Angels on the head of a pin

Ironically, the issue of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin or the point of a needle was (in other, less silly formulations) a VERY important question at one point. It boils down to this: are angels fully heavenly, or are they partly/fully mortal in nature? In other words, are angels made of God-stuff or man-stuff? If they’re purely heavenly, then an infinitely number can dance on the head of a pin. If they’re purely material, then none can dance on the head of a pin. If they’re a tiny bit material, then some finite number can dance on the head of a pin.


what if they’re not very good dancers? it seems the quantity is somewhat dependant on the quantity! Are they dancing with partners? i been to salsa clubs where about 30 people can dance in an area of 12’x12’, but those damn quicksteppers are out of control.

The column in question:

(Do I get a prize? Huh? Huh? ;))

‘They couldn’t hit an Elephant from this dist…!’

Last words of General John Sedgwick

I am picturing a teeny-tiny mosh pit…

It seems to me that we’re being a tad flip here in dealing with someone who was also engaged in fighting ignorance.

If more people studied Aquinas, we wouldn’t be burdened with crap like Touched by the Good Fairy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Han Angel.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

Actually, this question is still debated hotly, except it is called the ‘mind-body problem.’ What Aquinas was asking is, can you have an intelligence that doesn’t take up any space, or does it have to have some matter attached? The modern equivalent is asking whether the mind is actually a product of the brain, or whether it is something not entirely chemical.

I am still waiting for the Classic Comix version of the Summa Theologica.

Loved the movie version with Courtney Cox and Jennifer Love Hewitt, I Know What You Did Last Summa,

A real thrilla.

You may regret bringing back these oldie but goodies – The title of Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” would not translate from Latin into “Summary of Theology”, but rather “Highest of Theology”. Tom did not suffer from low self esteem.

The use of “summa” in the sense of sum, summary, sum up, in other words a total of the parts, comes from the Latin phrase “res summum”, or “highest of things”, as a result of the Roman practice of placing the “res summum” at the top of a column of figures being added together, as opposed to our practice of placing the sum a the bottom.

Summum in its original sense of “highest”, still is expressed as such in the English word “summit”.