A reader writes:
I would like a brief description each of the 9 choirs of angels. Thanks you.
St. Thomas offers the best brief description of the nine choirs that I know of. It's found in two articles in the Summa Theologiae: HERE and HERE.
You also might want to read Pseudo-Dionysius's THE CELESTIAL HIERARCHY, which was the work that kicked off the whole nine choirs business.
There's a brief treatment of the subject in THE ARTICLE IN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.
And WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLE may have some useful bits, but it's got a bunch of unreliable junk mixed in, so be careful.
In fact, I'd urge caution regarding the whole idea of nine choirs of angels. This is a highly speculative way of classifying angels and is not part of Church teaching (you will note, for example, that it's not mentioned in the Catechism). The foundations of it are also shaky, biblically. It rests on stitching together several different passages of Scripture and then making the assumptions that the things mentioned in them (1) are all angels and (2) are all different types of angels.
Both of these assumptions are open to challenge.
For example, I am not convinced that there is a difference in kind between an angel and an archangel. The term archangelos in Greek simply indicates a high ranking angel. Archangels may differ from ordinary angels in the same way that high ranking officials differ from low ranking officials or the way that high ranking military officers differ from low ranking military officers. In other words: The difference is one of rank, not of essence.
Indeed, that is what suggested by the very terms. "Angel" in the biblical languages simply means "messenger," with the understanding that the angels are the messengers one would find in God's heavenly court, just as earthly kings have messengers in their courts. In earthly courts, some messengers may hold higher rank than others, but they're all human beings. In the same way, the distinction between a messenger and a high-ranking messenger would seem to be one of rank rather than kind.
When we come to cherubim and seraphim, we're on a little bit firmer ground. These at least look different when they appear in Scripture, though because of the way visionary experience works, I can't rule out the possibility that there is one underlying class of beings behind both, and sometimes it manifests in a way that conveys one visionary impression and sometimes it manifests in a way that conveys another.
Even if we grant that seraphim and cherubim are different from each other, though, that doesn't mean that they are distinct from the choir or choirs of angels and archangels. It might turn out that all angels are either seraphim or cherubim (that there isn't another class). And it might turn out that there are high ranking angels (archangels) among both the seraphim and the cherubim.
So these classes may all co-penetrate each other. They may not be four distinct classes, contrary to assumption (2), above.
When we look at the other five classes--thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, virtues--we're on even shakier ground because it isn't clear from Scripture that these are angelic beings at all. These names are derived from three passages in St. Paul's writings (I'll stick the relevant names after the key terms where it isn't obvious in the English translation):
[God] raised [Christ] from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule [principality] and authority [power] and power [virtue] and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come [Eph. 1:20-21].
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places [Eph. 6:10-12].
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [powers; it's the same word in Greek as in the former passage: exousiai]-- all things were created through him and for him [Col. 1:15-16].
It is not obvious in these passages that Paul is talking about distinct types of angels. That rests on a chain of assumptions that are open to challenge. It is not clear, for example, that he is thinking exclusively of the heavenly realm here. He may have earthly rulers in mind ("in heaven and on earth"), in which case some of these terms may be being used to describe humans. Even if we could identify which terms he's thinking of as referring to spiritual things, he may not be thinking of angels but of Greco-Roman religious concepts that use the same terms (e.g., virtues like Piety were often worshipped as deities, and the Roman emperor and many other rulers were worshipped as well), with the message being that Christ is superior to all of these and that we struggle against them as Christians. Even if we could show that these terms all referred to angels, this still wouldn't show that they are distinct classes of angels, any more than the fact that some humans could be described as principalities and some as powers wouldn't mean that they weren't all humans.
It strikes me as much more likely that Paul is speaking in a generalized way here, piling up near-synonyms that are intended to overlap--and overlap both the earthly and the heavenly spheres--in a way that makes it impossible to use this as a technical listing of different kinds of non-overlapping groups of angels that differ from each other in essence.
God being God does not have "wingy, pretty things" flying around Him all day.
Grow up, angels and their evil counterparts do not exist.
Posted by: Realist | February 01, 2007 at 07:09 AM
Realist,
Grow up and admit you are not Catholic.
I challenge you to act like an adult.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 01, 2007 at 07:11 AM
No one ever said that God has "'wingy, pretty things' flying around Him all day." Try, for once, not to put your ignorance on display.
Please show evidence for your latter statement.
Posted by: bill912 | February 01, 2007 at 07:12 AM
Realist,
CCC 328
The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.
CCC 2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith
Be an adult and admit that you preach heresy.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 01, 2007 at 07:21 AM
I pray the chaplet of St. Michael and I like that it has a salutation for each of the nine choirs
Christine
TheWorld...IMHO
Posted by: Christine | February 01, 2007 at 07:37 AM
In fact, I'd urge caution regarding the whole idea of nine choirs of angels. This is a highly speculative way of classifying angels and is not part of Church teaching (you will note, for example, that it's not mentioned in the Catechism).
Agreed, Jimmy. I have to confess that I get frustrated when I see primers on a Catholic teaching which fail to distinguish between the doctrine and it is taught by the Magisterium and its articulation & elaboration by theologians. As helpful as the latter usually are, they are not identical with the former, and when they are not distinguished sufficiently, it leads those reading the primer to conclude that the doctrine and the explanation are essentially one and the same.
A good example on the topic of angelology is Fr. Josee Antonio Fortea's excellent book, "Interview with an Exorcist". It's a great intro to the theology of exorcism, angels, and demons. Unfortunately, Fr. Fortea discusses the nine choirs of angels as if it were Church doctrine... I doubt that someone who didn't know what the Church does and does not teach on the issue would realize that Fr. Fortea is offering theological speculation and not proclaimed doctrine.
Posted by: Chris Burgwald | February 01, 2007 at 07:38 AM
"God being God does not have "wingy, pretty things" flying around Him all day.
Grow up, angels and their evil counterparts do not exist"
Actually, the fact that you are not God confirms that you lack the authority or experiential knowledge to make this comment.
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | February 01, 2007 at 07:54 AM
WOW, I wish I could post notes that got as much attention as Realist's posts.
BTW: Realist: There is no God because I've never seen him but there are angels because I used to watch the TV show.
;)
Posted by: Slowboy | February 01, 2007 at 08:01 AM
One thing is for sure. We will know this in the end and it will all be cleared up.
I believe in the different choirs of angels.
"God being God does not have "wingy, pretty things" flying around Him all day."
The depiction of angels with "wings" is just that. They are typically drawn, painted this way because of their ability to move at a moments thought. Thus they have wings.
And you are right, God does NOT HAVE TO have these BUT HE chose it that way. He did not have to consult us of our opinions of what/who should look like what, HE did it. He is God. Just like He does not depend on us, He did not have to create us, but HE chose to. That is humbling in itself.
Posted by: AnonnyMouse | February 01, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Just to throw a monkey (not the winged kind) wrench into the mix, scholasticism would posit that each angel is one of a kind, since as pure spirits, there cannot be a single form which exists in different instances of matter (i.e., a species with many individual beings); that is, each angel is a species of one, so that if there are a trillion angels, there are a trillion angel species. Which would mean that when Jimmy used the phrase "class of angels" he was being pretty precise.
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh | February 01, 2007 at 08:33 AM
Sigh. Another "Insert subject, spit out prefabricated talking point" drive-by regurgitation from Realist, whose mission in life is to persuade orthodox Catholics that modernists are incapable of dialogue and thoughtful discussion.
