heb. 1:14); and
thus it seems that the mission of the angels is directed to the
guardianship of men. But five orders are sent in external ministry
(Question [112], Article [4]). Therefore all the angels of the five orders are deputed
to the guardianship of men.
Objection 3: Further, for the guardianship of men it seems especially
necessary to coerce the demons, which belongs most of all to the Powers,
according to Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.); and to work miracles, which
belongs to the Virtues. Therefore these orders are also deputed to the
work of guardianship, and not only the lowest order.
On the contrary, In the Psalm (90) the guardianship of men is attributed
to the angels; who belong to the lowest order, according to Dionysius
(Coel. Hier. v, ix).
I answer that, As above stated (Article [2]), man is guarded in two ways; in
one way by particular guardianship, according as to each man an angel is
appointed to guard him; and such guardianship belongs to the lowest order
of the angels, whose place it is, according to Gregory, to announce the
"lesser things"; for it seems to be the least of the angelic offices to
procure what concerns the salvation of only one man. The other kind of
guardianship is universal, multiplied according to the different orders.
For the more universal an agent is, the higher it is. Thus the
guardianship of the human race belongs to the order of "Principalities,"
or perhaps to the "Archangels," whom we call the angel princes. Hence,
Michael, whom we call an archangel, is also styled "one of the princes"
(@Dan. 10:13). Moreover all corporeal creatures are guarded by the
"Virtues"; and likewise the demons by the "Powers," and the good spirits
by the "Principalities," according to Gregory's opinion (Hom. xxxiv in
Ev.).
Reply to Objection 1: Chrysostom can be taken to mean the highest in the lowest
order of angels; for, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. x) in each order
there are first, middle, and last. It is, however, probable that the
greater angels are deputed to keep those chosen by God for the higher
degree of glory.
Reply to Objection 2: Not all the angels who are sent have guardianship of
individual men; but some orders have a universal guardianship, greater or
less, as above explained.
Reply to Objection 3: Even inferior angels exercise the office of the superior,
as they share in their gifts, and they are executors of the superiors'
power; and in this way all the angels of the lowest order can coerce the
demons, and work miracles.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that angels are not appointed to the guardianship
of all men. For it is written of Christ (@Phil. 2:7) that "He was made in
the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." If therefore angels
are appointed to the guardianship of all men, Christ also would have had
an angel guardian. But this is unseemly, for Christ is greater than all
the angels. Therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all
men.
Objection 2: Further, Adam was the first of all men. But it was not fitting
that he should have an angel guardian, at least in the state of
innocence: for then he was not beset by any dangers. Therefore angels are
not appointed to the guardianship of all men.
Objection 3: Further, angels are appointed to the guardianship of men, that
they may take them by the hand and guide them to eternal life, encourage
them to good works, and protect them against the assaults of the demons.
But men who are foreknown to damnation, never attain to eternal life.
Infidels, also, though at times they perform good works, do not perform
them well, for they have not a right intention: for "faith directs the
intention" as Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 31). Moreover, the coming
of Antichrist will be "according to the working of Satan," as it is
written (@2 Thess. 2:9). Therefore angels are not deputed to the
guardianship of all men.
On the contrary, is the authority of Jerome quoted above (Article [2]), for he
says that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it."
I answer that, Man while in this state of life, is, as it were, on a
road by which he should journey towards heaven. On this road man is
threatened by many dangers both from within and from without, according
to Ps. 159:4: "In this way wherein I walked, they have hidden a snare for
me." And therefore as guardians are appointed for men who have to pass by
an unsafe road, so an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as
he is a wayfarer. When, however, he arrives at the end of life he no
longer has a guardian angel; but in the kingdom he will have an angel to
reign with him, in hell a demon to punish him.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ as man was guided immediately by the Word of God:
wherefore He needed not be guarded by an angel. Again as regards His
soul, He was a comprehensor, although in regard to His passible body, He
was a wayfarer. In this latter respect it was right that He should have
not a guardian angel as superior to Him, but a ministering angel as
inferior to Him. Whence it is written (@Mt. 4:11) that "angels came and
ministered to Him."
