The error above by seculars and atheists only makes sense to them because they don't believe in first principles and think higher things (reason) come from lower things. When in reality, despite their paganism, the ancients were far more insightful than modern men. It was apparent to ancients that lightning was it's own thing that was governed by something else. And this logic is a seed of the ancient wisdom of Adam and the truth about the one God.

  So, it appears that the "sons of god" does mean actual angels.

And this also would explain how they (lower angels) could fall in "time" as opposed to the angels who, being PURE spirit, had to decide to be either for or against God at the first instant of their creation. 

Obj. 6: Further, to beget offspring is a vital act. But this has befallen the angels in their assumed bodies; for it is related: After the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown (Gen 6:4). Consequently the angels exercised vital functions in their assumed bodies.

On the contrary, The bodies assumed by angels have no life, as was stated in the previous article (ad 3). Therefore they cannot exercise functions of life through assumed bodies.

I answer that, Some functions of living subjects have something in common with other operations; just as speech, which is the function of a living creature, agrees with other sounds of inanimate things, in so far as it is sound; and walking agrees with other movements, in so far as it is movement. Consequently vital functions can be performed in assumed bodies by the angels, as to that which is common in such operations; but not as to that which is special to living subjects; because, according to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vig. i), that which has the faculty has the action. Hence nothing can have a function of life except what has life, which is the potential principle of such action.

Reply Obj. 6: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge.

Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q51.A3.Obj6

Mangles...  Like it.


I've not looked into any post-St Augustine saints' commentaries on the Nephilim.  Mostly because, as is normal, they would've adopted +Augustine's opinion and added no new info.  That's why Anne Catherine Emmerich's comments are so unusual - she both agrees (mentions possession) and disagrees with St Augustine (mentions fallen angels and Enoch).

My opinion is
a)  there were angels who fell during Noah's time (too much evidence for it, both from Enoch, Church Fathers and pagan civilizations). 
b)  possibly the "genetic material" for such Giants was 100% human, but enhanced/altered due to fallen angel possession/knowledge.  This would agree with St Augustine, Scripture, Enoch, Anne Catherine Emmerich, Ancient Aliens and the great X-files tv show, etc.  This theory agrees with all sources because Scripture does not say "how" such Giants were fathered, only that fallen angels were part of it.
c)  Such a theory also coincides with the future anti-christ, who will be 100% human.

And the reason this is all important?  Because Christ said "As in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be".  Obviously, Christ was first talking about sin and lack of faith/religion but I also believe that we will see "signs and wonders" in the last days and also a return of giants/fallen angels/"alien" demons/etc.  Imagine what kind of technology "bump" our society could have, if fallen angels were directing the elites today?  Lots of people in govt say that "Area 51" is all about super-technology and that it's 50-60 years ahead of what we see now.  I think the "alien visitors" story will happen because it's the only way for the elites to introduce society to fallen angels, and a "new world" of futuristic technology.  In the next 10-20 years, I expect this to happen, if God doesn't intervene.

I don't see how Anne Catherine Emmerich is contradicting Enoch's story, whom she praises as a holy man.  It's unclear what she means when she says "when the angels fell".  Is she talking about satan's revolt against God vs St Michael?  I don't see how because she says they won't be cast into hell before the last day.  But satan and his angels are already in hell.  So she must be talking about fallen angels in the same way that Enoch was, which means, angels fell a 2nd time.  She uses the term (assuming the translation is accurate) of "fallen spirits".  But satan and co are not fallen spirits but demons who are in hell.  So, it appears that the "sons of god" does mean actual angels.

I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain number had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence fall as low as the others.

Much of the argumentation seems to come (at least later, by the time of the scholastics) from this notion that angels are pure spirit.  Where is that taught or to be found in Sacred Scripture?  Whence does that notion originate?  I haven't seen any authority for that supposition, whether from Scripture or from Tradition.  And yet it seems to be simply assumed, and then they draw conclusions from that presupposition.  But what if it's not the whole story.  Certainly it's clear that there are some higher choirs of angels that are indeed pure spirit.  But why the different choirs and the hierarchy.  To what extent are the lower choirs "inferior" to the higher ones?  What is there that rules out the existence of a lowest choir where those creatures of God had spirit plus a sensible nature along with the ability to take on bodies (although not of earth like man but of a more aetherial substance).

In any case, we tend to lump all these creatures into the category of "angel", but there were differences and degrees of sublimity in the hierarchy from God down?  It could be circular reasoning, where you define "angel" as a being of pure spirit, and then any that are called angels are supposed to be in this same category.  In point of fact, I believe St. Thomas and others held that you can't really classify angels that way, in that every angel is his own special category and has a unique nature.

It would be interesting to dig up anything that the Fathers had to say about angels in general.

In any case, the very etymology of angel simply means "messenger" and by itself the term does  not define them to be pure spirits, just as these transitional creatures between God, the invisible creation, and visible creation.

On the contrary, It is said (Ps 103:4): Who makes His angels spirits.

I answer that, There must be some incorporeal creatures. For what is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect; as heat makes heat. Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will (Q. 14, A. 8; Q. 19, A. 4). Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to here and now. Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature.

The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23:8).

But the very fact that intellect is above sense is a reasonable proof that there are some incorporeal things comprehensible by the intellect alone.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q50.A1.SC

On the contrary is the authority of Holy Scripture wherein they are so named. For the name Seraphim is found in Isa. 6:2; the name Cherubim in Ezech. 1 (Cf. 10:15,20); Thrones in Col. 1:16; Dominations, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities are mentioned in Eph. 1:21; the name Archangels in the canonical epistle of St. Jude (9), and the name Angels is found in many places of Scripture.

I answer that, As Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), in the names of the angelic orders it is necessary to observe that the proper name of each order expresses its property. Now to see what is the property of each order, we must consider that in coordinated things, something may be found in a threefold manner: by way of property, by way of excess, and by way of participation. A thing is said to be in another by way of property, if it is adequate and proportionate to its nature: by excess when an attribute is less than that to which it is attributed, but is possessed thereby in an eminent manner, as we have stated (Q. 13, A. 2) concerning all the names which are attributed to God: by participation, when an attribute is possessed by something not fully but partially; thus holy men are called gods by participation. Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly to name a man, we should call him a rational substance, but not an intellectual substance, which latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property, and to man by participation; nor do we call him a sensible substance, which is the proper name of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent way than to other animals.

So we must consider that in the angelic orders all spiritual perfections are common to all the angels, and that they are all more excellently in the superior than in the inferior angels. Further, as in these perfections there are grades, the superior perfection belongs to the superior order as its property, whereas it belongs to the inferior by participation; and conversely the inferior perfection belongs to the inferior order as its property, and to the superior by way of excess; and thus the superior order is denominated from the superior perfection.

So in this way Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) explains the names of the orders accordingly as they befit the spiritual perfections they signify. Gregory, on the other hand, in expounding these names (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) seems to regard more the exterior ministrations; for he says that angels are so called as announcing the least things; and the archangels in the greatest; by the virtues miracles are wrought; by the powers hostile powers are repulsed; and the principalities preside over the good spirits themselves.

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q108.A5.SC