All-purpose Realist response
Is this pointless background noise really necessary? I would be happy to have Realist's participation if he actually participated.
As it is, though, he seems bent on getting himself uninvited to participate. I don't know how much longer Jimmy can continue in the name of charity to tolerate Realist's Rule 1 contempt.
Realist. Please. Grow up and enter the world of adult discourse. Who knows, you might like it.
Posted by: SDG | February 01, 2007 at 08:40 AM
I'm not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination (understatement of the century) but the way I read it was that each of the nine choirs has a particular role that is assigned to them--for instance, the Principalities are attendants of Mary. I have no idea how this meshes with accepted Catholic thought on the matter, but maybe the angels are all the same class of being, and they're arranged into choirs depending on what they do.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Megan Elizabeth | February 01, 2007 at 09:10 AM
If one were to attempt to find how "angelology" entered into Christianity, one need look no further than the Pseudo-Dionysius. Writing under the pseydonymn "Dionysius", the Pseduo-Dionysius duped many of the Eastern Fathers into believing that he was the disciple of St. Paul. This misindentification persisted through the Middle Ages causing even the greatest of the Scholastics (e.g. Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus) to accord an authority to the Pseudo-Dionysius that was typically reserved only for the great Fathers of the Church.
What historical studies have consistently shown since the late 19th century (much to the chagrin of many Orthodox and Catholic theologians), is that the "Pseudo-Dionysius" does not really have any authentic Christian idea, but simply recasts a variant of Neo-Platonism in Christian terms. When one does a text-by-text analysis between the works of Iamblicus, Proclus and Damasius on the one hand, and the Pseudo-Dionysius on the other, one will discover that the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus is nothing more than a synthesis of the Proclean school of Neo-Platonism (as opposed to the Porphyrian school that Augustine followed). The metaphysical system of the Pseudo-Dionysius is identical that of Proclus. The difference between the two thinker's is that Pseudo-Dionysius imports biblical verses to flank an already static and established cosmology. The result is Neo-Platonism disguised as Christian doctrine, which makes absolute sense since the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius were "discovered" in the 6th century during the time that the Christian Emperor Justinian was closing and outlawing the last Platonic schools of the empire. The Pseudo-Dionysius cleverly preserves the endangered ideas of Neo-Platonism by disguising them as Christian ideas. By employing a pseudonymn that comes from the Bible itself, the Pseudo-Dionysius likely was attempting to accord as much authority as possible to his writings so that they would survive the Christian persecution of Platonic thinking.
So where do the angels come in? If one reads carefully The Divine Names, the Mystical Theology and the Celestial Hierarchy, one sees the Pseudo-Dionysius employing the cosmological system of Iamblicus, who posited a supreme "deity" as beyond even the "One" of Plotinus. This supreme deity is so transcendent and ineffible that it cannot relate directly with the One, let only with all that emanates from the One (i.e. mind, world soul and nature). Thus, Iamblicus, and Proclus to an extent, posits intermediaries that are not themselves the One beyond the One, but are capable of providing spiritual connections between the One beyond the One and all that emanates from the One. These intermediataries are called "henads" in the Neo-Platonic system.
Preserving the Neo-Platonist cosmology, the Pseudo-Dionysius cleverly juxtaposes "henads" with "angels", creating a hierarchy or choir of intermediaries that leads from the supreme One to nature. The angelology of the Pseudo-Dionysius is not at all biblical, as Jimmy rightly points out, but is simply a recasting of the Neo-Platonic doctrine of the series of emanation and return within the cosmos.
Thomas Aquinas, who read the Pseudo-Dionysius with a critical eye, nevertheless accepted the authenticity of the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius. He thus imported the angelology of the Pseudo-Dionysius, not without modification, of course. While the Summa Theologiae is a good source, I recommend the work On Spiritual Creatures if you really want to understand Thomas on angels, their nature and their function. But be advised, Thomas relies heavily on the Pseudo-Dionysius for his angelology, and because the Pseudo-Dionsyius was not constructing an angelology based on Christian but pagan sources, one must be cautious in one's reading.
Next week sometime on my blog, I will be posting a research paper I recently did on the Pseudo-Dionysius and how his system is not, in fact, Christian, but purely pagan.
Posted by: Michael Joseph | February 01, 2007 at 09:22 AM
"Be not afraid, I'm just a common literary device; and that place I'm taking you to, that also is just a literary scare tactic." ; )
Always, I wouldn't necessarily knock off the Choirs fully. True they are not part of the Catechism, but its job it to include the full core and essential parts of the faith. E.g. although it defines saints it doesn't include the full description of the process of canonization, or that there is a liturgical year, but it doesn't divide it into the nuts and bolts of the seasons and how many weeks, except for Easter.
The Choirs are a part of Catholicism that always puzzled me about conversion in general. It's part of the heritage, a little extra something that is not official but still known, kind of like the Harrowing of Hell or the lives of the saints. It doesn't surprise me that they were included in a primer book. A person can learn, research, or convert to Catholicism with its core tenants, and still miss a whole plethora of due to personal ignorance.
Although I know that this is more in the realm of theological exercise, I cannot shake off the fact that Aquinas included them in his Summa. Also for the books blending the lines between doctrine and theology let me put it this way: Even if the distinction was made explicit in the book, people have a tendency to blatantly ignore such details when dealing with Catholicism so it fits to their advantage.
Posted by: Skygor | February 01, 2007 at 09:23 AM
So far as angels being merely "wingy, pretty things," I'm reminded of this quote from Chesterton:
Posted by: MenTaLguY | February 01, 2007 at 09:36 AM
God being God does not have "wingy, pretty things" flying around Him all day.
Darn! Too bad I missed that in both the bible and the catechism!
Just were in tarnations, either in the bible or in the catechism, does it actually mention that angels are "wingy, pretty things" that fly around Him all day?
Watevah!
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 09:38 AM
While the divison of the angels into nine choirs, or further into three rings or hierarchies, does not have the "absolute value" of dogma, it has been taught by Church Fathers (Pope Gregory I) and Doctors (St. Thomas Aquinas), among many others up to our day.
Pope John Paul II showed it the respect due to it when speaking of the angels at his Wednesday Audiences of July/August 1986. He mentions that in addition to finding the distinctions in Scripture, they are mentioned in the liturgy (an element of that other font of Revelation, Tradition). This is more prominent in the Eastern liturgies, but even the Roman Rite takes these distinction of the choirs for granted. On August 6th, the Pope stated,
"Sacred Scripture refers to the angels also by using terms that are not only personal (like the proper names of Raphael, Gabriel, Michael) but also "collective" (like the titles: seraphim, cherubim, thrones, powers, dominions, principalities), just as it distinguishes between angels and archangels. While bearing in mind analogous and representative character of the language of the sacred text, we can deduce that these beings and persons, as it were grouped together in society, are divided into orders and grades, corresponding to the measure of their perfection and to the tasks entrusted to them. The ancient authors and the liturgy itself speak also of the angelic choirs (nine, according to Dionysius the Areopagite)."
"Theology, especially in the patristic and medieval periods, has not rejected these representations, seeking to explain them in doctrinal and mystical terms, without, however, attributing an absolute value to them."
So, while the theology explaining the division of the pure spirits into nine choirs has many elements of speculation about it, the Church herself teaches the distinctions from Scripture and Tradition. It would seem, therefore, to be capable of being dogmaticized, though it has not been.
For more information on the angels in Catholic teaching go to www.raphael.net
Posted by: Colin Donovan | February 01, 2007 at 10:10 AM
To be fair, I think a lot of people do conceive of angels as "wingy, pretty things." Of course, growing up means developing a more mature understanding of them through reading Scripture and documents like the Catechism. It doesn't mean pretending they don't exist.
Posted by: MenTaLguY | February 01, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Setting aside the scriptural and patristic arguments for a moment, one could make an analogical argument from the natural world. In nature God has populated every imaginable niche with some wonderful form of life. The spiritual world is bound to be infinitely richer than the natural world, so I would imagine that God has created a superabundance of spiritual creatures of varying function and beauty. It'll really be something to see... I don't think "nine choirs" even gets close to the reality.
Posted by: Curious | February 01, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Is this the Colin Donovan off EWTN? Thank you for that explaination!!!
Posted by: AnonnyMouse | February 01, 2007 at 10:15 AM
"Grow up, angels and their evil counterparts do not exist."
That's right, Realist; they're merely literary devices!
Just like one story that Fr. Corapi told:
There was a sweet little old lady attending a Catholic conference on Bible stories. She was seated in the front row listening to a speech being given by an ‘enlightened’ priest was explaining how angels in the Bible were actually ‘literary devices’ used to flesh out a theme.
Well, this didn’t sit to well with the sweet little old lady. So much so that people seated around her during the speech could hear her mutter:
“I wish one of those literary devices would come down from heaven and whack you upside the head.”
After the ‘enlightened’ priest was done with his lecture, he sat next to this sweet little old lady waiting for the next speaker.
The sweet little old lady at this point in her life was not too concerned anymore of what people thought about her. So she leaned over to whisper to this ‘enlightened’ priest a question:
“Do you believe in Hell?”
To which the 'enlightened' priest smiled and chuckled, said:
“Why no, of course not, there is no such thing.”
The sweet little old lady then said quite satisfactorily:
“You will when you get there!”
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 10:20 AM
As Fr. Corapi has elaborately pointed out:
There have been a number of television shows, movies and various articles on the subject of angels and the demonic in recent years. Most of this material is pure fiction, yet the part that is not fiction is an acknowledgment that they both exist.
As part of the church's catechesis on creation it is necessary to speak of both the angels and the devil, Satan, or the demonic. "The Apostles' Creed professes that God is the 'Creator of heaven and earth.' The Nicene Creed makes it explicit that this profession includes 'all that is, seen and unseen" (Catechism #325).
"The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body" (#327).
The Catechism clearly asserts that "the existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls 'angels' is a truth of the faith" (#328), the witness of Scripture being as unanimous as tradition. In other words, there is no question about it: the angels are real, not the figment of someone's medieval imagination. It is a truth of the faith. This quite simply means that for a Catholic, one must accept this as part of God's revelation. One may not understand it, but one must accept it on faith, and then seek the understanding that faith can ultimately bring. Although, it being understood, that we'll never understand in this life God and all his mighty works perfectly. We would have to be God to understand him perfectly.
The angels are creatures, pure spiritual beings whose mission or office is to be messengers and servants of God (#329). "As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, [with the exception of the Mother of God] as the splendor of their glory bears witness" (#330).
The Lord Jesus Christ is the author, center, and end of all creation including the angelic world. They are "his angels." As the Catechism teaches, "they belong to him because they were created through and for him...They belong to him still more because he has made them messengers of his saving plan" (#331).
The existence and activity of the angels is more than obvious in both the Old and New Testaments. To say, by the way, that they are mere "literary figures" in Scripture in the name of so-called biblical scholarship is an affront to and an attack upon true scholarship. All Scripture has to be read as a totality, in the light of tradition, and applying the analogy of faith. When this is done it is clear that the church's teaching is constant in that angels are real beings, not mere literary devices. They have played a key role in salvation history:
"Angels have been present since creation...They closed the earthly paradise; protected Lot; saved Hagar and her child; stayed Abraham's hand; communicated the law...led the People of God; announced birth's and callings; assisted the prophets...; the Angel Gabriel announced the birth of the Precursor and that of Jesus himself (#332).
"From the Incarnation to the Ascension, the life of the Word incarnate is surrounded by the adoration and service of angels...[They announced his birth to the poor shepherds];...they protect Jesus in his infancy, serve him in the desert, strengthen him in his agony in the garden...It is the angels who evangelize' by proclaiming the Good News of Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection. They will be present at Christ's return, which they will announce, to serve at his judgment (# 333).
These events wherein the angels exercised their ministry as messengers and servants of the Lord are real, as the church asserts. The entire life of the church, the mystical body of Christ, is likewise aided and benefited by the mysterious and powerful help of the angels (#334).
In addition, each and every person benefits from the ministry of the angels. The church has long taught that we have a "guardian angel" to guide and protect us through life. "From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their (the angels') watchful care and intercession. Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life." Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.
The existence and malevolent activity of the devil or Satan and the fallen angels or demons is likewise a teaching of the church that must be accepted by all. "The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing (#391).
Through the misuse of the gifts of intellect and free will the devil (Lucifer) and those who went his way chose irrevocably to reject God and his reign. Their choice is irrevocable because of their higher nature. Men get a second chance, and many more than that, but the angels clearly saw what they were doing. Hence, "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death" (#393).
Christ came to cast out the evil one and his works of lying and death, and did so through the humble obedience which led him always to accept the Father's will, even unto the death of the cross. The essence of the diabolic is that pride and arrogance which leads to disobedience. This leads to fracturing and division. Stepping outside of the truth who is God himself results in this division.
Those who are most powerful in Christ through his church, which is called to fight against "the liar and father of lies, the murderer from the beginning" (cf.. Jn 8:42f) (the devil), are those who are most humbly obedient to God's authority working through the church. The devil can do nothing when he comes up against those who obey most humbly Christ's church and her teachings. On the other hand, he is most powerful and untiringly active working through those who imagine themselves to be above the church's teaching authority. Humility leads to obedience, which leads to life. Pride leads to disobedience, which leads to death. This is the lesson of the book of Genesis. It is the lesson of the cross.
With the angels of the Lord we humbly and obediently praise and give thanks to the Father through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit for all that God's creative and redemptive power has wrought.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Michael Joseph,
Are you denying the existence of angels or just the distinction of choirs or classes?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 01, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Apologies, Jimmy.
I wanted to block the above to reduce the area it would cover but it was unsuccessful. Please kindly delete if it is too much. God bless.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 10:26 AM
To reiterate the point, Realist:
To say, by the way, that they are mere "literary figures" in Scripture in the name of so-called biblical scholarship is an affront to and an attack upon true scholarship.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Who Has Seen the Wind?
Christina Rossetti
Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling
The wind is passing thro'.
Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I:
But when the trees bow down their heads
The wind is passing by.
Posted by: Pseudomodo | February 01, 2007 at 10:54 AM
A spirit is where it acts.
Posted by: pseudomodo | February 01, 2007 at 10:55 AM
“In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles” -- David Ben-Gurion
Posted by: John E | February 01, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Michael Joseph,
Are you denying the existence of angels or just the distinction of choirs or classes?
