Do Guarding Angels exist?

[Cathode]

I sent angels after a bloke for protection who overtook me on a motorbike at very high speed on a notorious road here.
He crashed his bike so badly it disintegrated, he had no business being alive, let alone unhurt.
There was an angel there.
This road I had seen 3 bike fatalities, once with a man having CPR done on him, and two other times just the aftermath of wreckage. Crosses marked this road where people had fatal accidents.
That’s when I said enoughs enough and set the holy angels in charge this deadly road and asked them to protect people on it.
There hasn’t been any accidents since.

 

[Cathode]

A simple devotion to your guardian angel is the prayer we say as kids. The Angel of God prayer.
But simply talking to them and asking them for help, or for particular things.
They love us and love to serve.

Don’t be estranged from them your whole life.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Anyway, the patriarch of Constantinople Michael I, defied not only the Pope, but all preceding bishops and scholars of Constantinople.

As Maximus the Confessor stated it very clearly hundreds of years earlier in 650 Ad

“the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”

These replies are nothing more than selective quotations and self‑written histories used to smuggle in Roman Catholic claims that did not exist in the early churches, and are unsupported by the historical record or by Scripture today.

Cathode is using classic RCC‑style moves:

• Appealing to isolated quotes from later figures as if they represent universal early Christian belief.
• Treating Constantinople’s political disputes as if they define the doctrine of Rome or of later high‑church traditions, and then projecting that onto all churches, even though no universal ecclesia exists.
• Inserting papal supremacy retroactively into centuries where it did not exist.
• Treating tradition as interpretive authority over Scripture, then accusing others of “prejudice” when they don’t accept that authority.

 

[Cathode]

These replies are nothing more than selective quotations and self‑written histories used to smuggle in Roman Catholic claims that did not exist in the early churches, and are unsupported by the historical record or by Scripture today.

Cathode is using classic RCC‑style moves:

• Appealing to isolated quotes from later figures as if they represent universal early Christian belief.
• Treating Constantinople’s political disputes as if they define the doctrine of Rome or of later high‑church traditions, and then projecting that onto all churches, even though no universal ecclesia exists.
• Inserting papal supremacy retroactively into centuries where it did not exist.
• Treating tradition as interpretive authority over Scripture, then accusing others of “prejudice” when they don’t accept that authority.

The quotes were selected from Constantinoples patriarchs and scholars in answer to this garbage claim.

“When the Roman Empire was divided and Constantinople became the political center, the Bishop of Rome rose in prominence to fill this political vacuum and this was pretty much where the modern papacy emerged. The Bishop of Constantinople requested of Pope Gregory that the two would be considered as equals but Gregory refused and insisted upon the primacy of the bishop of Rome which, among other things, led to the great schism of 1054. The primacy of the pope has never been universally accepted by the church and papal infallibility was purely a Roman Catholic invention later on.”

Even Constantinoples own patriarchs and scholars hundreds of years earlier accepted the primacy of the Apostolic See in Rome.

I presented actual evidence quoting sources and you guys present narratives and no sources at all.

Ok read another one, how about the Emperor in Constantinople. Evidence enough?

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:
Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

References provided for your scholarly perusal.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The quotes were selected from Constantinoples patriarchs and scholars in answer to this garbage claim.

“When the Roman Empire was divided and Constantinople became the political center, the Bishop of Rome rose in prominence to fill this political vacuum and this was pretty much where the modern papacy emerged. The Bishop of Constantinople requested of Pope Gregory that the two would be considered as equals but Gregory refused and insisted upon the primacy of the bishop of Rome which, among other things, led to the great schism of 1054. The primacy of the pope has never been universally accepted by the church and papal infallibility was purely a Roman Catholic invention later on.”

Even Constantinoples own patriarchs and scholars hundreds of years earlier accepted the primacy of the Apostolic See in Rome.

I presented actual evidence quoting sources and you guys present narratives and no sources at all.

Ok read another one, how about the Emperor in Constantinople. Evidence enough?

Emperor Justinian (520-533)



References provided for your scholarly perusal.

Cathode, you’re proving the point I already made.

