Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

Saint Augustine declared: “ ‘Angel’ is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ‘spirit’; if you seek the name of their office, it is ‘angel’: from what they are, ‘spirit,’ from what they do, ‘angel.’ ”

Scott Hahn, ed., Catholic Bible Dictionary (New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday, 2009), 45.

 

The 'angel thing' has been a source of some confusion for me in conversations with LDS folks. After assuring them that it isn't Catholic doctrine that angels have physical wings, and that instead the depictions of wings are a gesture to the angels as messengers, I have run smack dab into the different ways Catholics and LDS talk about such things. For example, I've noticed that Latter-day Saints usually use "Holy Ghost," instead of "Holy Spirit," with 'Ghost' having a German root in geist, but then LDS talk about "feeling the Spirit." I have not heard any Latter-day Saints refer to "feeling the Ghost." This has had me wondering if they were trying to indicate the presence of an angel instead of making a claim related to the Holy Spirit.

  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've noticed that Latter-day Saints usually use "Holy Ghost," instead of "Holy Spirit," with 'Ghost' having a German root in geist, but then LDS talk about "feeling the Spirit." I have not heard any Latter-day Saints refer to "feeling the Ghost." This has had me wondering if they were trying to indicate the presence of an angel instead of making a claim related to the Holy Spirit.

No, when members of the church talk about feeling the Spirit they are referring to the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

After assuring them that it isn't Catholic doctrine that angels have physical wings, and that instead the depictions of wings are a gesture to the angels as messengers

It's interesting how many people believe that we believe angels have wings or that angels are chubby baroque babies.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's interesting how many people believe that we believe angels have wings or that angels are chubby baroque babies.

This topic ("angels") has been of interest to me because of the changes that have taken place through time on how people view angels.   But related to the question on how people view angels, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting article on Early Christian Representations of Angels:

Quote

Early Christian Representations of Angels

Angels were seldom represented in Christian art before Constantine. The oldest fresco in which an angel appears is the Annunciation scene (second century) of the cemetery of St. Priscilla. A third-century painting of the same subject was discovered by Wilpert in the cemetery of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus; in both representations the Archangel Gabriel is depicted in human form, robed in tunic and pallium. The "Good Angel" (angelus bonus) of the fourth-century syncretistic fresco representing the judgment of Vibia is also depicted in human form, dressed as a sacred personage. The winged angel, for which abundant scriptural references could be adduced, does not appear in pre-Constantinian Christian art, for the reason, probably, that such figures might too readily recall certain favourite subjects of classic art. Another fact worthy of note in this regard is that angels in this first period of Christian art are never represented unless historically necessary, as in the Annunciation scene referred to — and not always even then. In a third-century fresco of the Hebrew children in the furnace, for instance, in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, a dove takes the place of the angel, while a fourth-century representation of the same subject, in the coemeterium majus, substitutes the hand of God for the heavenly messenger.

From the reign of Constantine a new type of angel, with wings, appears in Christian art. The four angels with spears on the ciborium of the Lateran Basilica (Lib. Pont., I, 172) were probably of this order. This innovation was evidently suggested by the "Victories", and similar figures of classic art; but the danger of idolatrous suggestion in such figures was now remote, and historic art, which gradually replaced symbolic, demanded angels with wings. Certain Gnostic sculptures seem to mark the transition from the classic Victory to the winged angel (Cabrol, Dict. d'Arch. Chret., col. 2116 sqq). The oldest existing examples of winged angels are seen in some bas-reliefs of Carthage and a representation on ivory of St. Michael, both attributed to the fourth century. The latter, part of a diptych in the British Museum, shows the Archangel Michael standing on the upper steps of an architectonically adorned doorway, with a staff in one hand and a globe surmounted by a cross in the other. The figure is admirably executed.

A second development in the artistic conception of angels is marked in the Annunciation scene (fifth century) depicted on the triumphal arch of St. Mary Major's. Unlike the same subject in the catacombs, the Angel Gabriel is soaring through the air towards Mary, who is seated in the midst of attendant winged angels. From the fifth century angels became a favourite subject in Christian art, no longer merely as figures demanded to complete a historical scene, but very often as attendants on Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin. The mosaic of St. Mary Major's mentioned above, as well as two mosaics of St. Apollinare Nuovo and St. Vitale (sixth century), Ravenna, are examples of angels in this character. The Archangels Michael and Gabriel dressed in the military chlamys and bearing military standards inscribed with the word Agios (holy) are represented in mosaics at St. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna. The Hierarchia coelestis of pseudo-Dionysius exercised an important influence on the artistic conception of angels from the sixth century. Prior to that time, it is true, a distinction was made between different categories of the angelic host, but now the relations of angels to God were represented in the East after the manner of the various grades of court functionaries rendering their homage to the Emperor.

So according to this article, the appearance of winged angels in early Christian art didn't show up until after Constantine, and prior to that angels were depicted in a normal human appearance. 