Neither. I simply wanted to trace a very general geneaology of angelology within the Christian theological tradition. The Pseudo-Dionysius' modes of "henads" out of the Neo-Platonic tradition, while pagan, is not necessarily false. However, it is important to note that the concept of the "choir of angels" did not originate in Christianty through biblical reflection and theological reasoning, but through the clever deception of a pagan philosopher (i.e. the Pseudo-Dionysius). Nevertheless, 1500 years later, many Catholics are led to assume that the hierarchy of angels is a distinctive Christian notion when, in fact, it is a transposition from a Neo-Platonic cosmology that rejects a creating God and the possibility that this God can come into direct contact with creation a la an incarnation. I do not deny the existence of angels. But it remains to be analyzed whether the "choir of angels" has any real Judeo-Christian meaning or support apart from the influence of the Pseudo-Dionysius.
Posted by: Michael Joseph | February 01, 2007 at 11:06 AM
it is important to note that the concept of the "choir of angels" did not originate in Christianty through biblical reflection and theological reasoning, but through the clever deception of a pagan philosopher (i.e. the Pseudo-Dionysius).
That's strange; I could've sworn that in Jewish tradition, there existed certain groups of angels! Damn my Jewish heritage for teaching me thus! It was actually the pagans all along!
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 11:12 AM
As Rabbi Dennis had lectured:
A number of numinous creatures subordinate to God appear through the Hebrew Bible; the Malach (messenger/angel) is only one variety. Others, distinguished from angels proper, include Irinim (Watchers/High Angels), Cherubim (Mighty Ones), Sarim (Princes), Seraphim (Fiery Ones), Chayyot ([Holy] Creatures), and Ofanim (Wheels). Collective terms for the full array of numina serving God include: Tzeva, (Host), B'nei ha-Elohim or B'nai Elim (Sons of God), and Kedoshim (Holy Ones). They are constituted in an Adat El, a divine assembly (Ps. 82; Job 1). A select number of angels in the Bible (three to be precise) have names. They are Michael, Gabriel, and Satan.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 11:20 AM
scholasticism would posit that each angel is one of a kind, since as pure spirits, there cannot be a single form which exists in different instances of matter (i.e., a species with many individual beings); that is, each angel is a species of one, so that if there are a trillion angels, there are a trillion angel species.
This is certainly what St Thomas says, but to say it's the position of "scholasticism" is not at all true. It only follows if one accepts the Thomistic theory of individuation, which is simply one among many of the scholastic theories. Many of the scholastics, including "big ones" like St Bonaventure and Bl John Duns Scotus, reject this metaphysical theory, and for them any given species of angel is definitely capable of having more than one member.
Posted by: Michael Sullivan | February 01, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Michael Jospeph noted:
"However, it is important to note that the concept of the "choir of angels" did not originate in Christianty through biblical reflection and theological reasoning, but through the clever deception of a pagan philosopher (i.e. the Pseudo-Dionysius). Nevertheless, 1500 years later, many Catholics are led to assume that the hierarchy of angels is a distinctive Christian notion when, in fact, it is a transposition from a Neo-Platonic cosmology that rejects a creating God and the possibility that this God can come into direct contact with creation a la an incarnation. I do not deny the existence of angels. But it remains to be analyzed whether the "choir of angels" has any real Judeo-Christian meaning or support apart from the influence of the Pseudo-Dionysius."
Conclusion: Common sense and Michael Joseph's analysis at least with respect to choirs of "wingy, pretty things" compliment each other. i.e. choirs of angels and their evil counter parts do not exist.
Do you find it strange that our "guardian angels" have disappeared. Always liked that prayer , "Angel of God my guardian dear etc.". Then I grew up and so did most Catholics who never mention the guardians anymore. Another throwback to Pseudo-Dionysius no doubt. What does the CC say about the guardians?
Hmmm, I'll be it is still listed. #335
Do you think my angel will be demoted? Have his wings clipped? Darn I hope not!!! I need him to sink those putts.
Posted by: Realist | February 01, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Maybe you and your fellow non-Catholics don't mention Guardian Angels; we Catholics do.
Posted by: bill912 | February 01, 2007 at 12:58 PM
scholasticism would posit that each angel is one of a kind, since as pure spirits, there cannot be a single form which exists in different instances of matter (i.e., a species with many individual beings); that is, each angel is a species of one, so that if there are a trillion angels, there are a trillion angel species.
This is certainly what St Thomas says, but to say it's the position of "scholasticism" is not at all true. It only follows if one accepts the Thomistic theory of individuation
I believe there may be some misunderstanding here.
Just like man belongs to the species of human beings, there would be, yet, something that a man has as an individual that is above and beyond this human nature which distinguishes him from others of the same species; so it is with angels.
If each angel was a species onto themselves, there would be more than just nine angelic orders.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Realist:
What does Scripture say?
Mt 18:10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.
Sounds like scriptural support for the existence guardian angels.
Of course, you pick and choose what Jesus actually said in the bible since you, of all people, know exactly what Jesus said while he was alive.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Realist,
I will believe you "grew up" the day you believe in angels.
Real men seek to be virtuous and not childish.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 01, 2007 at 01:44 PM
I don't believe Realist exists.
Posted by: Tim J. | February 01, 2007 at 03:52 PM
That's strange; I could've sworn that in Jewish tradition, there existed certain groups of angels! Damn my Jewish heritage for teaching me thus! It was actually the pagans all along!
Divisions of angels and hierarchies of angels are not co-extensive. Scripture speaks of "angels" (which Augustine noted refers to an office or function) and different divisions of angels. However, the "choirs" of angels as a hierarchy of mediation between God and man is not a Judeo-Christian notion, but a principle of Neo-Platonic exitus/reditus cosmology. Whether or not angels are arranged in a distinct hierarchy is not known through revelation or by reason. My sole point is that the notion that there is a ranking of angels is first described in the Pseudo-Dionysius where he substitutes "angel" for "henad". I invite anyone to read the Pseudo-Dionysius along side both the Bible and the Neo-Platonists if they are in doubt of my claims.
Posted by: Michael Joseph | February 01, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Michael Joseph -
You stated:
it is important to note that the concept of the "choir of angels" did not originate in Christianty through biblical reflection and theological reasoning, but through the clever deception of a pagan philosopher (i.e. the Pseudo-Dionysius).
Can you explain, then, the following from Jewish tradition or do you actually know more about Judaism than the rabbi scholar from which it came from?
It seems you merely obtained material to fit your conclusion rather than objectively conducting an unbiased, not to mention, extensive research on the matter and failed to consult multiple sources on the subject. If I conducted research similarly and focussed only on those things that would corroborate my conclusion, I would certainly be successful likewise in all such endeavors!
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Posted by: | February 01, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Grow up, angels and their evil counterparts do not exist.
Become as a little child, Realist.
Posted by: Mary | February 01, 2007 at 05:06 PM
Esau:
no mistake. St Thomas really thinks there there is only one angel to a species, and every angel is as different from every other angel as cats are from dogs. The angelic choirs or hierarchies are not divisions of angelic species but are groupings of angels of different species together according to a common function. But, as I said, other scholastics don't think this and hold that a species can have many individual angels, just as humanity can include many men.
Posted by: Michael Sullivan | February 01, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Appreciate the info, Michael!
Actually, the latter was what I was driving at in my post above -- as I stated:
Put another way, man belonging to the species of man and, yet, as an individual, possessing that which distinguishes him from every other man of the same species. Similarly, this, to me, would go for the angels under that same type of framework.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 05:17 PM
From the Jewish Study Bible, Kethuvim, (writings)
"For He will order His angels
to guard you wherever you go." Ps. 91.11
Well, looks like I've got mine!
