A painting of St. Michael cried tears.





What do you think?

St. Michael cry? Really, I think he's pretty psyched with what's coming up. Angels in the Apocalypse are ready to get this show on the road. No hesitation; no "crying".

Jmho.

If it is a miracle, I have a bad feeling about this. He is the protector of the church, and his tears mean some catastrophe for the church.

If it is a miracle, I have a bad feeling about this. He is the protector of the church, and his tears mean some catastrophe for the church.

I agree.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Angels don't have bodies."  


.

It was a painting.

Oh, sorry, so then angels have paintings?  

Or do you mean that paintings have angels?



I'm not putting this in context of history at all because I can't think of a
time in the past when an angel is said to have cried.  Do any angels
cry in the Apocalypse of St. John?  

How about in the OT?  

Have any saints had visions of angels crying?  

A crying angel doesn't make any sense to me.  

Angels don't have bodies, so they for example can't bleed.  

They can't have a broken bone.  

They can't get sick or lose a limb, can they?  

And they don't eat, or other bodily functions like men do, so
where do you get an angel crying?  How does that fit in with
the NATURE of angels?  


.

.

On a human level, I can see how people might be a bit put off by
the thought that an angel would somehow shed tears, IOW cry.  
But I'm trying to see that in the context of what angels CAN DO,
and what angels CANNOT DO.  

Angels cannot be born.  
Angels cannot die.  
Angels do not sin (they had ONE CHANCE and that was it -- it's over).
Angels cannot be forgiven.
Angels do not receive sacraments.
Angels cannot confect sacraments (like a priest in the consecration).
Angels cannot create anything -- nothing whatsoever.
Angels cannot force man to do something man refuses to do.
Angels cannot change their mind.
Angels cannot remove the effects of sacraments from men.

Etc.  

Oh, I left out one thing:  Angels cannot cry.  


But angels can do a lot of things, some of which are things that
men can do, and in many ways, they can do things close to
infinitely better than men can do them.  

Angels can travel anywhere in the universe at the speed of thought.
Angels are so intelligent they can understand an entire lifetime
of man's learning in a single instant.
Angels can move mountains -- such as cast them into the sea.
Angels can change the movements of the stars, planets, moon
and sun.  
Angels can carry out every command of God FLAWLESSLY.
Angels are ALWAYS prepared to make acts of perfect love of God.
Angels can lift the oceans out of the depths and raise them up high.
Angels can make pigs fly.
Angels don't need an airplane or a submarine to 'go there'.
Angels can deliver a message from God without flaw.

Etc.

Oh, and by the way, angels can show extreme anger.  


But in this anger, they are merely communicating the divine wrath
of God, and perfectly so, and therefore it's not their anger but God's
anger.   That could give us a better understanding of God's anger.



So what about delivering God's grief or sorrow?   We know that
Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and he wept at the death of Lazarus.
And while the Gospel doesn't say so, it would seem He would have
cried during His passion and crucifixion.   Therefore, would an
angel crying be not his own grief or sorrow, but his communicating
to us the human passion of Our Lord, who can cry?




After all that,

Mmmm, I am reluctant to believe this.

I just can't (and don't want to) imagine St. Michael in tears.

I think that is a most honest and respectable reaction, Cantarella,
it gives me the impression of a very solid Catholic sense in you.


.

.

One might think of an angel as a soldier.

And as a soldier, an angel would be a perfect soldier.

When soldiers are trained, they learn not to cry.  And there
is a very practical purpose in this training, and that is that a
soldier must ignore his own emotions to be able to fight well
in a war.  He has to do things in battle that would place his
life at extreme danger if he gets caught up in emotions, but
more importantly, it would put the SUCCESS OF THE BATTLE
at stake, and endanger the lives of his comrades -----------
which, BTW is why women do not serve any purpose on the
front lines of battle, because they would have to put their
emotions aside and stop being a woman.  Maybe some can
do that, but it makes for a very challenging prospect, and
so on.  

But in regards to angels, we call them by male names, and
never by female names, even though they do not have any
specifically male physical attributes, such as facial hair and
other things, but their muscular structure is often depicted
as being masculine -- however, it is also depicted as being
quasi-masculine, that is, neuter.  For angels are really more
like neuter in gender than masculine, but they are never
seen as being feminine.  Even so, we say "he" or "him" when
we refer to an angel.  

No doubt there are classrooms worldwide where liberal
teachers encourage children to draw pictures of 'girl angels'
but that doesn't mean there is any basis in reality -- it's just
the subjective reality of Liberals, which is a fantasy.

As a perfect soldier, an angel would fight with all his strength
all the time, if it is demanded of him.  Angels don't get "tired"
so they never have to take a break from the action.  

They never get hungry or thirsty or distracted or weak or
late, or unnecessarily early, nor do they disobey orders.  They
would be a perfect soldier.

And a perfect soldier is always a soldier who DOES NOT CRY.

Nicely done, Neil.

Thank you, Anthony Benedict.  

I get the feeling that I'm just warming up.  I was going to start in with
St. Thomas Aquinas and his dissertations on angels, but that might
be a bit too much, from the Angelic Doctor.  



.

.

One might think of an angel as a soldier.

And as a soldier, an angel would be a perfect soldier.

When soldiers are trained, they learn not to cry.  And there
is a very practical purpose in this training, and that is that a
soldier must ignore his own emotions to be able to fight well
in a war.  He has to do things in battle that would place his
life at extreme danger if he gets caught up in emotions, but
more importantly, it would put the SUCCESS OF THE BATTLE
at stake, and endanger the lives of his comrades -----------
which, BTW is why women do not serve any purpose on the
front lines of battle, because they would have to put their
emotions aside and stop being a woman.  Maybe some can
do that, but it makes for a very challenging prospect, and
so on.  

But in regards to angels, we call them by male names, and
never by female names, even though they do not have any
specifically male physical attributes, such as facial hair and
other things, but their muscular structure is often depicted
as being masculine -- however, it is also depicted as being
quasi-masculine, that is, neuter.  For angels are really more
like neuter in gender than masculine, but they are never
seen as being feminine.  Even so, we say "he" or "him" when
we refer to an angel.  

No doubt there are classrooms worldwide where liberal
teachers encourage children to draw pictures of 'girl angels'
but that doesn't mean there is any basis in reality -- it's just
the subjective reality of Liberals, which is a fantasy.

As a perfect soldier, an angel would fight with all his strength
all the time, if it is demanded of him.  Angels don't get "tired"
so they never have to take a break from the action.  

They never get hungry or thirsty or distracted or weak or
late, or unnecessarily early, nor do they disobey orders.  They
would be a perfect soldier.

And a perfect soldier is always a soldier who DOES NOT CRY.

 Couldn't put in better words, Neil Obstat :applause: