Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Heavenly Doxology- Trinity
When we sing,
"Michael is the first, Gabriel is the second, Rafael is the third, A symbol of the trinity"
How do those three archangels represent the trinity?
"Michael is the first, Gabriel is the second, Rafael is the third, A symbol of the trinity"
How do those three archangels represent the trinity?
Comments
in the same way, the total number of archangels is 7, to represent the perfect number of God.
I would be interested to see if anybody has any ideas.
..but i dont understand how that pertains to the Holy Trinity, since all persons of the Trinity are equal
Micheal (meaning: 'Who is like God') role: Head of the Angels (particularly the angelic army) - Symbol of God the Father who is the fountainhead of Trinity
Gabriel (meaning: 'Man of God') role: Messenger (brings the words of God to mankind) - Symbol of God the Son who is the 'Word of God'
Raphael (meaning: 'God heals') role: Healer (healed Tobit of his blindness) - Symbol of God the Holy Spirit who is the Life-Giver and heals all of mankind through His sanctifying grace (received through baptism and chrismation).
These are just my personal meditations.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Micheal (meaning: 'Who is like God') role: Head of the Angels (particularly the angelic army) - Symbol of God the Father who is the fountainhead of Trinity
Gabriel (meaning: 'Man of God') role: Messenger (brings the words of God to mankind) - Symbol of God the Son who is the 'Word of God'
Raphael (meaning: 'God heals') role: Healer (healed Tobit of his blindness) - Symbol of God the Holy Spirit who is the Life-Giver and heals all of mankind through His sanctifying grace (received through baptism and chrismation).
These are just my personal meditations.
Very interesting.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Micheal (meaning: 'Who is like God') role: Head of the Angels (particularly the angelic army) - Symbol of God the Father who is the fountainhead of Trinity
Gabriel (meaning: 'Man of God') role: Messenger (brings the words of God to mankind) - Symbol of God the Son who is the 'Word of God'
Raphael (meaning: 'God heals') role: Healer (healed Tobit of his blindness) - Symbol of God the Holy Spirit who is the Life-Giver and heals all of mankind through His sanctifying grace (received through baptism and chrismation).
These are just my personal meditations.
I like this ..
This topic has been moderated for relevance. Non-relevant and argumentative posts have been deleted. Remember that this is a CHURCH forum.
Also, remember the forum rules!
This topic will be closed if there aren't any further RELEVANT posts...
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Micheal (meaning: 'Who is like God') role: Head of the Angels (particularly the angelic army) - Symbol of God the Father who is the fountainhead of Trinity
Gabriel (meaning: 'Man of God') role: Messenger (brings the words of God to mankind) - Symbol of God the Son who is the 'Word of God'
Raphael (meaning: 'God heals') role: Healer (healed Tobit of his blindness) - Symbol of God the Holy Spirit who is the Life-Giver and heals all of mankind through His sanctifying grace (received through baptism and chrismation).
These are just my personal meditations.
But isn't that kind of a stretch? Most symbols in the church aren't this complicated if they state that it is a symbol. Is there anything that is maybe change in the translation?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12160.msg143928#msg143928 date=1314767589]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Micheal (meaning: 'Who is like God') role: Head of the Angels (particularly the angelic army) - Symbol of God the Father who is the fountainhead of Trinity
Gabriel (meaning: 'Man of God') role: Messenger (brings the words of God to mankind) - Symbol of God the Son who is the 'Word of God'
Raphael (meaning: 'God heals') role: Healer (healed Tobit of his blindness) - Symbol of God the Holy Spirit who is the Life-Giver and heals all of mankind through His sanctifying grace (received through baptism and chrismation).
These are just my personal meditations.
But isn't that kind of a stretch? Most symbols in the church aren't this complicated if they state that it is a symbol. Is there anything that is maybe change in the translation?
The exact translation is not symbol but "type". These three archangels were the only ones mentioned in the Bible as to have communicated with humanity. Thus, they stand as a type of the three persons of the Holy Trinity with each person having a relationship with humanity.
I would have to agree. Symbol may not be the most appropriate word and the translation would probably be more accurate if it were 'type'. Here you can find an explanation of what typology means.
This may not be related to the doxology for the trinity but I was wondering if there was a hiten for the Cherubim and the Seraphim? Since there is a doxology for them, I'm pretty sure there must be a hiten quartet for them, right?
You can take the ending of the doxology and turn it into a hidan:
Ari`precbeuin `e`hryi `ejwn@ ni`ctratia `n`aggelikon@ nem nitagma `n`epouranion@ `ntef ,a nennobi nan ebol.
It will be something like this:
Hiten precbeuia `nte ni`ctratia `n`aggelikon@ nem nitagma `n`epouranion@ `ntef ,a nennobi nan ebol.
Sorry I didn't reply before.
While I really like your spiritual interpretation of this angelic hierarchy of Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, and it's relation to the Trinity, I have one big problem with it. It is not found in the Scriptures or any patristic writing.
There is plenty of material in the Book of Enoch and pseudoepigraphical writings, including the Coptic History of Joseph the Carpenter, Pseudepigrapha: An Account of Certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and Early Christians, and the Life and Times of Jesus.