Posted by: kaneohe | February 01, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Esau,
the individual nature of angels makes logical sense. Why are all humans part of the same species? Because we are all descended from the same first parents. We are a family. Angels aren't descended from anything, so they aren't related to each other in that sense.
God Bless,
Matt
Posted by: Matt | February 01, 2007 at 06:16 PM
the individual nature of angels makes logical sense. Why are all humans part of the same species? Because we are all descended from the same first parents. We are a family. Angels aren't descended from anything, so they aren't related to each other in that sense.
Great reasoning, Matt!
I wasn't necessarily knocking this down, but merely desiring to know in my original post to the two parties concerned if whether or not there was a misunderstanding in the matter.
Certainly, what you have said here on this Thomastic thought would appear to make great sense.
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Wow. Just wow, Realist. Guardian angels aren't talked about anymore? Perhaps not in "Gee-zis" Seminar but, that's like a Buddhist saying "Man, nobody talks about the seven Sacraments at my temple." I'm 31 and I still pray that Guardian Angel prayer and talk to him all of the time.
As for "wingy, pretty things" ... to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, only an immature individual could really imagine that angels could ever be like those fat, infantile sissies or the "there there" girly-girls of pop art, considering that their appearance are always so frightful to those they appear to (e.g. it is often accompanied by a "Fear not!") But, given that they're pure spirit, I guess they can manifest however they like.
As for the evil counterparts, Realist ... I pray that you'll never need to be shown them in person. It's not pleasant.
Esau: Not to stir up trouble, but the reference to "seen and unseen" is an inexact translation. If we were to translate the Latin literally it'd be like "visable and invisible." That distinction is important since something, say outside my closed door is unseen but not intrinsically invisible, whereas an angel is invisible unless it wishes to manifest itself.
Posted by: Jared | February 01, 2007 at 07:35 PM
Jared:
Not to stir up trouble, but the reference to "seen and unseen" is an inexact translation
Actually, you're not stirring up trouble.
I agree/i> with you, brother!!!
And I'm glad you pointed that out!
That's why I don't necessarily much enjoy the English version of the Nicene Creed.
Even the "lead us not into temptation" translation in the Our Father is atrocious!
Does God really lead us to temptation???
Posted by: Esau | February 01, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Posted by: | February 01, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Talk to God or your guardian angel all you want it does not work this way in the reality of the Universe. I reiterate:
God started the Big Bang. He/She also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.
So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca six times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!
Posted by: Realist | February 01, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I've always found this idea of the choirs of angels dumb. St. Paul clearly wan't talking about angels in thos passages, for one thing.
I don't think that Aquinas' idea of each spirit (whether angel or human soul) being its own species is important. It seems to me it has more relevance for the meaning of the word species than for the actual reality.
If you accept the idea of distinctly different forms meaning it is a different species then fine, but that doesn't mean two individuals are any less similar than if you define the word species differently so that you could include multiple forms in the same species.
However you settle the debate it will say nothing about how different an individual angel is from another.
I personally favor the idea that created spirits should be devided into pure spirits (angels/demons) and human souls. Human souls are likely all rather similar to each other, angels I don't know. There definitely seem to be greater and lesser angels, though whether this has to do with their innate nature or their honor or dishonor before God I don't know.
Maybe, given Satan's clear superiority among the demons, some are really created more powerful than others. Still, I see no reason to divide them into distinct classes.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Realist: You still sound like Screwtape, dude.
Again, prayer is a part of the commands of our faith. You're contradicting yourself. Repeatedly contradicting yourself. Don't you even see that? Seriously. To tell someone to follow the rules of their religion after you've told him to disobey those same frikkin' rules is ... really, really childish.
-------------------------
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "You guys can stop your prayin', but make sure you do what your religion tells you to."
Catholic: "But my religion says I should pray and work. Ora et labora, as the Benedictines say."
Mohammedan: "And mine says to bow to Mecca."
Hindoo: "Mine says cows are sacred. Sort of. I don't worship them, anyway. To most of us, they're taboo. And yeah, some Hindus just think they're really gosh darn cool. Are you telling me they're not."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "Right ... well, no ... but ... but that's not what I meant. I meant you should follow MY rules about what makes you a good person."
Mohammedan: "But you just said I should follow the commandments of my religion."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "Right, but I meant you should follow my commandments."
Catholic: "And who the deuce are you?"
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "I'm-"
Mohammedan: "Are you Mohammed (peace be etc. etc.)?"
King of Siam: "Et cetera, et cetera."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "Um ... what? Um ... no."
Catholic: "Are you the Pope."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "Well ... no. But I'm Catholic. Sorta."
Zool: "Are you a god?"
Dr. Raymond Stantz: "Careful how you answer THAT one."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "Uuuuuuuh ...."
Mohammedan: "And you don't know if Heaven exists."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "Well ...."
Zool: "Heh heh heh. Reminds me of my old pals the Saducees."
"Gee-zis" Seminar type: "I LOVE those guys!"
Zool and "Gee-zis" Seminar type walk off arm-in-arm singing "Cum-bai-yah."
------------------------
Sorry to repeat myself, but you need to see that others can use the [ctrl + V] command, too.
Posted by: Jared | February 02, 2007 at 01:00 AM
Stoodley: To dismiss the idea of the choirs of angels (an idea taught by many great saints and scholars) as "dumb" is beneath you. Seriously, I expect better from you. If you want to say that you don't believe it, that the hierarchy can't be quantified that way etc. (et cetera et cetera), that's one thing. But, "dumb?" Perhaps a different word might be in order when referring to the teaching of one whom only the truly foolish actually believed to be a "Dumb Ox."
Posted by: Jared | February 02, 2007 at 01:05 AM
St. Thomas Aquinas was intelligent, but I see no reason for his teaching here. I'll call it dumb until someone points out any reason to believe it. As an abstract idea, even very smart people can make dumb mistakes now and then.
Perhaps with Aquinas' resources it seemed more likely to him. Perhaps there are reasons to believe it that are not to be found in Scipture or Pseudo-Dionysius. Until I see any such thing I'll stick to this being one of the dumber theories, or rather superstitions, I've encountered.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 01:46 AM
Stoodley: Okay, but you're starting to sound like Realist.
Posted by: Jared | February 02, 2007 at 01:51 AM
Sorry. I guess this is something that irks me more than most issues. It just seems like such nonsense and I can't believe anyone today buys into it. If you have any resources that would open my eyes to any merit in the theory whatsoever, or any Magisterial teaching supporting it, then I would appreciate it.
My understanding though is that this is not a matter of Catholic orthodoxy but a legend based on an idiotic if not dishonest interpretation of scripture by a guy falsely claiming to be St. Dionysius, which was then accepted by many in the Church for centuries because they thought it was an authentic teaching from apostolic times, but which we are or should be finally realizing is fake.
I'll try to look up what St. Thomas wrote on it, in particular what reasoning he had for accepting it or if it was just that he accepted or assumed pseudo-Dionysius was authentic.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 02:06 AM
Stoodley: You write "It just seems like such nonsense and I can't believe anyone today buys into it."
Um, is that a bit of "chronological snobbery" (as coined by C.S. Lewis) entering into the fray? Why should today's views on this be more advanced than great thinkers like Aquinas, Gregory, or John Paul II? What could possibly have changed in our knowledge on the subject matter (angelology) to discredit the thing itself? Does, as the liberal "theologian" (whose name escapes me) asserted, the fact that we use electric lights automatically mean that St. Thomas et al were wrong?