You’ve shifted the discussion to papal primacy, but neither my reply nor the thread mentioned that at all. You’re introducing a new topic that wasn’t under discussion.

My point was simple: You are using later political statements from Constantinople and imperial figures as if they represent apostolic doctrine or the belief of the early churches. They don’t. They never did.

A sixth‑century emperor’s rhetoric is not first‑century church teaching. A patriarch’s political language during an imperial dispute is not apostolic doctrine. A quote made in a moment of crisis does not represent universal early Christian belief.

None of this addresses the actual point I made:

You are appealing to later political sources and projecting them backward into centuries where those claims did not exist.

If you want to discuss Peter or papal primacy, that’s a different topic, but it wasn’t the subject of the post you replied to.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I sent angels after a bloke for protection who overtook me on a motorbike at very high speed on a notorious road here.
He crashed his bike so badly it disintegrated, he had no business being alive, let alone unhurt.
There was an angel there.
This road I had seen 3 bike fatalities, once with a man having CPR done on him, and two other times just the aftermath of wreckage. Crosses marked this road where people had fatal accidents.
That’s when I said enoughs enough and set the holy angels in charge this deadly road and asked them to protect people on it.
There hasn’t been any accidents since.

Cathode, personal experiences, especially ones involving danger, trauma, or narrow escapes, cannot be used as doctrinal proof. Scripture is our authority, not private stories. The Lord certainly protects His people, and His angels “encamp round about them that fear Him” (Ps. 34:7), but that is very different from assigning angels to roads, dispatching them at will, or treating them as beings under human command.

The apostles never taught believers to send angels anywhere, nor to place them “in charge” of locations. Angels act at God’s command, not ours. They minister according to His will, not human initiative. Any protection that occurs is the Lord’s mercy, not the result of us directing heavenly beings.

So while I’m glad no one was harmed, personal anecdotes cannot establish doctrine. Scripture does. And Scripture gives no example of Christians commissioning angels, controlling their movements, or assigning them tasks. The only One who commands angels is the Lord Himself.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

A simple devotion to your guardian angel is the prayer we say as kids. The Angel of God prayer.
But simply talking to them and asking them for help, or for particular things.
They love us and love to serve.

Don’t be estranged from them your whole life.

We rely only on God, not angels. Scripture never teaches believers to seek angels, speak to angels, or depend on angels. Any ministry they perform is at God’s command, not ours. Our trust, our refuge, and our help come from the Lord alone.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Regarding angels, Cathode is presenting folk Catholic mysticism, the kind Rome itself doesn’t officially endorse but never corrects. Scripture gives no example of believers talking to angels, assigning angels tasks, or cultivating devotions to them. Angels serve at God’s command, not ours, and any protection they provide is His mercy, not the result of human direction. We rely on God alone.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you’re proving the point I already made.

You’ve shifted the discussion to papal primacy, but neither my reply nor the thread mentioned that at all. You’re introducing a new topic that wasn’t under discussion.

My point was simple: You are using later political statements from Constantinople and imperial figures as if they represent apostolic doctrine or the belief of the early churches. They don’t. They never did.

A sixth‑century emperor’s rhetoric is not first‑century church teaching. A patriarch’s political language during an imperial dispute is not apostolic doctrine. A quote made in a moment of crisis does not represent universal early Christian belief.

None of this addresses the actual point I made:

You are appealing to later political sources and projecting them backward into centuries where those claims did not exist.

If you want to discuss Peter or papal primacy, that’s a different topic, but it wasn’t the subject of the post you replied to.

The post I replied to was not yours, you were late to party.
You said:

“These replies are nothing more than selective quotations and self‑written histories used to smuggle in Roman Catholic claims that did not exist in the early churches, and are unsupported by the historical record or by Scripture today.”

The replies were perfectly on point and historically relevant to the person I was replying to, Armchair Apologist and fully referenced.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I’m happy to have a relationship with the Father instead.

Amen!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The post I replied to was not yours, you were late to party.
You said:

“These replies are nothing more than selective quotations and self‑written histories used to smuggle in Roman Catholic claims that did not exist in the early churches, and are unsupported by the historical record or by Scripture today.”

