Christian Angelology §1: Existence, Nature, Number, and Hierarchy of the Angels

Chapter III: Christian Angelology

§1: Existence, Nature, Number, and Hierarchy of the Angels

CHAPTER III CHRISTIAN ANGELOLOGY Human reason may conjecture the existence of pure spirits but is unable to demonstrate it by cogent arguments.1 What knowledge we possess of the Angels is based entirely on Divine Revelation,2 and for this reason we will treat of 1 Cf r. Palmieri, Pneumatologia, Romae 1876. 2 This fact did not prevent Scholastic philosophy from assigning to the Angels an important role in its speculations. ” Modern thought/’ says Fr. Joseph Rickaby, S. J., in an exquisite passage of his classic essay on Scholasticism (New York 1908, pp. 70 sq.), “attends curiously to the brute creation, and to the physiology of the human body; it believes in experimental psychology; it never attempts to contemplate intellect apart from brain and nerves. On grounds of pure reason, it asks, what have we that can be called knowledge even of the very existence of angels? The angels have taken flight from Catholic schools of philosophy; the rustle of their wings is caught by the theologian’s ear alone. Whether philosophy has lost by their departure, it is not for these pages to say. St. Thomas would have counted it a loss. The angels entered essentially into his scheme of the cosmos, and were indispensable transmitters of thought to human kind. 4 Our intellectual knowledge/ he says, ’ must be regulated by the knowledge of the angels/ (Contra Gentiles, III, 9). Modern psychology is serenely oblivious of the fact. Catholics, no doubt, still believe in angels, dread the evil ones (devils), and pray to the good ones who now see the face of God. Catholics also believe that good angels are often the vehicles through which * actual grace/ that is, warnings and impulses in order to salvation, descends from God to men. But that man owes his ordinary knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, sanitation, railway management, to any action whatever of angelic intelligence upon his mind — is there any man living who thinks so? If all that St. Thomas meant was that we should try to penetrate beyond the surface evidence of the senses, that is what every scientific man endeavors to do in his view 308 THE ANGELS 309 them under the title of Christian Angelology, in contradistinction to the pagan fictions of genii and demigods. As the history of the Angels runs parallel to, and displays many analogies with, that of the human race, we are justified in dealing with it after much the same method. Hence we shall divide this Chapter into three Sections. In the first we shall treat of the nature of the Angels; in the second, of the supernatural aspects of the angelic creation; and in the third, of the apostasy of the Angels from the supernatural order. Leaving to Scholastic speculation the deeper problems involved in the existence and activity of pure spirits, we shall confine ourselves to a reasoned exposition of the positive dogmatic teaching of the Church. General Readings: — *St Thomas, S. Theol., ia, qu. 50 sqq., 106 sqq. — Idem, Contr. Gent., II, 46 sqq. (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 108 sqq.). — Idem, Opusc. 15, De Substantiis Separatis. — Cfr. also St. Thomas’ commentators, notably Ferrariensis and the treatises De Angelis composed by Billuart, Philippus a SS. Trinitate, Gonet, Gotti, and the Salmanti censes. ♦Suarez, De Angelis, is the opus classicum on the subject The doctrine of the Fathers is admirably summarized by Petavius, De Angelis (Dogm. Theol., t. III). A complete and thorough monograph is Tourneley, De Angelis. of nature— -to see e. g. in a bar of iron what a pure intelligence would see there, that is the effort of science. But St Thomas meant more than that (cf. Of God and His Creatures, p. 25a), and some are beginning to suspect that he is right” 3io CHRISTIAN ANGELOLOGY Among modern theologians the student will find it profitable to consult Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, §§ 135 sqq. and §§ 181 sqq., Freiburg 1878 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 376 sqq., London 1899); Palmieri, De Deo Creante et Elevante, thes. 17 sqq., 58 sqq., Romae 1878; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. V, §§ 281-290, Mainz 1884; Oswald, Angelologie, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1889; Simar, Dogmatik, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 313 sqq., Freiburg 1899; L. Janssens, De Deo Creatore et de Angelis, Friburgi 1905; D. Coghlan, De Deo Uno et Trino et De Deo Creatore, pp. 493-511, Dublinii 1909; S. J. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 265-311. See also R. O’Kennedy, The Holy Angels, London 1887, and Hugh Pope, art. ” Angelus ” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I. On the cultus of the Angels, see Bareille, ” Le Culte des Anges

Article 1: Existence and Nature of the Angels

EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF THE ANGELS I. The Dogma. — The existence of Angels is a truth so obviously founded in Scripture, Tradition, and that it seems superfluous to undertake a formal demonstration of it. We therefore merely indicate some of the many Scriptural texts in which it is expressly taught: Ps. XC, n; CII, 20; CXLVIII, 2; Matth. IV, 11; XVIII, 10; XXII, 30; XXV, 31; John I, 51; Heb. I, 4. St. Augustine voices the belief of the Fathers when he says: “Quamvis non videamus apparitionem angelorum, tamen esse angelos novimus ex fide … Spiritus autem angeli sunt; et cum spiritus sunt, non sunt angeli; cum mittuntur, Hunt angeli. Angelus enim officii nomen est, non naturae. Quaeris nomen huius naturae, spiritus est; quaeris ofhcium, angelus est: ex eo quod est, spiritus est; ex eo quod agit, angelus est — Although we may not see them, we know by faith 3” 3i2 CHRISTIAN ANGELOLOGY that Angels exist… . The Angels are spirits, but it is not as such that they are Angels; they become Angels by being sent. For Angel denotes an office, not a nature. You ask the name of this nature. It is ‘spirit/ You ask its office. It is that of an angel [i. e. messenger]. In as far as he exists, an Angel is a spirit; in as far as he acts, he is an Angel.” 3 We know three Archangels by name, viz.: Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel. Though it is uncertain whether the Mosaic account of the Creation,4 in employing the term coelum, means to include the Angels,5 the creation of the Angels out of nothing is undoubtedly an article of faith. St. Paul expressly teaches: “In ipso [scil. Christ o] condita sunt* universa in coelis et in terra, vis\bilia et invisibilia,7 sive throni sive dominationes, sive principals, sive potestates — In him [i. e.y Christ] were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers.” 8 The Church through her infallible teaching office has raised this truth to the rank of a formally defined dogma at the Fourth Council of the Lateran: “Creator omnium visibilium et invisiZSertn. in Ps. 103, I, 15. 4 Gen. I, 1 sqq. 5 Theologians have been split into two opposing factions on this question ever since the Patristic era. 1 rot &6para. 8 Col. I, s6; cfr. also Rom. VIII, 38 sq. bilium, spiritualium et corporalium, qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit naturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam,, ac deinde hurnanam.” 9 This definition was substantially reaffirmed by the Vatican Council: “God … created out of nothing, from the very first beginning of time, both the spiritual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the angelical and the mundane, and afterwards the human creature… .” 10 When the Angels were created is not so clearly defined. The phrase “Simul ab initio temporis/’ strictly interpreted, says no more than that they were created in and with time. Whether the creation of the Angels was simultaneous with that of the material universe is uncertain. Simul may be interpreted in the sense of aequaliter (/coivfl), and in the phrase ” ac deinde hurnanam,” deinde is not necessarily temporal, but may be illative in meaning. As St. Thomas has pointed out,11 the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council was aimed at a Manichaean heresy which did not bear directly on the time of the creation of the Angels. Nevertheless many theologians regard the interpretation just suggested as artificial and hold the simultaneous creation of the Angels and the material universe to be a theologically certain doctrine, which may not be rejected without temerity. We prefer 0 Cap. ” Firmiter” quoted by Den- 1783), Manning’s translation (The zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. Vatican Council and its Definitions, 428. 4th American ed., p. 209, New York 10 Cone. Vatican., Sess. Ill, cap. 1902). 1 (apud Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 11 Opusc. XXIII. 21

not to read into the Lateran definition something which its authors evidently did not intend to put there, and adopt the affirmative view merely for the reason that it is the common teaching of theologians.12 It would at any rate be unreasonable to assume an immoderately long interval of time to have elapsed between the creation of the angels and that of the physical universe. The only thing we know positively is that the Angels existed at the time of Adam,18 whence it follows that they were created no later than the sixth ” day.”

2. The Nature of the Angels. — It is Catholic doctrine, though not yet an article of faith, that the Angels are incorporeal substances, i. e., pure spirits. a) This doctrine can be more effectively demonstrated from Holy Scripture than from ancient ecclesiastical Tradition, the latter being far less clear and definite. The Bible constantly refers to the Angels as spirits (spiritus, ™viw.ra)y in express contradistinction to souls.14 St. Paul, moreover, draws a direct contrast between a pure spirit15 and man, who is a compound of spirit and body. Eph. VI, 12: “Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum — Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against prini2Cfr. S. Thorn., S. Theol., ia, 14 Cfr. Luke XI, 24; Heb. I, 14, qu. 61, art. 3. et passim* 13 Cfr. Gen. Ill, 1; III, 24. IB The Devil, whose nature was not destroyed by sin. NATURE OF THE ANGELS 315 cipalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness/’ That the Angels have often visibly appeared to men is no argument against their incorporeity. When they assume a body, that body is merely an outer garment, put on for a transitory purpose, not something which the bearer informs after the manner of a substantial form.16 Therefore Raphael said to Tobias: “Videbar quidem vobiscum manducare et bibere, sed ego cibo invisibili et potu, qui ab hominibus videri non potest, utor — I seemed indeed to eat and to drink with you: but I use an invisible meat and drink, which cannot be seen by men.” 17 The muchdiscussed text, Gen. VI, 2: “The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives,” 18 — which misled even some of the Fathers,19 — does not refer to the Angels at all, but to the pious Sethites, who married the evil daughters of Cain.20 b) As we have already noted, the Fathers do not teach this doctrine as clearly as the Bible. Several of their number ascribe to the Angels a body of ether or fire. This they were led to 16 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, p. 379. i7Tob. XII, 19. 18 ” Videntes filii Dei (the Septuagint has ol &yye\ot tov GeoO) filias hominum, quod essent pulchrae, acceperunt sibi ux ores’* 19 E. g., SS. Justin, Irenaeus, and Ambrose. 20Cfr. P. Scholz, Die Ehen der Sdhne Gottes tnit den Tochtern der M ens c hen, Ratisbon 1865; Robert, Les Fils de Dieu et les Filles de I’Homme in La Revue Biblique, 189S, PP. 340-373 and 525-552. do by a literal interpretation of Ps. CIII, 4: “Qui facts angelos tuos spiritus et ministros tuos ignem urentem — Who makest thy angels spirits, and thy ministers a burning fire.” 21 Some conceived Satan as clothed in an aerial body.22 It is evident from all this that belief in the incorporeity of the Angels was the result of a gradual development. To-day it is held as theologically certain.23 c) Are the Angels composed of matter and form? This is quite a different question from the one discussed above. Granted that the Angels are pure spirits, it may be asked whether their purely spiritual nature admits of a composition of matter (determinabile) requiring for its actuation a form (determinans), or whether, like the Divine Essence, they are metaphysically simple.24 Being purely spiritual substances, the Angels are physically simple, and therefore essentially immortal. ” Not, indeed, that their destruction is in itself an impossibility, but because their substance and nature are such that, when once created, perpetual conservation is to them natural.,, 25 They are indestructible also for this reason 21 On the Angelology of the Jews cfr. Hackspill, ” L ‘Angelologie Juive a l’£poque NSotestamentaire ” in La Revue Biblique, 1902, pp. 527-550. 22 Cfr. St. Fulgentius, De Trinit., c. 9. Even St. Bernard (cfr. his De Considerat., V, 4) entertained rather hazy notions on this point, as also Abbot Rupert of Deutz (De Trinit., I, 11), Cardinal Cajetan, and Bafiez. 23 Cfr. Palmieri, De Deo Creantg et Elevante, pp. 153 sqq. 24 Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure held that the nature of Angels admits of potentiality and actuality. Cfr. on this controversy St. Thomas, S. TheoU, ia, qu. 50, art. 2. 25 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I, P. 379. NATURE OF THE ANGELS 317 that the Creator is bound by His own wisdom, goodness, sanctity, and justice to conserve these pure spirits, in whom He has implanted an immanent craving for beatitude.26

3. Intellect, Will, and Power of the Angels. — Being pure spirits, the Angels must possess intellect and free-will; for no spirit is conceivable without these attributes. Hence they are called simply or by the Fathers, and intelligentiae by the Scholastics. a) The comprehension of the angelic intellect and its mode of operation is a subject of speculation, concerning which our limited mind is at a decided disadvantage. The Schoolmen have practically exhausted the capacity of the human intellect along these lines. As of faith we need only hold that the Angels are not endowed with cardiognosis nor with a certain knowledge of the free-will acts of the future; these being exclusively divine prerogatives.27 It follows that their knowledge of the thoughts and future free actions of men is purely conjectural and can at most engender moral certitude. Can the Angels communicate their thoughts to one another? It would be unreasonable to assume that such 26Cfr. Matth. XVIII, 10; XXV, 41; Luke XX, 36. As regards the relation of the Angels to space, that is a philosophical rather than a theological problem, on which the student may, if he wishes, have recourse to Suarez, De Angelis, 1. IV, and F. Schmid, Quaest. Select, ex Theol. Dogmat., pp. 28 sqq., Faderborn 1891. 27 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 359 sqq., 361 sqq. 3i8 CHRISTIAN ANGELOLOGV a vast number of pure spirits, endowed with intellect and free-will, should lack the means of intercommunication. Besides, we know on the authority of Holy Scripture that the Angels do converse with one another.28 But Revelation tells us nothing about the nature of their intercourse. The only thing we know for certain is that they do not converse by word of mouth. Among the six theories that have been excogitated on the subject the most plausible is that of St. Thomas. He holds that the Angels converse by a mere act of the will, which manifests the thought of the speaker to him whom he wishes to address.29 b) That the Angels are endowed with freewill follows from the fact, (which is demonstrable on purely philosophic grounds), that free-will belongs to every spiritual nature as such. Indeed, if God operates freely ad extra because He is the supreme and infinite Spirit,80 and if man, who occupies the lowest rank in the scale of intellectual beings, enjoys freedom of choice because the light of reason burns within him,81 surely the Angels, who form the connecting link between God and man, and most certainly far 28Cfr. Zach. I, 9 sqq.; 1 Cor. XIII, 1. 29 Cfr. Summa Theol., ia, qu. 107, art. 1: “Ex hoc quod conceptus mentis angelicae ordinatur ad manifestandum alteri per voluntatem ipsius angeli, conceptus mentis unius angeli innotescit alteri; et sic loquitur unus angelus alteri. Nihil est enim aliud loqui ad alterum, quam conceptum mentis alteri manifestare” — On the different theories in question cfr. Becanus, De Angelis, c x, qu. 14; Gregory of Valentia, De Deo Creatore, disp. 8, qu. 4, p. 2. On the mode of operation peculiar to the angelic intellect, and on its medium, see St. Thomas, 5”. Theol., ia, qu. 54 sqq., and Suarez, De Angelis, 1. II. 80 Supra, pp. 40 sqq. 81 Supra, pp. 291 sqq. NATURE OF THE ANGELS 319 outrank the latter, must also be endowed with free-will. The logical force of this argument is irresistible. Free-will is either included or it is not included in the concept of spirit. If it were not included therein, then God Himself would not be free; if it is, then the Angels, too, are free, freer in fact than man, who is hampered by his senses. Sacred Scripture, moreover, tells us that the Angels rejoice,32 that they have desires,33 that some of them sinned and were transformed into demons. The story of the Fall is the most convincing proof that the Angels enjoy freedom of choice. Cfr. 2 Pet. II, 4: Dens angelis peccantibus non pepercit — God spared not the Angels that sinned. In the light of these and similar texts St. John Damascene defines an Angel as “a rational, intelligent, free nature, with a mutable will,” and he adds: “Every being that is endowed with reason, is likewise equipped with free-will. Consequently an Angel, being a nature endowed with reason and intelligence, is also equipped with freedom of choice. Being a creature, he is mutable, because free either to persevere and progress in what is good, or to turn to the bad.” 34 c) The Angels are by nature superior to, and 82 Luke XV, 7. Thomas, 5”. Theol., 1a, qu. 59. art. 33 i Pet. I, 12. i, and Suarez, De Angelis, 1. III. 34 De Fide Orth., II, 3. Cfr. St. more excellent than man. Cfr. 2 Pet. II, 11: Angels … are greater in strength and power. Gal. IV, 14: “You … received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.” 85 The names by which the Angels are called in the Bible (Dominations, Virtues, Powers) also indicate that they enjoy superior prerogatives, though, of course, being themselves mere creatures, they can neither create nor perform miracles.86 It is to be remarked, however, that Angels (and demons) by virtue of their natural faculties are able to perform actions which impress man as exceeding the powers of nature (miracula quoad nos). But such actions are not miracles in the strict and proper sense of the term unless the nature of the case or its attending circumstances make it plainly evident that the effect is one which could not be produced by any agency short of the divine omnipotence. We need not add that, with regard to the extent of their power, good and evil spirits alike depend at all times on the Divine Will, without whose command or permission they cannot interfere with the laws of nature. 85 Cfr. Matth. XXII, 30; Gal. I, 8. 86 That the power of creating something out of nothing belongs to God alone, and is incommunicable, we have demonstrated supra, pp. 55 sqq.; that every supernatural effect (and a miracle in the strict sense is a supernatural effect) postulates an infinite causality, t. omnipotence, was shown supra, pp. 187 sqq. NUMBER OF THE ANGELS

Article 2: Number and Hierarchy of the Angels

NUMBER AND HIERARCHY OF THE ANGELS i. Number of the Angels. — Sacred Scripture and Tradition furnish us no clue by which we could determine the number of the Angels. It is certain that they are very numerous. Cfr. Dan. VII, 10: “Millia millium ministrabant ei et decies millies centena millia assistebant ei — Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him.” Apoc. V, n: “I heard the voice of many angels … and the number of them was thousands of thousands.” Basing their calculations on the parable of the Good Shepherd, some of the Fathers have estimated the numerical proportion of Angels to men as 99:1. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “Consider all the human beings that have lived from Adam to the present day; their number is very large, and yet it is small, for of Angels there are still more. They are the ninety-nine sheep, we are the one hundredth, since there is but one human race.” 87 Theologians differ as to whether or not the Angels are all of one species. St Thomas holds that each consti87 Catech., 15. For a more complete treatment of this topic see Petavius, De Angelis, I, 14, and Suarez, De Angelis, I, xi. Cfr. also O’Kennedy, The Holy Angels. pp. 7 sq. CHRISTIAN ANGELOLOGY tutes a distinct species.88 Suarez teaches that the members of each choir bear a specific relation to all the other members of the same choir.30 Cardinal Toletus assumes that, like men, all the Angels belong to one and the same species.40 The problem really defies the limited powers of human reason. Cardinal Toletus and those who hold with him must not, however, be understood as asserting that the specific unity of the Angels results from procreation, because the Church has formally condemned the proposition that ” the human soul is propagated from parent to child just as body from body or one Angel from another.” 41

2. The Nine Choirs and the Three Hierarchies of the Angels. — The Angels are distributed into various Orders, some superior, others inferior. This is not an article of faith, but it may be set down as a certain truth. Sacred Scripture enumerates nine such Orders. Isaias saw the Seraphim,42 Moses mentions the Cherubim as guardians of Paradise,43 and St. Paul,44 enumerates the Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, and Powers, to which, in another place,45 he adds the Virtues. Besides these the Bible frequently mentions Angels and Archangels. The fact that Holy Scripture carefully discrimi88 S. Theol., la, qu. 50, art. 4. 80 De Angelis, I, 14. 40 Comment, in S. Thorn., I. c. sion of this subject cfr. Palmieri, De Deo Creante et Elevante, pp. 204 sqq. 41 * Anima hutnana filii propagator ab anima patris sui sicut corpus a corpore et angelus etiam units ab alio.* Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n, 533* For a fuller discus45Eph. I, 21; cfr. Rom. VIII, 38. 42 Is. VI, 2. 43 Gen. Ill, 24. 44 Col. I, 16. nates between these different Orders is sufficient warrant that the names employed by the Bible are not merely synonymous terms.46 The precise number of the angelic choirs is not known to us. In how far they differ* and what are their mutual relations, is a matter of speculation rather than of faith.47 Since the time of the Pseudo-Dionysius 48 it has been customary in the Schools to group the nine angelic choirs into three divisions, in imitation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, each division comprising three choirs (or dines, as follows: (1) The supreme hierarchy, comprising the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; (2) The intermediate hierarchy, comprising the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers; (3) The lowest hierarchy, comprising the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. This difference in rank is believed to be due to the fact that the members of the supreme hierarchy, who are, so to speak, assistants at the divine throne, receive their orders directly from God Himself, while those of the intermediate hierarchy hand the divine commands down to the lower Angels, who in turn communicate them to 46 Cfr. S. Greg. M., Horn, in Ev., 3447 * Dicant qui possunt,* says St. Augustine (Enchir., c. 58), ” ego me ista ignorare confiteor.” Cfr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. Ill, 3rd ed.t pp. 214 sq.t Friburgi 1908. 48 De Coelesti Hierarchia, c. 3. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, p. 270. men. Revelation is silent on this point. According to Pseudo-Dionysius,49 whom the Scholastics, thinking him a pupil of the Apostles, blindly followed,50 the division of the Angels into hierarchies has still another signification. The higher Angels, he says, are charged with the mission of “illuminating” and “purifying” those of the lower Orders. By illumination (illuminatio) the Schoolmen mean the communication of knowledge by an Angel of a higher to an Angel of a lower Order. In so far as the inferior Angel is thereby cleansed of defects incident to his imperfect mode of cognition, the process is also called “purgation” (purgatio). We need scarcely remind our readers that this teaching does not exceed the value of a more or less well-founded opinion.51 49 De Coelesti Hierarchic, c. 4 and 8. soCfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, p. 270. 51 On the interesting problems involved in these speculations the student may profitably consult St. Thomas, S. TheoU, ia, qu. 106, 108; Stiglmayr, S. J., “Die Engellehre des so gen. Dionysius Areopagita” in the Comte Rendu du Congres Intern, a Fribourg, Vol. I, pp. 403 sqq., 1897; Hugo Koch, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beriehungen sum Neuplatonismus und Mysterienwesen, Mainz 1900.