I really don't understand the Nine Choirs of Angels

[Cruikshank_s]

I further the recommendation that you read the Celestial Hierarchies by St. Dionysius the Areopagite and review St. Thomas’ analysis in the Prima Pars Q 108. You have to read further into the following objections to get the WHOLE rationale, but it would be well worth it. The teachings of St. Thomas carry an extremely high authority, I assure you, you can trust him! (he’s ALWAYS right)

Article 1. Whether all the angels are of one hierarchy?

Objection 1. It would seem that all the angels belong to one hierarchy. For since the angels are supreme among creatures, it is evident that they are ordered for the best. But the best ordering of a multitude is for it to be governed by one authority, as the Philosopher shows (Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10; Polit. iii, 4). Therefore as a hierarchy is nothing but a sacred principality, it seems that all the angels belong to one hierarchy.

Objection 2. Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii) that “hierarchy is order, knowledge, and action.” But all the angels agree in one order towards God, Whom they know, and by Whom in their actions they are ruled. Therefore all the angels belong to one hierarchy.

Objection 3. Further, the sacred principality called hierarchy is to be found among men and angels. But all men are of one hierarchy. Therefore likewise all the angels are of one hierarchy.

On the contrary, Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vi) distinguishes three hierarchies of angels.

I answer that, Hierarchy means a “sacred” principality, as above explained. Now principality includes two things: the prince himself and the multitude ordered under the prince. Therefore because there is one God, the Prince not only of all the angels but also of men and all creatures; so there is one hierarchy, not only of all the angels, but also of all rational creatures, who can be participators of sacred things; according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xii, 1): “There are two cities, that is, two societies, one of the good angels and men, the other of the wicked.” But if we consider the principality on the part of the multitude ordered under the prince, then principality is said to be “one” accordingly as the multitude can be subject in “one” way to the government of the prince. And those that cannot be governed in the same way by a prince belong to different principalities: thus, under one king there are different cities, which are governed by different laws and administrators. Now it is evident that men do not receive the Divine enlightenments in the same way as do the angels; for the angels receive them in their intelligible purity, whereas men receive them under sensible signs, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i). Therefore there must needs be a distinction between the human and the angelic hierarchy. In the same manner we distinguish three angelic hierarchies. For it was shown above (Question 55, Article 3), in treating of the angelic knowledge, that the superior angels have a more universal knowledge of the truth than the inferior angels. This universal knowledge has three grades among the angels. For the types of things, concerning which the angels are enlightened, can be considered in a threefold manner.

First as preceding from God as the first universal principle, which mode of knowledge belongs to the first hierarchy, connected immediately with God, and, “as it were, placed in the vestibule of God,” as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii).

Secondly, forasmuch as these types depend on the universal created causes which in some way are already multiplied; which mode belongs to the second hierarchy.

Thirdly, forasmuch as these types are applied to particular things as depending on their causes; which mode belongs to the lowest hierarchy. All this will appear more clearly when we treat of each of the orders (6). In this way are the hierarchies distinguished on the part of the multitude of subjects.

Hence it is clear that those err and speak against the opinion of Dionysius who place a hierarchy in the Divine Persons, and call it the “supercelestial” hierarchy. For in the Divine Persons there exists, indeed, a natural order, but there is no hierarchical order, for as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii): “The hierarchical order is so directed that some be cleansed, enlightened, and perfected; and that others cleanse, enlighten, and perfect”; which far be it from us to apply to the Divine Persons.

Reply to Objection 1. This objection considers principality on the part of the ruler, inasmuch as a multitude is best ruled by one ruler, as the Philosopher asserts in those passages.

Reply to Objection 2. As regards knowing God Himself, Whom all see in one way–that is, in His essence–there is no hierarchical distinction among the angels; but there is such a distinction as regards the types of created things, as above explained.

Reply to Objection 3. All men are of one species, and have one connatural mode of understanding; which is not the case in the angels: and hence the same argument does not apply to both.

 

[wild_thing]

There is a really, really good Catholic book on the subject called ‘Angels and Devils’ by Joan Carroll Cruz. She can give you much more information than I can on a post.

The word ‘angel’ does not describe the being, but it’s job. ‘Angel’ means ‘messenger’, "one sent’, or ‘one going’. There is mention of angels in both the New and Old Testament, which you seem already familar with.

In terms of the nine choirs of angels, there are only hints about this from the bible. Most of our information comes from Church tradition: Doctors of the Church and many saints have written extensively on angels.