The replies were perfectly on point and historically relevant to the person I was replying to, Armchair Apologist and fully referenced.

Cathode, whether you replied to me or to Armchair Apologist doesn’t change the issue. You replied to a forum thread, not a personal conversation. The problem is not which post you answered, it’s the type of evidence you are using.

You are still appealing to later political statements made centuries after the apostles and treating them as if they represent apostolic doctrine or the belief of the early churches. They don’t. They never did.

A sixth‑century emperor’s rhetoric is not first‑century church teaching. A patriarch’s political language during an imperial dispute is not apostolic doctrine. A quote made in a moment of crisis does not represent universal early Christian belief.

None of this addresses the historical point:

You are projecting later political sources backward into centuries where those claims did not exist.

Whether you were replying to me or to someone else, the category error is the same. Political statements from Constantinople during imperial tension do not establish apostolic doctrine, do not represent the early churches, and do not rewrite the historical record.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, whether you replied to me or to Armchair Apologist doesn’t change the issue. You replied to a forum thread, not a personal conversation. The problem is not which post you answered, it’s the type of evidence you are using.

You are still appealing to later political statements made centuries after the apostles and treating them as if they represent apostolic doctrine or the belief of the early churches. They don’t. They never did.

A sixth‑century emperor’s rhetoric is not first‑century church teaching. A patriarch’s political language during an imperial dispute is not apostolic doctrine. A quote made in a moment of crisis does not represent universal early Christian belief.

None of this addresses the historical point:

You are projecting later political sources backward into centuries where those claims did not exist.

Whether you were replying to me or to someone else, the category error is the same. Political statements from Constantinople during imperial tension do not establish apostolic doctrine, do not represent the early churches, and do not rewrite the historical record.

You aren’t getting it.

The reply was specific, that Constantinople and the eastern churches long believed in papal primacy long before the schism of 1054.

You are the one changing the matter about earlier times, that is another subject.

 

[Cathode]

Regarding angels, Cathode is presenting folk Catholic mysticism, the kind Rome itself doesn’t officially endorse but never corrects. Scripture gives no example of believers talking to angels, assigning angels tasks, or cultivating devotions to them. Angels serve at God’s command, not ours, and any protection they provide is His mercy, not the result of human direction. We rely on God alone.

You are in complete ignorance here. It was a Pope that initiated an Angelic devotion to Michael the Archangel in recent times.

The Angels are part of the Catholic liturgy and worship.

There have been many angelic devotions long before Protestants walked the earth.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Angels are part of the Catholic liturgy and worship.

Cathode, none of this addresses the point I made. You’re listing Catholic devotions and liturgical practices, but that does not change the biblical reality:

Scripture never teaches believers to talk to angels, cultivate devotions to angels, or rely on angels.

The fact that popes introduced angelic devotions, or that Catholic liturgy includes angels, simply proves the point: these are later traditions, not apostolic doctrine.

Angelic devotions may exist in Catholic practice, but they do not appear in Scripture, they are not taught by the apostles, and they are not part of the faith once delivered to the saints. Angels serve at God’s command, not ours, and any ministry they perform is His mercy, not the result of human direction.

So your list of Catholic devotions doesn’t answer the biblical question. It only shows the difference between Catholic tradition and Scripture.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

It was a Pope that initiated an Angelic devotion to Michael the Archangel in recent times.

Proverbs says “Iron sharpeneth iron,” but in this discussion you are standing opposed to the iron of Scripture and history, and you’re answering with devotional tradition and papal anecdotes. That’s fighting iron with papier‑mâché. Tradition cannot cut what Scripture and the historical record have already made clear.

 

[Ben1445]

You are in complete ignorance here. It was a Pope that initiated an Angelic devotion to Michael the Archangel in recent times.

The Angels are part of the Catholic liturgy and worship.

There have been many angelic devotions long before Protestants walked the earth.

You’re catching on. That’s one more reason they need to be protestants. The Catholics have been getting some things wrong for a long time.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, none of this addresses the point I made. You’re listing Catholic devotions and liturgical practices, but that does not change the biblical reality:

Scripture never teaches believers to talk to angels, cultivate devotions to angels, or rely on angels.

