Angelic substitution theory of salvation

[DL82]

i.e. the belief that the elect in heaven occupy the thrones vacated by the 1/3 of angels who rebelled with Satan and were cast out of heaven.

This view of salvation seems to have been common in the high middle ages, it is found in St Anselm and St Bernard of Clairvaux, for example.

There may be some evidence of it in the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, where prior to the thrice holy hymn (the Greek equivalent of the Sanctus), the people sing ‘we who mystically represent the cherubim’.

Was it ever declared an error?

Is it still Catholic teaching?

To my mind, this theory has some obvious flaws, in that it encourages man to strive to be like an angel, when humans and angels have entirely different purposes in God’s creation. It seems to make the salvation (or possibly even the creation) of man a kind of plan B. It seems dangerously close to a kind of gnosticism about the material and embodied aspects of our humanity.

On the other hand, what it also makes very clear is that heaven is not a natural right for human beings. Of our own nature, even in its pure state, let alone its fallen state, we are unworthy to come into the presence of God in the way that we have been given access (and even higher access than the angels) through Christ’s sacrifice.

Just wondered if anyone had encountered this theory, and if so, what to make of it.

 

[TK421]

i.e. the belief that the elect in heaven occupy the thrones vacated by the 1/3 of angels who rebelled with Satan and were cast out of heaven.

This view of salvation seems to have been common in the high middle ages, it is found in St Anselm and St Bernard of Clairvaux, for example.

There may be some evidence of it in the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, where prior to the thrice holy hymn (the Greek equivalent of the Sanctus), the people sing ‘we who mystically represent the cherubim’.

Was it ever declared an error?

Is it still Catholic teaching?

To my mind, this theory has some obvious flaws, in that it encourages man to strive to be like an angel, when humans and angels have entirely different purposes in God’s creation. It seems to make the salvation (or possibly even the creation) of man a kind of plan B. It seems dangerously close to a kind of gnosticism about the material and embodied aspects of our humanity.

On the other hand, what it also makes very clear is that heaven is not a natural right for human beings. Of our own nature, even in its pure state, let alone its fallen state, we are unworthy to come into the presence of God in the way that we have been given access (and even higher access than the angels) through Christ’s sacrifice.

Just wondered if anyone had encountered this theory, and if so, what to make of it.

It has never been opposed by any Council, and given its historical prevalence, I think it would have been by now if it posed some grave obstacle to man’s salvation. I’ve even seen it in St Liguori’s writings, who was an 18th century Doctor.

It’s an interesting idea and I think the reason it hasn’t faced any confrontation from any Council is because it isn’t ultimately relevant to man’s salvation. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t change the fact that A) man sins, B) sin separates man from God, C) God loves & saves man. I don’t think it makes mankind a “plan B” because the rebellion of the angels would have been foreknown from all eternity, just as the creation of mankind would have been foreknown from all eternity. There was never a point, and will never be a point, where “you” would not have been conceived within the mind of God.

The effect of a raindrop falling into a pond is that it creates a splash. The splash is not a “plan B” of the fall, but rather an inevitable outcome of it in the sequence of events.

Also, men and angels don’t have “entirely” different purposes in creation. The universal vocation of any rational creature is to love. The more specific vocations that spring from this universal vocation are secondary.

 

[TK421]

Oh come on CAF nerds :dts:, this is a fun theological question that doesn’t relate to the pelvis in anyway. Hop on.