My point is that you seem to have nothing upon which to base the statement that it's dumb (am I wrong?) so, perhaps a bit of delving in is justified before you pronounce such a sentence.
I'm sorry that this post sounds as strident as I know it does. Please understand that it's not the exact assertion you've made (the nine-choir theory of angelology is "dumb" and "superstitious") that irks me, so much as your apparent reasoning behind making such an assertion.
I'm not trying to sound like a jerk (even though, to some, I frequently do).
Posted by: Jared | February 02, 2007 at 02:43 AM
"St. Paul clearly wasn't talking about angels in those passages..."
Maybe my reading glasses are fogged over, but I don't see why it's clear.
Posted by: bill912 | February 02, 2007 at 05:37 AM
Re: Pseudo-Dionysius
Guys, we have all heard of "spoils of the Egyptians", right? Anything good is Christian, yada yada?
Anonymous Philosopher Christian Dude/tte had every right in the world to steal wholesale from any pagan source he wanted. His readers at the time probably were perfectly well aware that this was what he was doing, and obviously thought it was a good idea. (Whether or not they recognized his work as a St. Dionysius fanfic.)
Re: choirs of angels
There are many things St. Thomas Aquinas took the time to talk about which I wouldn't've. This doesn't make me think he's being dumb. It just makes me think he's got different interests than I do. Personally, I think the issue of angelic telepathy and intelligent beings from other worlds is much more relevant to Christianity today. :) (And whaddaya know, the good saint wrote about those things, too.)
Posted by: Maureen | February 02, 2007 at 07:11 AM
I've always found this idea of the choirs of angels dumb.
and
Still, I see no reason to divide them into distinct classes.
J.R. Stoodley:
If the concept of the choir of angels is so "dumb" as you so nastily assert it to be, then why is there a similar (though, perhaps, not as systematically developed) view in Jewish tradition???
For instance, from a rabbi scholar:
A number of numinous creatures subordinate to God appear through the Hebrew Bible; the Malach (messenger/angel) is only one variety. Others, distinguished from angels proper, include Irinim (Watchers/High Angels), Cherubim (Mighty Ones), Sarim (Princes), Seraphim (Fiery Ones), Chayyot ([Holy] Creatures), and Ofanim (Wheels). Collective terms for the full array of numina serving God include: Tzeva, (Host), B'nei ha-Elohim or B'nai Elim (Sons of God), and Kedoshim (Holy Ones). They are constituted in an Adat El, a divine assembly (Ps. 82; Job 1). A select number of angels in the Bible (three to be precise) have names. They are Michael, Gabriel, and Satan.
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 08:26 AM
Michael Joseph,
"since the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius were "discovered" in the 6th century during the time that the Christian Emperor Justinian was closing and outlawing the last Platonic schools of the empire."
In Fr. John Hardon's The Catholic Catechism page 85, he states:
St. Paul clearly distinguishes several classes of angelic spirits-- thrones and dominiations, principalities and powers, archangels and powers, to which Christian tradition has added the cherubim and seraphim, from the Old Testament, and the "common" angels. By the time of St. Ambrose (330-97), the present number of nine "choirs" of angels had become established in Christian piety.
And St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Trallians writes about different orders and host:
For even I, though I am bound [for Christ], and am able to understand heavenly things, the angelic orders, and the different sorts of angels and hosts...
It seems that the tradition of orders or choirs seems to proceed the 6th century "discovery" of the writings of pseudo-Dionysius.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Folks:
I don't believe it's a coincidence that there is a shadow of the "choir" of angels in Jewish tradition that, though admittedly a more primitive version, reflects the concept of the choir of angels that came to be in Christianity:
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 08:59 AM
"God is not able"
Realist,
That's the dumbest thing you've said yet.
God can do as he pleases. He can alter anything He wills to alter, so long as the alteration does not conflict with his perfection.
BTW, God isn't a he or she. He is a spirit.
Posted by: David B. | February 02, 2007 at 09:00 AM
J.R. Stoodley,
"St. Paul clearly wasn't talking about angels in those passages, for one thing."
What makes you think St. Paul is not talking about angels in this passage that Jimmy quoted?
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places [Eph. 6:10-12]
Earlier in Ephesians St. Paul clearly states that pricipalities and powers are in the heavenly places.
that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. [Eph. 3:10]
It seems that the tradition of orders or choirs of angels can't simply be disregarded as superstitious.
The earlier quotation from Pope John Paul II shouldn't be ignored either.
"Sacred Scripture refers to the angels also by using terms that are not only personal (like the proper names of Raphael, Gabriel, Michael) but also "collective" (like the titles: seraphim, cherubim, thrones, powers, dominions, principalities), just as it distinguishes between angels and archangels. While bearing in mind analogous and representative character of the language of the sacred text, we can deduce that these beings and persons, as it were grouped together in society, are divided into orders and grades, corresponding to the measure of their perfection and to the tasks entrusted to them. The ancient authors and the liturgy itself speak also of the angelic choirs (nine, according to Dionysius the Areopagite)."
I am of course talking about small-t tradition. Nine choirs of angels seems to be a basic Catholic understanding of distinctions of the angelic hosts.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 09:03 AM
"God is not able..."
This may be the ultimate oxymoron.
Posted by: bill912 | February 02, 2007 at 09:13 AM
This being the case, Realist is not able to alter his mind and questions to him will not be answered.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 09:20 AM
I believe in prayer, Realist. I'm still praying you will become a Christian some day.
I think it's funny how you uncritically accept the reality of something called a "big bang" that was supposed to have happened a bajillion years ago COMPLETELY on the authority of the unproven (and unproveable) theories of certain scientists, but then you think it silly that anyone might believe in a miracle on the authority of eyewitnesses.
I have no problem with the Big Bang. If it occurred, though, it is as much a miracle and a mystery as any healing or resurrection. If God "started" the Big Bang, then He was interfering with nature. If He interfered then, He can do so now, if He wishes.
It is HIS universe. Why should I be allowed to act in it - to alter it by the exercise of my free will - while HE is not?
Posted by: Tim J. | February 02, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Don't expect an answer, Tim; you're outside the tiny box his puny, limited god is stuck in.
Posted by: bill912 | February 02, 2007 at 09:57 AM
God started the Big Bang. He/She also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.
Realist:
Sound like some pretty dogmatic statements to me.
Now, how do you know, exactly, for a fact that what all you've laid out here (these various conjectures of yours that you've formed independently) is actually true?
You say God started the Big Bang (which implies this God possesses such great and awesome power) but then you jump to the conclusion: This being the case, God is not able to alter life.
You even said in another post: prophets and prophecies are not possible for even God does not know the Future.
It appears that this magnificent being called "God" who is so powerful enough to start the Big Bang and, essentially, create the world in this manner is somehow, in spite of all this, an impotent being by your characterization of Him.
Further, you seem to attribute various human qualities to him.
(not unlike how the gods of Greek myths were attributed various human characteristics back in the days of antiquity, I might add)
Your reasoning seems to suggest that God is a someone who started an experiment called the "Big Bang" and, though He was powerful enough to cause such a thing, He cannot account for the outcome of His experiment and how His experiment would turn out; very much like an experiment gone wild which He has no control over.