The Old Testament refers to the first two choirs- the seraphim and cherubim. St. Paul, in the New Testament, adds to these by mentioning thrones, dominions (or dominations), principalities, powers, and virtues. St. Ignatius the Martyr (died 107) mentions angelic ranks and hierarchies in his writing ‘Epistle to the Trallians’. By the time of St. Ambrose (died 397), the idea of nine choirs of angels had been firmly established. St. Gregory the Great (died 604) wrote, “We know on the authority of scripture that there are nine orders of angels: these we know to be Angel, Archangels, Principalities, Virtues, Powers, Dominations, Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is the one who wrote extensively on the angels and this is where most of the information on the nine choir of angels comes from. In his Summa Theologica, he wrote not only about the nine choirs, but the function of each choir.

His writings on angels can be summed up this way- each angel is entirely different from any other angel, like snowflakes. They are also ranked in accordance to their knowledge of God, ie. Seraphim have a deeper knowledge of God than a guardian angel, and thus are of a higher rank.

Here is what each choir’s function is:

The first hierarchy

Seraphim- the highest rank. They are closest to God. They are before Him day and night and never leave Him. They literally burn with the love of God. They spend all their time in adoration and they transmit this love to the other ranks of angels.

Cherubim- the second highest rank. They match the love of the Seraphim by their knowledge. If Seraphim are the heart, Cherubim are the brains. They impart their knowledge of God to the other choirs.

Thrones- the third choir. Just like an earthly throne that a king sits on and gives commands, God imparts His Judgements and counsels through the Thrones. They exude the peace and just judgment of God to the other angels and to man. They are characterized by this peace and complete submission to God.

The second hierarchy

Dominations- fourth choir. The lower down the choirs we go, the more interaction angels have with man. This choir is like the ‘secretaries of state’. Their job is to make known to us the will of God in our lives. They have great zeal for God’s authority.

Powers- fifth choir. Sometimes interchanged with Virtues. If Seraphim are the heart, and Cherubim are the brains, than the Powers are the muscles. They are a good choir to call on when fighting the demons.

Virtues are said to be very courageous, and are in charge of the seasons, the elements, and the visible heavens. They are also a good choir to pray to in a time of spiritual warfare.

The third hierarchy

Principalities- the seventh choir. They are in charge of kingdoms, countries, provinces and even cities of men. I believe, if I remember this correctly, that some of the saints have commented that each diocese has it own Principality watching over it, maybe even it’s own parish.

The Archangels- the eighth choir. It is believed that they are given as guardians to people with a special mission from God on earth, such as the Pope, cardinals and some of the saints. They also, along with Principalities and Angels, watch over specific cities, towns, states, provinces, etc.

Angels- the ninth choir. Their job is to watch over us as guardians and protectors, to guide us and help us in this life. Every human being from their conception, has a guardian angel appointed to them. This angel will even accompany you to purgatory and spend time with you there until you reach heaven.

This is rather a long winded entry and I am just paraphrasing Cruz’s book and what I remember from saint’s writings. Does this help at all?

 

[MarkThompson]

The Second Council of Constantinople is an Ecumenical Council.

Old CE articles sometimes make mistakes, it’s rare, but it happens. Apologists make mistakes too, and tend to a little less rarely. It happens.

Yes – I didn’t intend there to be a contradiction; my assumption was that what was meant was that, as Constantinople II said, we know de fide that the Thrones, Dominations, and the like are angelic orders, but that as the Catholic Encyclopedia comments, what we don’t have are dogmatic teachings about their hierarchy, their functions, the actual total number of angelic orders, etc.

 

[AdamC]

The Old Testament refers to the first two choirs- the seraphim and cherubim. St. Paul, in the New Testament, adds to these by mentioning thrones, dominions (or dominations), principalities, powers, and virtues.

NO. HE. DOES. NOT.

This is what I keep trying to say. Biblical references to thrones, principalities, dominions, or powers are references to thrones, principalities, dominions, or powers. There is nothing in Col 1:16 that implies that these are names or ranks of any classes of spiritual beings. There is some implication that there may be a hierarchy in heaven (which, of course, there is) but it does not specify how that hierarchy is arranged or populated, except to say that Christ is highest upon it.

Someone quoted the Catholic encyclopedia, which said that this belief on angels is not necessary for faith.