I am curious about the statement I represented in a red font, above.  What is the "abundant scriptural references" for winged angels?  (I'm not asking you to answer this, but I would like to know what this article has in mind).  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

This is a fascinating video on angels. I'm truly ignorant on the subject. Enjoy!

Very interesting video. 

Ezekiel's wheels-within-wheels "angel" always sounded more like technology than biology to me. 

14 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The 'angel thing' has been a source of some confusion for me in conversations with LDS folks. After assuring them that it isn't Catholic doctrine that angels have physical wings, and that instead the depictions of wings are a gesture to the angels as messengers, I have run smack dab into the different ways Catholics and LDS talk about such things... 

Does Catholicism teach that angels are the same "species" as humans?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The video makes it clear that there isn't simply one idea of what constitutes an angel. JS claimed nothing revelatory or original in this regard.

I'll summarize the video (with time stamps on the bullet points).  I've also inserted a few dates and a couple of my own comments:

  • 1:34:  Biblically accurate angels are Messengers, human or divine
  • 2:10:  Angels simply appear like humans, no wings, no abnormal amount of eyes, just men
  • 3:10:  An angel is humanoid, but depending on the perspective of the beholder, the angel can be awe inspiring or as completely non descript
  • 3:30:  For example, in Genesis 19, the two angels that appeared to Lot.  Lot perceives them as holy, but to others they were just ordinary men

Quoting Genesis 19:9-15 from the Joseph Smith Translation (obviously not found in the video):

Quote

9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.
10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.
11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.
12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.
13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;
14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.

Back to the video synopsis:

  • 5:00:  So if angels look like humans, where do these so-called Biblically accurate angels come from?  They are artistic renditions of three other heavenly creatures described in the Hebrew Bible:  Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim
  • 8:23:  But are these (the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim) "angels"?  It depends, but none of these creatures are called mal'akh in the Hebrew Bible.
  • 8:43:  mal'akh (the word for angel) is more of a job description:  A heavenly messengers that always appears in human form
  • 8:46: Ophanim:  Not a mal'akh.  So calling these (Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim) "Biblically accurate angels" is not quite correct.  So case closed, meme debunked.  8:55:  We shouldn't call these Biblically accurate angels, but Biblically-Accurate Hybrid Creatures
  • 9:06:  Whether we can call these creatures "angels" depends on WHEN you ask.  During the early centuries of Israelite history, these beings are never called mal'akh.  But in later centuries, Jewish and Christian authors started to create complicated angel classifications
  • 10:30:  Jews, after the Babylonian exile, start to equate [Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim] with angels.  "In time, the differences between these divine beings seem to have become blurred and forgotten in the minds of Jewish interpreters, who understood all of these different hybrid creatures as angelic beings worthy of imitation in liturgical practice and prayer."  This continued into early Christianity as well.  The early Christian text called On the Celestial Hierarchy (De Coelesti Hierarchia - 5th century AD) ranks nine types of angels.
  • 11:20:  Maimonides (1138–1204 AD) put forth a different hierarchy.  
  • 11:30:  "So the idea of angels changed over time.  The idea has a history.  An angel (or mal'akh) started out as a job title for a humanoid messengers of God.  But, in later centuries, Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophanim and angels were all brought into a big family tree, lumping all these different heavenly hybrids under the same rubric."
  • 11:53:  "So are these memes biblically accurate angels?  Only if we're operating under the post-biblical assumptions of mostly post-biblical writers, like whoever wrote On the Celestial Hierarchy or Maimonides ."
  • 12:00:  "Technically, if you want a perfectly valid example of a biblically accurate angel... just look at the nearest generic guy.  A guy so generic, with a face so forgettable, that you would never guess he was an angel, until he launched into the sky in a pillar of fire".

The point the video makes clear is that the concept of angels put forth by Joseph Smith was the original meaning of angels, (i.e. "[an angel] is more of a job description:  A heavenly messengers that always appears in human form"), but the conflation of all the divine beings into a sub-classification as "angels" is a later evolution of the original doctrine, mostly post- biblical.

Perhaps not necessarily "revelatory", but certainly another item on a long list of theological ideas that he gets exactly right.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
On 2/3/2023 at 11:08 AM, ksfisher said:

No, when members of the church talk about feeling the Spirit they are referring to the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Thanks. I have figured that out, but I have had moments of confusion when Latter-day Saints move from "Holy Ghost" to "feeling the Spirit." I don't mean this as a criticism; I'm just observing what I take to be a cultural pattern.

Link to comment
On 2/3/2023 at 4:35 PM, MiserereNobis said:

It's interesting how many people believe that we believe angels have wings or that angels are chubby baroque babies.