Reply to Objection 2: In the state of innocence man was not threatened by any
peril from within: because within him all was well ordered, as we have
said above (Question [95], Articles [1],3). But peril threatened from without on account
of the snares of the demons; as was proved by the event. For this reason
he needed a guardian angel.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as the foreknown, the infidels, and even Anti-christ,
are not deprived of the interior help of natural reason; so neither are
they deprived of that exterior help granted by God to the whole human
race---namely the guardianship of the angels. And although the help which
they receive therefrom does not result in their deserving eternal life by
good works, it does nevertheless conduce to their being protected from
certain evils which would hurt both themselves and others. For even the
demons are held off by the good angels, lest they hurt as much as they
would. In like manner Antichrist will not do as much harm as he would
wish.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that an angel is not appointed to guard a man from
his birth. For angels are "sent to minister for them who shall receive
the inheritance of salvation," as the Apostle says (@Heb. 1:14). But men
begin to receive the inheritance of salvation, when they are baptized.
Therefore an angel is appointed to guard a man from the time of his
baptism, not of his birth.
Objection 2: Further, men are guarded by angels in as far as angels enlighten
and instruct them. But children are not capable of instruction as soon as
they are born, for they have not the use of reason. Therefore angels are
not appointed to guard children as soon as they are born.
Objection 3: Further, a child has a rational soul for some time before birth,
just as well as after. But it does not appear that an angel is appointed
to guard a child before its birth, for they are not then admitted to the
sacraments of the Church. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard men
from the moment of their birth.
On the contrary, Jerome says (vide A, 4) that "each soul has an angel
appointed to guard it from its birth."
I answer that, as Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two
opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is
appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the
time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with
reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a
Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and
the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational
being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives
that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of
angels, as we have said above (Articles [1],4). Wherefore from the very moment
of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him.
Reply to Objection 1: Angels are sent to minister, and that efficaciously indeed,
for those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation, if we consider
the ultimate effect of their guardianship, which is the realizing of that
inheritance. But for all that, the angelic ministrations are not
withdrawn for others although they are not so efficacious as to bring
them to salvation: efficacious, nevertheless, they are, inasmuch as they
ward off many evils.
Reply to Objection 2: Guardianship is ordained to enlightenment by instruction,
as to its ultimate and principal effect. Nevertheless it has many other
effects consistent with childhood; for instance to ward off the demons,
and to prevent both bodily and spiritual harm.
Reply to Objection 3: As long as the child is in the mother's womb it is not
entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part
of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree.
And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the
angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at
its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is
appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the angel guardian sometimes forsakes the man
whom he is appointed to guard. For it is said (@Jer. 51:9) in the person
of the angels: "We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed: let
us forsake her." And (@Is. 5:5) it is written: "I will take away the
hedge"---that is, "the guardianship of the angels" [gloss]---"and it
shall be wasted."
Objection 2: Further, God's guardianship excels that of the angels. But God
forsakes man at times, according to Ps. 21:2: "O God, my God, look upon
me: why hast Thou forsaken me?" Much rather therefore does an angel
guardian forsake man.
Objection 3: Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 3), "When the
angels are here with us, they are not in heaven." But sometimes they are
in heaven. Therefore sometimes they forsake us.
On the contrary, The demons are ever assailing us, according to 1 Pt.
5:8: "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about, seeking
whom he may devour." Much more therefore do the good angels ever guard us.
I answer that, As appears above (Article [2]), the guardianship of the angels
is an effect of Divine providence in regard to man. Now it is evident
that neither man, nor anything at all, is entirely withdrawn from the
providence of God: for in as far as a thing participates being, so far is
it subject to the providence that extends over all being. God indeed is
said to forsake man, according to the ordering of His providence, but
only in so far as He allows man to suffer some defect of punishment or of
fault. In like manner it must be said that the angel guardian never
forsakes a man entirely, but sometimes he leaves him in some particular,
for instance by not preventing him from being subject to some trouble, or
even from falling into sin, according to the ordering of Divine
judgments. In this sense Babylon and the House of Israel are said to have
been forsaken by the angels, because their angel guardians did not
prevent them from being subject to tribulation.
From this the answers are clear to the first and second objections.
Reply to Objection 3: Although an angel may forsake a man sometimes locally, he
does not for that reason forsake him as to the effect of his
guardianship: for even when he is in heaven he knows what is happening to
man; nor does he need time for his local motion, for he can be with man
in an instant.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that angels grieve for the ills of those whom they
guard. For it is written (@Is. 33:7): "The angels of peace shall weep
bitterly." But weeping is a sign of grief and sorrow. Therefore angels
grieve for the ills of those whom they guard.
Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15), "sorrow is
for those things that happen against our will." But the loss of the man
whom he has guarded is against the guardian angel's will. Therefore
angels grieve for the loss of men.