People did talk to angels in scripture, angels were part of the lived experience in the old covenant and new covenant churches.

“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones; for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.”

“ Their angels “

We are bonded to our angels and they to us, they are devoted to our care and protection as we devoted to their patronage.

We do rely on our angels lest we dash our foot against a stone, or for much more serious things besides.
But it shows their level of care.

 

[Cathode]

Proverbs says “Iron sharpeneth iron,” but in this discussion you are standing opposed to the iron of Scripture and history, and you’re answering with devotional tradition and papal anecdotes. That’s fighting iron with papier‑mâché. Tradition cannot cut what Scripture and the historical record have already made clear.

The Bible isn’t a Protestant book it’s entirely from The Catholic and Apostolic Church inspired by The Holy Spirit.

Protestants aren’t Apostolic, didn’t preserve the scriptures and didn’t assemble the Bible. Catholics did.

Why do you think human founded traditions on human interpretations of scripture have more authority than the Catholic Church.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Bible isn’t a Protestant book it’s entirely from The Catholic and Apostolic Church inspired by The Holy Spirit.

Protestants aren’t Apostolic, didn’t preserve the scriptures and didn’t assemble the Bible. Catholics did.

Why do you think human founded traditions on human interpretations of scripture have more authority than the Catholic Church.

Cathode, you are again answering with devotional tradition rather than Scripture. The passages you quoted do not teach angelic patronage, angelic bonding, or angelic reliance. They teach angelic ministry under God’s command. “Their angels” in Matthew 18:10 does not mean personal guardian‑angel relationships or devotional practices. It means that angels who serve God on behalf of His people have direct access to the Father. Scripture never teaches believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

As for your claim that Catholics assembled the Bible, that is simply not true. The Bible is not a Catholic book. It is the Word of God, written by prophets and apostles long before Rome existed as a church. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel, not by Rome. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates, all of whom lived and died before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received the apostolic writings directly, copied them, circulated them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome did not create Scripture. Rome did not inspire Scripture. Rome did not determine Scripture. Rome inherited Scripture from the apostolic churches that existed before it.

The idea that Protestants are not apostolic is also historically inaccurate. Apostolicity is not defined by institutional succession. It is defined by fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine. The believers’ church line that carried Baptist distinctives long before the Reformation preserved Scripture, preached Scripture, copied Scripture, and suffered for Scripture. The Waldenses, the Paulicians, the Petrobrusians, the early Anabaptists, and the first English Baptists all held the apostolic writings as their sole authority. They did not rely on Rome to tell them what Scripture was. They recognized Scripture because the sheep hear the Shepherd’s voice.

Your argument assumes that the authority of Scripture depends on the authority of Rome. Scripture never teaches that. The apostles never teach that. The early churches never believed that. The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from any human institution. Rome did not assemble the Bible. Rome did not authorize the Bible. Rome did not preserve the Bible alone. The Word of God stands on its own authority, and the churches that held it before Rome and outside Rome testify to that fact.

So again, you are answering with tradition rather than Scripture. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman claims about assembling the Bible are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these things overturn the plain teaching of Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Bible isn’t a Protestant book it’s entirely from The Catholic and Apostolic Church inspired by The Holy Spirit.

Protestants aren’t Apostolic, didn’t preserve the scriptures and didn’t assemble the Bible. Catholics did.

Why do you think human founded traditions on human interpretations of scripture have more authority than the Catholic Church.

Cathode, you are doing what Catholic apologist do when they get cornered by Scripture, you retreat into the supposed safety of magisterial claims, apostolic succession rhetoric, and the “Catholics assembled the Bible” talking points. It is nothing more that catechetical reflex.

When pressed the Catholic retreats into institutional claims.

You shifted from:

• angels to
• “The Bible isn’t a Protestant book” to
• “Protestants aren’t apostolic” to
• “Catholics assembled the Bible” to
• Anything and everything to avoid the collapse of your argument it appears

This is the standard fallback when the biblical argument collapses. It is not a response. It is a deflection.