Yet, you neglect that since the Big Bang precedes all of creation; this would make Him, undoubtedly, the Prime Mover and First Cause of all things (i.e., creator of all things) and, thus, would indicate that He is, therefore, a Supreme Being.
How, then, can you impose such human limitations on a Supreme Being?
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 10:39 AM
My "pretty, wingy" guardian angel just flew in. Anyone have any requests? Her time is limited this time around. Apparently I have used too much of her fairy dust in the past. Hmmm, fairies and angels?
Posted by: Realist | February 02, 2007 at 10:44 AM
An example of a juvenile who thinks himself an adult, but isn't able to understand adult conversation.
Posted by: bill912 | February 02, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I'm in a rush right now. I plan to write a better response later but for right now let me just point out that I don't intend to dismiss the idea of any heirarchy of angels as stupid, nor do I mean to offend anyone. I refered only to this particular nine-choir theory. More later.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 01:44 PM
I personally don't believe it's mere coincidence that there is a shadow of the "choir" of angels in Jewish tradition that, though admittedly a more primitive version, reflects the concept of the choir of angels that came to be in Christian tradition:
A number of numinous creatures subordinate to God appear through the Hebrew Bible; the Malach (messenger/angel) is only one variety. Others, distinguished from angels proper, include Irinim (Watchers/High Angels), Cherubim (Mighty Ones), Sarim (Princes), Seraphim (Fiery Ones), Chayyot ([Holy] Creatures), and Ofanim (Wheels). Collective terms for the full array of numina serving God include: Tzeva, (Host), B'nei ha-Elohim or B'nai Elim (Sons of God), and Kedoshim (Holy Ones). They are constituted in an Adat El, a divine assembly (Ps. 82; Job 1). A select number of angels in the Bible (three to be precise) have names. They are Michael, Gabriel, and Satan.
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 01:57 PM
+J.M.J+
>>>God started the Big Bang. He/She also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.
Hmmm... sounds a lot like Deism.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | February 02, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Realist aside, it sounds like most of the parties here are pretty comfortable with the notion of choirs of angels, per se.
It sounds to me more like some people are just uncomfortable with the Pseudo-Dyonysian account specifically, given that it has its roots in a historical deception.
Posted by: MenTaLguY | February 02, 2007 at 02:20 PM
First of all, I meant no offence against those who believe in the nine choir idea and I apologize if I gave it. By saying an idea is dumb and that I am surprised it is still so popular I don't mean that those who believe it are dumb. It has very thouroughly woven itself into Catholic thought despite not, as far as I can tell at least, being derrived from Scripture or Tradition in any rational way.
Note that in the quote provided JPII did not specifically teach the idea, though he indicated that he personally accpted the idea. Given that other geniuses in the Church before him, like St. Thomas Aquinas, also accepted the legend this is disappointing but not completely surprising.
Now, we all seem to be in agreement that this is not a matter of big T Tradition, and that the Church does not formally teach it. Further Pseudo-Dionysius bases his conclusions from the Bible. Therefore this seems to be a case where we can indeed go to the Bible and see if the interpretation pans out. I guess for lenth I'll do that on another post.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 02:48 PM
I love this subject.
Posted by: Amator Angelorum | February 02, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Non Angli sed angeli.
Posted by: Amator Angelorum | February 02, 2007 at 02:52 PM
I said before that St. Paul clearly isn't refering to angels. What I should have said is he clearly isn't refering to the angels of God. The fallen angels, yes.
Just like Jimmy said, it is pretty clear that St. Paul in Eph. 1 and Col. 1 is refering to both human and demonic enemies of the Christians, including both in a series of overlaping near-synonyms like rule, authority, power, and dominion. In Eph. 6 he refers to demons specifically in a similar manner. At most one could possibly infer from this that not all demons are equal, that they have either different qualities in and of themselves or different relations to the earth in this present darkness. One could not reasonably infer a heirarchy of God's faithful angels and give to them as titles words St. Paul used to refer to evil humans and demons.
Already the classic nine choir system has crumbled, but lets look at Seraphim and Cherubim.
The Seraphim are these four living creatures that are described several times in the OT and NT. I like the idea that they represent the whole of physical creation, by portraying what were considered the strongest, swiftest, noblest, and wisest physical creatures. I would like to see ancient authorities that claimed this though to be assertive of it. In any case it doesn't seem clear that they are spiritual beings at all, or that they are the greatest spiritual beings besides God.
The cherubim if I am not mistaken were an ancient near-eastern artistic divise used to designate something as holy. At least that is what someone on EWTN said. If they correspond to any specific beings I suppose it must be the angels, but even if we grant this I see no reason to make them a distinct class of angels.
We are then left with angels and archangels. This distinction mearly implies that some angels are greater than others, whether in honor or actual power or both. I have no objection to this.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 03:03 PM
J.R. Stoodley:
I don't believe you were calling anybody here dumb.
Personally, I don't care if whether or not somebody actually believes in the concept of the choir of angels. What I do care about is why there happens to be shadows of this concept in Jewish tradition. Clearly, because of this, it cannot be simply dismissed as a pagan invention.
For the nth time, could you perhaps explain to me exactly why there appears to be shadows of the concept of the choir of angels in Jewish tradition?
Look at what Rabbi Dennis had said:
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 03:06 PM
Fairies are apparently fallen angels (check Google for the latest theories). Hmmm, so Tinkerbell is Satan incarnate!!! Darn!! Do fairies and devils have groups/choirs/heavy metal bands? History? Time line?
"Fairy tales all arose in India, they are part of the common Aryan heritage and are to be traced by the remains of their language
They were first written in the Vedas, the sacred Sanskrit books of Buddhism. This theory is somewhat allied to the Sun-Myth Theory. This theory was followed by Max Muller and by Sir George Cox.
The theory of a common source in India will not answer entirely for the origin of tales because many similar tales have existed in non-Aryan countries. Old tales were current in Egypt, 2000 B.C., and were brought from there by Crusaders, Mongol missionaries, the Hebrews, and Gypsies."
Hmmm, something else the Israelites borrowed from the Egyptians?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/sft/sft07.htm
Posted by: Realist | February 02, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Esau,
As I have continually mentioned, there is a difference between a concept of "hierarchy" or "choir" on the one hand, and the concept of "division" on the other. A division does not necessarily entail hierarchy. Your "Jewish" source only spells out divisions of angels, which I have affirmed. What your source does not indicate is a hierarchy of angels. What seems to be happening is that you are reading a preconceived notion of hierarchy into a passage that only outlines division. Hence, your confusion and your accusations that mine is not a researched or objective study is hardly apt or appropriate. I will have a research paper on my blog next week which you are free to consult should you need more evidence and clarity.
Posted by: Michael Joseph | February 02, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Realist:
I guess since the bible mentions angels, it is nothing but fairy tales then by your implication!
You're not a realist; you're simply a puerile rodent who thinks he's 'highly entlightened' when, in fact, he's nothing but a coward who says he has such a disdain for things Catholic but cannot wholeheartedly abandon it (perhaps for fear of his own salvation?) that he continues to attend Church.
If you're the realist you claim to be; then quit being such a coward and stand by the very principles you keep touting and don't attend Church.
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Realist,
If you have nothing else to say, why are you still talking? You believe the God of the universe can make Man with a rational spirit, but don't believe that the God of the universe can also make spirits without bodies. Talk about being irrationally stubborn.