Objection 3: Further, as sorrow is contrary to joy, so penance is contrary to
sin. But angels rejoice about one sinner doing penance, as we are told,
Lk. 15:7. Therefore they grieve for the just man who falls into sin.
Objection 4: Further, on Numbers 18:12: "Whatsoever first-fruits they offer,"
etc. the gloss of Origen says: "The angels are brought to judgment as to
whether men have fallen through their negligence or through their own
fault." But it is reasonable for anyone to grieve for the ills which have
brought him to judgment. Therefore angels grieve for men's sins.
On the contrary, Where there is grief and sorrow, there is not perfect
happiness: wherefore it is written (@Apoc. 21:4): "Death shall be no more,
nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow." But the angels are perfectly
happy. Therefore they have no cause for grief.
I answer that, Angels do not grieve, either for sins or for the pains
inflicted on men. For grief and sorrow, according to Augustine (De Civ.
Dei xiv, 15) are for those things which occur against our will. But
nothing happens in the world contrary to the will of the angels and the
other blessed, because they will cleaves entirely to the ordering of
Divine justice; while nothing happens in the world save what is effected
or permitted by Divine justice. Therefore simply speaking, nothing occurs
in the world against the will of the blessed. For as the Philosopher says
(Ethic. iii, 1) that is called simply voluntary, which a man wills in a
particular case, and at a particular time, having considered all the
circumstances; although universally speaking, such a thing would not be
voluntary: thus the sailor does not will the casting of his cargo into
the sea, considered universally and absolutely, but on account of the
threatened danger of his life, he wills it. Wherefore this is voluntary
rather than involuntary, as stated in the same passage. Therefore
universally and absolutely speaking the angels do not will sin and the
pains inflicted on its account: but they do will the fulfilment of the
ordering of Divine justice in this matter, in respect of which some are
subjected to pains and are allowed to fall into sin.
Reply to Objection 1: These words of Isaias may be understood of the angels, i.e.
the messengers, of Ezechias, who wept on account of the words of
Rabsaces, as related Is. 37:2 seqq.: this would be the literal sense.
According to the allegorical sense the "angels of peace" are the apostles
and preachers who weep for men's sins. If according to the anagogical
sense this passage be expounded of the blessed angels, then the
expression is metaphorical, and signifies that universally speaking the
angels will the salvation of mankind: for in this sense we attribute
passions to God and the angels.
The reply to the second objection appears from what has been said.
Reply to Objection 3: Both in man's repentance and in man's sin there is one
reason for the angel's joy, namely the fulfilment of the ordering of the
Divine Providence.
Reply to Objection 4: The angels are brought into judgment for the sins of men,
not as guilty, but as witnesses to convict man of weakness.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that there can be strife or discord among the
angels. For it is written (@Job 25:2): "Who maketh peace in His high
places." But strife is opposed to peace. Therefore among the high angels
there is no strife.
Objection 2: Further, where there is perfect charity and just authority there
can be no strife. But all this exists among the angels. Therefore there
is no strife among the angels.
Objection 3: Further, if we say that angels strive for those whom they guard,
one angel must needs take one side, and another angel the opposite side.
But if one side is in the right the other side is in the wrong. It will
follow therefore, that a good angel is a compounder of wrong; which is
unseemly. Therefore there is no strife among good angels.
On the contrary, It is written (@Dan. 10:13): "The prince of the kingdom
of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days." But this prince of the
Persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of the kingdom of the
Persians. Therefore one good angel resists the others; and thus there is
strife among them.
I answer that, The raising of this question is occasioned by this
passage of Daniel. Jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the
kingdom of the Persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of the
people of Israel, for whom Daniel was praying, his prayers being offered
to God by Gabriel. And this resistance of his may have been caused by
some prince of the demons having led the Jewish captives in Persia into
sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the prayer which
Daniel put up for that same people.
But according to Gregory (Moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of
Persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom. To
see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must note
that the Divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and various men
are executed by the angels. Now in their actions, the angels are ruled by
the Divine decree. But it happens at times in various kingdoms or various
men there are contrary merits or demerits, so that one of them is subject
to or placed over another. As to what is the ordering of Divine wisdom on
such matters, the angels cannot know it unless God reveal it to them: and
so they need to consult Divine wisdom thereupon. Wherefore forasmuch as
they consult the Divine will concerning various contrary and opposing
merits, they are said to resist one another: not that their wills are in
opposition, since they are all of one mind as to the fulfilment of the
Divine decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in
opposition.
From this the answers to the objections are clear.