Well, Christians thought the word "Cherub" came from the Arabic "Kharab" which means a "growing child", so they are depicted as children in Renaissance art, but today we are fairly sure it's from the Akkadian "Karabu" which is a "mediator". Moses' Cherubim on the ark were mostly human, except for the "wings/flaps" which shield where the voice that stood and spoke from between them (God). That word refers to both wings but also refers to the "edges (of a garment)". The Cherubim, the Seraphim, and the Living Creatures that stand before the throne of God are mediator angels, two in particular, the Son of God on the right and the Holy Spirit on the left.

References: As the Jewish Christian texts like the Ascension of Isaiah 9:36, and in Early Christian Fathers, Origen in Peri Archon speaks of his “Hebrew master” who told him, "that the two six-winged seraphim in Isaiah who cry one to another “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, [IsaIah 6:2f]” were the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit.", "And we ourselves think that the expression in the song of Habbakkuk, `In the midst of the two living creatures thou shalt be known [Habakkuk 3:2]’ is spoken of Christ and the Holy Spirit".

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

" And I saw another angel ,flying in the midst of heaven " . With a couple of exceptions, flying requires wings.

Heaven may not have gravity. Further, we do not know that angles leverage the force of lift, whether heaven has an atmosphere or even if eternal beings need to respirate.  In short, we don't know jack about Heaven.

If Heaven were Earth-like, the Heaven-window could have been positioned above and the motion of overhead beings could have been interpreted as flying.

Link to comment
On 2/3/2023 at 10:39 PM, InCognitus said:

I'll summarize the video (with time stamps on the bullet points).  I've also inserted a few dates and a couple of my own comments:

  • 1:34:  Biblically accurate angels are Messengers, human or divine
  • 2:10:  Angels simply appear like humans, no wings, no abnormal amount of eyes, just men
  • 3:10:  An angel is humanoid, but depending on the perspective of the beholder, the angel can be awe inspiring or as completely non descript
  • 3:30:  For example, in Genesis 19, the two angels that appeared to Lot.  Lot perceives them as holy, but to others they were just ordinary men

Quoting Genesis 19:9-15 from the Joseph Smith Translation (obviously not found in the video):

Back to the video synopsis:

  • 5:00:  So if angels look like humans, where do these so-called Biblically accurate angels come from?  They are artistic renditions of three other heavenly creatures described in the Hebrew Bible:  Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim
  • 8:23:  But are these (the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim) "angels"?  It depends, but none of these creatures are called mal'akh in the Hebrew Bible.
  • 8:43:  mal'akh (the word for angel) is more of a job description:  A heavenly messengers that always appears in human form
  • 8:46: Ophanim:  Not a mal'akh.  So calling these (Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim) "Biblically accurate angels" is not quite correct.  So case closed, meme debunked.  8:55:  We shouldn't call these Biblically accurate angels, but Biblically-Accurate Hybrid Creatures
  • 9:06:  Whether we can call these creatures "angels" depends on WHEN you ask.  During the early centuries of Israelite history, these beings are never called mal'akh.  But in later centuries, Jewish and Christian authors started to create complicated angel classifications
  • 10:30:  Jews, after the Babylonian exile, start to equate [Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim] with angels.  "In time, the differences between these divine beings seem to have become blurred and forgotten in the minds of Jewish interpreters, who understood all of these different hybrid creatures as angelic beings worthy of imitation in liturgical practice and prayer."  This continued into early Christianity as well.  The early Christian text called On the Celestial Hierarchy (De Coelesti Hierarchia - 5th century AD) ranks nine types of angels.
  • 11:20:  Maimonides (1138–1204 AD) put forth a different hierarchy.  
  • 11:30:  "So the idea of angels changed over time.  The idea has a history.  An angel (or mal'akh) started out as a job title for a humanoid messengers of God.  But, in later centuries, Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophanim and angels were all brought into a big family tree, lumping all these different heavenly hybrids under the same rubric."
  • 11:53:  "So are these memes biblically accurate angels?  Only if we're operating under the post-biblical assumptions of mostly post-biblical writers, like whoever wrote On the Celestial Hierarchy or Maimonides ."
  • 12:00:  "Technically, if you want a perfectly valid example of a biblically accurate angel... just look at the nearest generic guy.  A guy so generic, with a face so forgettable, that you would never guess he was an angel, until he launched into the sky in a pillar of fire".

The point the video makes clear is that the concept of angels put forth by Joseph Smith was the original meaning of angels, (i.e. "[an angel] is more of a job description:  A heavenly messengers that always appears in human form"), but the conflation of all the divine beings into a sub-classification as "angels" is a later evolution of the original doctrine, mostly post- biblical.

Perhaps not necessarily "revelatory", but certainly another item on a long list of theological ideas that he gets exactly right.

One opinion that aligns with JS. Definitely not the authoritative opinion by any stretch of the imagination. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Judgey much? If the Roman Catholics want to pay him, that's their business. :) (And angelologist may just be a side gig or hobby to his regular eoclesiastical duties.}

It was a joke. The title was in quotation marks in the article. I doubt it is actually a job.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...