Logically, you have no reason to deny the possibility of their existence, and yet you do. Many people deny the existence of a personal evil in order to excuse themselves from responsibility to God for their actions. If evil spirits don't exist, then the absence of God (hell)doesn't either. You, however, know better.
Posted by: David B. | February 02, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Esau,
I don't know. One possibility is that Jews made a similar mistake as Pseudo-Dionysius and made various references to angels or demons into distinct classes. Or perhaps they were influenced by the Christian tradition. Or perhaps they were the first one to make the mistake and Pseudo-Dionysius was right.
Do you know if their heirarchy predates the Christian one, and in particular if it predates Christianity itself?
If it does predate Christianity that could be significant or it could just be a human tradition that was rightly discarded by the early Christians. If it came after Christianity that doesn't automatically discredit it but it would not be a prefigurment of anything Christian but the speculations of Jewish rabbis that should be considered on their own merit.
I don't mean to belittle your Jewish heritage. I am part Jewish myself. I just don't see how, at least without further information, the existence of a parellel legend in Rabbinical Judaism is very relevant to this discussion.
I'm afraid I must now leave for the rest of the day and into tomorrow.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Oh, and Realist, fairies are Irish. Elves are the Germanic equivalent. They were believed in by the pagans. After their conversion belief in such things survived though the creatures generally became diminished in size and nobility and given some sinister origin, such as being demons or children of Cain. This is a completely separate issue from angels.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 03:33 PM
To be 100% clear, I'm not saying faries or elves existed, I'm speaking of the popular idea of these mythical creatures.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | February 02, 2007 at 03:35 PM
What your source does not indicate is a hierarchy of angels.
Michael Joseph:
Here's are further extracts from the Judaic sources:
We especially see the first systematic organization of Biblical hosts of heaven into a hierarchy of different castes of angels governing and serving on different levels of heaven. Zechariah's reference to the seven eyes of God (4:10) is understood to refer to either seven archangels, or the seven angel hosts in the seven heavens (I Enoch 61; Testament of the Patriarchs, Levi).
...lists of angels appear, all subordinate to God, but each designated with their sphere of authority (3 Enoch). This is accompanied by a proliferation of named angels. For the first time we hear of Uriel, Raphael, Peniel, Metatron, and many, many others (I Enoch, Tobit, IV Ezra).
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 03:50 PM
J.R. Stoodley:
I don't know. One possibility is that Jews made a similar mistake as Pseudo-Dionysius and made various references to angels or demons into distinct classes. Or perhaps they were influenced by the Christian tradition.
They couldn't have been influenced by the Christians since Christians did not exist during Old Testament times.
Posted by: Esau | February 02, 2007 at 03:57 PM
J.R. Stoodley,
"One could not reasonably infer a heirarchy of God's faithful angels and give to them as titles words St. Paul used to refer to evil humans and demons."
How would you reconcile your understanding with Eph. 3:10? There is no indication that St. Paul is referring to fallen angels and he does use the same titles.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 04:09 PM
Michael Joseph,
I apologize for repeating myself but you didn't comment on the quotation from Fr. Hardon's Catechism.
In Fr. John Hardon's The Catholic Catechism page 85, he states:
St. Paul clearly distinguishes several classes of angelic spirits-- thrones and dominiations, principalities and powers, archangels and powers, to which Christian tradition has added the cherubim and seraphim, from the Old Testament, and the "common" angels. By the time of St. Ambrose (330-97), the present number of nine "choirs" of angels had become established in Christian piety.
It seems that the tradition of nine choirs seems to proceed the 6th century "discovery" of the writings of pseudo-Dionysius.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 04:39 PM
J.R. Stoodley,
I look forward to your thoughts but please understand if I still side with St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II and Fr. John Hardon.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 04:42 PM
The theory of a common source in India will not answer entirely for the origin of tales
Which was, perhaps, the limit of the knowledge then (the book comes from 1916), but the common source in India theory has gotten a lot more holes punched into it by now.
Posted by: Mary | February 02, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Mary,
Please list the holes in Fairy history both that in India and that in Egypt.
Again see http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/sft/sft07.htm for an excellent review of Fairy history. Could the original fairy tales predate angel references in the OT? Any professors of Fairy Tales out there?
Posted by: Realist | February 02, 2007 at 08:51 PM
Realist,
Any professors of Fairy Tales out there?
Why are you tired of reading your regular looney tune professors?
Look in the mirror for the King of all Fairy Tale Professors.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 09:00 PM
I see Michael Joseph and J. R. Stoodley's points, and I share some of their skepticisms. Esau has a good point with regard to a pagan origin of such a division of angels, but I think it can be partly answered. The Talmud does go into a lot of detail with regard to angels, but the Talmud itself dates to a few hundred years A.D., so its teachings aren't necessarily from the Old Testament period, and I wouldn't be sure that the division Esau's rabbi cites were held in the O.T.
Now, if Pseudo-Dionysius is from the 6th century, that's around the time the Talmud was finished. So I wouldn't be sure the Talmud's teachings are a borrowing from him. On the other hand, various schemes for dividing up the angels have been around for a very long time. Doesn't the Book of Enoch go into gruesome detail on this subject? And it dates to about 200 B.C., I think. So the general *concept* of dividing and ranking angels doesn't have to be considered a pagan borrowing.
I don't have my commentary on the Talmud with me right now, but I remember that it has a lot of elaborate speculations in it. There are not only ideas on how the angels are divyed up, but also on the number of heavens, creations prior to Genesis, just how big were Leviathan and Behemoth?, and so on. So even if he was making up things, Pseudo-Dionysius wasn't writing in a vacuum, even in the Christian context.
But what I think Michael Joseph and Stoodley might be getting at is that the arrangement people think of for angels mostly comes from a pseudoepigraphical work that shouldn't be trusted. While the *idea* of arranging angels goes back farther and does have Jewish roots, the actual arrangment and details that we think of today are partly pagan in origin.
I've got to admit that I'm a skeptic on these kinds of elaborations, even in the Talmud. After the close of the Old Testament canon, there was a period when men were writing rather strange books to fill in the details they thought were missing from the Bible, and that's where I put apocryphal books like Enoch.
For the most part, both the Jewish and Christian speculations on angelology strike me as just that--speculations. Books like Enoch are treated skeptically for a reason. Furthermore, there's a near-universal tendency for scholars to categorize the data and create theories. Once they've got a theory, then they'll use it to extrapolate to other circumstances, beyond the data. This is why I think it's better to stick with the actual data--in this case, the text of scripture itself. In the OT, you've certainly got cherubim and seraphim. And Paul certainly uses a number of different words when he's talking about human and spiritual powers, but it's not clear he means any specific divisions, much less hierarchies, and some of it could refer to the human powers. Beyond that, why indulge in idle speculation?
Posted by: Tim H | February 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM
Stoodley: On the subject of the divisions of Paul referring to demonic cabals: even though an angel falls, he maintains the same nature he once had as an angel of good. Even Lucifer is still referred to as Lucifer ("light bearer") though he himself is now twisted and anything but a bearer of light. Why wouldn't Paul still refer to (for example) evil principalities as simply "principalities," given that the fact that the particular ones to which he refers are responsible for "this present darkness," and therefore evil?
Posted by: Jared | February 02, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Esau,
Please read the reference on the history of fairies. And Google angels fairies. There are many references to fairies being fallen angels. Fascinating stuff!!!
Posted by: Realist | February 02, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Great now Realist's hobby horse has fairy wings...
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | February 02, 2007 at 10:24 PM