I gave a link to the Catechism which quotes Col 1:16, but makes no mention of the nine choirs. scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p5.htm Either it’s not Church doctrine, or it’s irrelevant, which matches the encyclopedia.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defenso…ne_choirs.html Here, I find Jimmy Akin’s blog, and he talks about this issue. He says it’s difficult to believe, and essentially, that he doesn’t buy it. He is a writer for Catholic.com, and has written many Catholic apologetics books, according to Wikipedia. If a person such as him doesn’t call it an essential doctrine of faith, and he spends his time teaching essential doctrines of faith, I tend to think it’s not essential.

Someone else mentioned Aquinas. It’s funny they would, because I was just studying Aquinas in Medieval History today, and one of the hallmarks of his particular brand of scholasticism says that while tradition should be respected, it should not be slavishly followed. That is, if the tradition is illogical (he was an Aristotelian), then it should not be considered truth. He was more concerned with reason than with blind obedience, and so am I.

The Nine Choirs of Angels is not Biblically supported. The men who wrote the New Testament spoke to Christ, face-to-face, either in visions or in person. If a teaching can’t be reconciled with their writings, then the teaching has no value.

 

[AdamC]

Also, the verse Col 1:16 is a reference to the fact that all authority belongs to Christ, “whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers”.

 

[Shin]

This is rather a long winded entry and I am just paraphrasing Cruz’s book and what I remember from saint’s writings. Does this help at all?

You’ve got some great information here WT, thank you. I know a number of people can be helped by paying attention to it, and asking for the intercession of the Powers, for example, to help them in spiritual warfare situations.

Have you prayed the Chaplet of St. Michael? It’s a great devotion to the angels.

 

[AdamC]

I have a follow-up question:

Is it possible that, perhaps, the angels (or those otherwise designated) are simply representatives (not in a symbolic way, but in a diplomatic way) of the principalities, etc. Perhaps they are angels that have been assigned to oversee these things, and are thus named after them, but they unto themselves would not be known as principalities, etc. if they had not been so assigned. Kind of like how angels wouldn’t be called angels if they weren’t messengers.

Does this fit? Because if so, I can accept that. It makes sense that God would have angels running around doing stuff and looking after things for Him. It doesn’t make sense that he would just randomly named groups of spirits “principalities”. For one thing, an individual is not a principality.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have a follow-up question:

Is it possible that, perhaps, the angels (or those otherwise designated) are simply representatives (not in a symbolic way, but in a diplomatic way) of the principalities, etc. Perhaps they are angels that have been assigned to oversee these things, and are thus named after them, but they unto themselves would not be known as principalities, etc. if they had not been so assigned. Kind of like how angels wouldn’t be called angels if they weren’t messengers.

Does this fit? Because if so, I can accept that. It makes sense that God would have angels running around doing stuff and looking after things for Him. ** It doesn’t make sense **that he would just randomly named groups of spirits “principalities”. For one thing, an individual is not a principality.

Argument from incedulity is not in harmony with reason.

 

[SouthpawLink]

AdamC:

Biblical references to thrones, principalities, dominions, or powers are references to thrones, principalities, dominions, or powers.

“That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church … For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places” (Ephesians 3:10; 6:12).

The principalities and powers are “in heavenly places” and are not “flesh and blood,” so I do not see any reason why we should read Colossians 1:16 as describing earthly thrones, dominations, etc.

P.S. - Both the original Baltimore Catechism (1891) and the Revised Baltimore Catechism (1949) taught about the nine choirs of angels.

See question 220: baltimore-catechism.com/lesson4.htm

 

[wild_thing]

I am kind of nervous about you saying you don’t need to believe in angels. Maybe you mean you just don’t believe in the whole nine choir of angels thing? Because it seems to me that the catechism AND the bible are pretty darn clear about the existence of angels. That aspect of it isn’t like a private revelation, in which we need not believe in order to live our faith. In terms of the different choirs, again, this was established by various Doctors of the church- there isn’t a specific number listed in scripture.
In terms of St. Paul’s Ephesians, you seem to be arguing about semantics. Most people- whether Catholic, Protestant or whatever, interpret this verse as talking about specific heavenly beings, and not earthly principalities, dominions, etc. Remember, the term ‘angel’ refers to their office, not their nature. The same goes for the Virtues, Principalities, Dominions, Powers, etc- their name is their JOB.

 

[SouthpawLink]

I am kind of nervous about you saying you don’t need to believe in angels. Maybe you mean you just don’t believe in the whole nine choir of angels thing? Because it seems to me that the catechism AND the bible are pretty darn clear about the existence of angels. That aspect of it isn’t like a private revelation, in which we need not believe in order to live our faith. In terms of the different choirs, again, this was established by various Doctors of the church- there isn’t a specific number listed in scripture.

In terms of St. Paul’s Ephesians, you seem to be arguing about semantics. Most people- whether Catholic, Protestant or whatever, interpret this verse as talking about specific heavenly beings, and not earthly principalities, dominions, etc. Remember, the term ‘angel’ refers to their office, not their nature. The same goes for the Virtues, Principalities, Dominions, Powers, etc- their name is their JOB.

No, we have to believe in the existence of angels; the penalty for not doing so is heresy. As for there being nine choirs of angels, that is a probable and generally-held theological opinion; it is not required to be believed under pain of sin. Given the unanimous consent among the Church’s theologians, however, as well as its inclusion in traditional catechisms, I choose to believe in it.

I just found this article: ewtn.com/library/mary/angel3.htm

 

[AdamC]

I am kind of nervous about you saying you don’t need to believe in angels. Maybe you mean you just don’t believe in the whole nine choir of angels thing? Because it seems to me that the catechism AND the bible are pretty darn clear about the existence of angels. That aspect of it isn’t like a private revelation, in which we need not believe in order to live our faith. In terms of the different choirs, again, this was established by various Doctors of the church- there isn’t a specific number listed in scripture.
In terms of St. Paul’s Ephesians, you seem to be arguing about semantics. Most people- whether Catholic, Protestant or whatever, interpret this verse as talking about specific heavenly beings, and not earthly principalities, dominions, etc. Remember, the term ‘angel’ refers to their office, not their nature. The same goes for the Virtues, Principalities, Dominions, Powers, etc- their name is their JOB.

I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I believe in angels, and I never said that I didn’t. I also never said that I don’t believe in the nine choirs. What I said is that I don’t see appropriate evidence for their existence. Aquinas makes a good argument, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

 

[AdamC]

“as far back as the days of Saint Ignatius Martyr, who died 107 A.D., explicit mention is made of hierarchies and of ranks of Angels: “I am in chains and able to grasp heavenly things, the ranks of the angels, the hierarchy of principalities, things visible and invisible.””

There you go, good evidence. 107 AD is pretty freakin’ early, this works.

Anything else? Anybody else have more?

 

[wild_thing]

Someone quoted the Catholic encyclopedia, which said that this belief on angels is not necessary for faith.

I gave a link to the Catechism which quotes Col 1:16, but makes no mention of the nine choirs. scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p5.htm Either it’s not Church doctrine, or it’s irrelevant, which matches the encyclopedia.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defenso…ne_choirs.html Here, I find Jimmy Akin’s blog, and he talks about this issue. He says it’s difficult to believe, and essentially, that he doesn’t buy it. He is a writer for Catholic.com, and has written many Catholic apologetics books, according to Wikipedia. If a person such as him doesn’t call it an essential doctrine of faith, and he spends his time teaching essential doctrines of faith, I tend to think it’s not essential.

Someone else mentioned Aquinas. It’s funny they would, because I was just studying Aquinas in Medieval History today, and one of the hallmarks of his particular brand of scholasticism says that while tradition should be respected, it should not be slavishly followed. That is, if the tradition is illogical (he was an Aristotelian), then it should not be considered truth. He was more concerned with reason than with blind obedience, and so am I.

I’m sorry. It was this part of your post that made me think that you do not believe in the nine choirs of angels.

 

[AdamC]

AdamC;7674479:

Someone quoted the Catholic encyclopedia, which said that this belief on angels is not necessary for faith.

I gave a link to the Catechism which quotes Col 1:16, but makes no mention of the nine choirs. scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p5.htm

Either it’s not Church doctrine, or it’s irrelevant, which matches the encyclopedia.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defenso…ne_choirs.html Here, I find Jimmy Akin’s blog, and he talks about this issue. He says it’s difficult to believe, and essentially, that he doesn’t buy it. He is a writer for Catholic.com, and has written many Catholic apologetics books, according to Wikipedia. If a person such as him doesn’t call it an essential doctrine of faith, and he spends his time teaching essential doctrines of faith, I tend to think it’s not essential.

Someone else mentioned Aquinas. It’s funny they would, because I was just studying Aquinas in Medieval History today, and one of the hallmarks of his particular brand of scholasticism says that while tradition should be respected, it should not be slavishly followed. That is, if the tradition is illogical (he was an Aristotelian), then it should not be considered truth. He was more concerned with reason than with blind obedience, and so am I.

I’m sorry. It was this part of your post that made me think that you do not believe in the nine choirs of angels.

Don’t be sorry. When I said that I’m not saying I don’t believe in them, it’s because I don’t have a belief either way. It’s not that I do believe the Nine Choirs, either. I just don’t understand it. There sure is a lot of Traditional evidence for it, and maybe for a Catholic it seems strange that I don’t believe in it just based on that, but I’ve been raised in a Protestant household, and I’m used to anything I believe about God/Christ/Christianity to be explicitly stated in the Bible. This isn’t, it’s only hinted at.

But then, so is the Trinity not explicit, it’s a doctrine that’s been determined according to interpretation of scripture by the Church.

I’m just confused, and I want to see evidence. I don’t accept things blindly.

EDIT: Just to be clear: I DO believe in the Trinity, don’t worry about that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

wild thing;7681724:

Don’t be sorry. When I said that I’m not saying I don’t believe in them, it’s because I don’t have a belief either way. It’s not that I do believe the Nine Choirs, either. I just don’t understand it. There sure is a lot of Traditional evidence for it, and maybe for a Catholic it seems strange that I don’t believe in it just based on that, but I’ve been raised in a Protestant household, and I’m used to anything I believe about God/Christ/Christianity to be explicitly stated in the Bible. This isn’t, it’s only hinted at.

But then, so is the Trinity not explicit, it’s a doctrine that’s been determined according to interpretation of scripture by the Church.

I’m just confused, and I want to see evidence. I don’t accept things blindly.

EDIT: Just to be clear: I DO believe in the Trinity, don’t worry about that.

As I mentioned earlier, you are not held to believe this as it is not dogma.
The Trinity is one of many examples that are not explicit in the bible.

The larger question you may ask yourself sometime is why the insistance on expicity in the bible in all cases?
If you make that a limitation to your search, then you have far more hurdles ahead of you than this.
You may ask if you have an unstated dogma you follow right now, hidden under the guise of “freedom of interpretation”?
Not sure about that, but it just hit me right now.

 

[AdamC]

AdamC;7681803:

As I mentioned earlier, you are not held to believe this as it is not dogma.
The Trinity is one of many examples that are not explicit in the bible.

The larger question you may ask yourself sometime is why the insistance on expicity in the bible in all cases?
If you make that a limitation to your search, then you have far more hurdles ahead of you than this.
You may ask if you have an unstated dogma you follow right now, hidden under the guise of “freedom of interpretation”?
Not sure about that, but it just hit me right now.

I absolutely do have that dogma, and it’s one of the main problems I have in trying to explore Catholicism. I was raised Protestant, and I was also raised to be very critical of things. My dad always taught me not to take things at face value, and always to question things. It has been a blessing and a curse in my exploration of Catholicism, because it has forced me to delve very deeply into the beliefs and Tradition of the Church, but it has also hindered my faith as I come across speedbumps, such as this one.

But I think you missed my point. I was reasoning that because the Trinity is not explicitly found in scripture, and it is something I believe in, then perhaps I should not question this doctrine to heavily. I also don’t have any particular trouble believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary or the Assumption. Neither of those things are explicit in scripture, either.

This is part of my journey. If I’ve offended you or anyone, it was not my intention. It’s just been hard for me to move down a path that is so different than the one my dad showed me.

 

[StrawberryJam]

StrawberryJam;7686191:

I absolutely do have that dogma, and it’s one of the main problems I have in trying to explore Catholicism. I was raised Protestant, and I was also raised to be very critical of things. My dad always taught me not to take things at face value, and always to question things. It has been a blessing and a curse in my exploration of Catholicism, because it has forced me to delve very deeply into the beliefs and Tradition of the Church, but it has also hindered my faith as I come across speedbumps, such as this one.

But I think you missed my point. I was reasoning that because the Trinity is not explicitly found in scripture, and it is something I believe in, then perhaps I should not question this doctrine to heavily. I also don’t have any particular trouble believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary or the Assumption. Neither of those things are explicit in scripture, either.

This is part of my journey. If I’ve offended you or anyone, it was not my intention. It’s just been hard for me to move down a path that is so different than the one my dad showed me.

Catholicsism is not offensive to me, nor were your observations.

I think you may have missed me in translation.

personal incredulity is not a valid objection to anything.