In nearly all of these accounts, there are 4 archangels, not 3: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel. I initially thought Uriel=Suriel. But, actually Raphael is Suriel. In addition, many of these accounts have Gabriel equal to Michael, if not more important. Some of these account have angels that are higher than the archangels. So these archangels are not the top of the hierarchy. And I have not found any that correlate 3 archangels to the Trinity. This makes sense, since most of these apocryphal accounts have a hierarchy of 4 angels and they are not even the highest.
We also have some words from our good old friend Origen. In Against Celesus Chapter 30, Origen describes Celesus' heretical doctrine of the seven archangels and what images they are given. Origen says, "He [Celesus] then returns to the subject of the Seven ruling Demons." This is quite an odd description Origen gives. Maybe Celesus correlated the Seven demons to the seven archangels. Or maybe Origen is stating Celesus description of the seven archangels is demonic. Regardless, we have one patristic father who condemns a heresy mentioning a hierarchy of angels.
In addition, Daniel 10:31 states Gabriel was fighting the kingdom of Persia for 21 days until Michael came to help him fight. It was at this point, that Gabriel returns to Daniel to describe future events. We have an illusion that Gabriel was sent to fight primarily while Michael was his "backup". It's not strong evidence against our hierarchy but it at least shows that we really have no solid evidence of an angelic hierarchy.
Even if we were to gloss over the similarities of our 3 angel hierarchy to the apocryphal angelic hierarchies, we are faced with the fact that there is no other reference of our 3 angel hierarchy in any other Coptic hymn, psali, sermon or hagiography. We should at least expect to see this hierarchy appear somewhere else. And no one ever correlated an angelic hierarchy to the Trinitarian hierarchy.
I'm not saying there can't be an angelic hierarchy that is a typology of the Trinity. I'm just saying I believe this one verse in the doxology is meant to be a spiritual mediation, not a theological account on angels. In fact, theologically it is almost heretical since the Scriptures and Church fathers seem to describe the angels' role in salvation as a whole unit, not describing one or three or seven angels' role. Everywhere we look in scripture and patristics we see "heavenly orders" or "heavenly armies" or "innumerable angels" are described theologically, with no extra veneration for specific angels. (Even the stanza imikhail just gave describes all the angelic armies as one unit since there is no specific St Seraphim or St Cherubim)
What are your thoughts?
Kephas and imikhail,
Sorry I didn't reply before.
While I really like your spiritual interpretation of this angelic hierarchy of Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, and it's relation to the Trinity, I have one big problem with it. It is not found in the Scriptures or any patristic writing.
There is plenty of material in the Book of Enoch and pseudoepigraphical writings, including the Coptic History of Joseph the Carpenter, Pseudepigrapha: An Account of Certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and Early Christians, and the Life and Times of Jesus.
In nearly all of these accounts, there are 4 archangels, not 3: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel. I initially thought Uriel=Suriel. But, actually Raphael is Suriel. In addition, many of these accounts have Gabriel equal to Michael, if not more important. Some of these account have angels that are higher than the archangels. So these archangels are not the top of the hierarchy. And I have not found any that correlate 3 archangels to the Trinity. This makes sense, since most of these apocryphal accounts have a hierarchy of 4 angels and they are not even the highest.
We also have some words from our good old friend Origen. In Against Celesus Chapter 30, Origen describes Celesus' heretical doctrine of the seven archangels and what images they are given. Origen says, "He [Celesus] then returns to the subject of the Seven ruling Demons." This is quite an odd description Origen gives. Maybe Celesus correlated the Seven demons to the seven archangels. Or maybe Origen is stating Celesus description of the seven archangels is demonic. Regardless, we have one patristic father who condemns a heresy mentioning a hierarchy of angels.
In addition, Daniel 10:31 states Gabriel was fighting the kingdom of Persia for 21 days until Michael came to help him fight. It was at this point, that Gabriel returns to Daniel to describe future events. We have an illusion that Gabriel was sent to fight primarily while Michael was his "backup". It's not strong evidence against our hierarchy but it at least shows that we really have no solid evidence of an angelic hierarchy.
Even if we were to gloss over the similarities of our 3 angel hierarchy to the apocryphal angelic hierarchies, we are faced with the fact that there is no other reference of our 3 angel hierarchy in any other Coptic hymn, psali, sermon or hagiography. We should at least expect to see this hierarchy appear somewhere else. And no one ever correlated an angelic hierarchy to the Trinitarian hierarchy.
I'm not saying there can't be an angelic hierarchy that is a typology of the Trinity. I'm just saying I believe this one verse in the doxology is meant to be a spiritual mediation, not a theological account on angels. In fact, theologically it is almost heretical since the Scriptures and Church fathers seem to describe the angels' role in salvation as a whole unit, not describing one or three or seven angels' role. Everywhere we look in scripture and patristics we see "heavenly orders" or "heavenly armies" or "innumerable angels" are described theologically, with no extra veneration for specific angels. (Even the stanza imikhail just gave describes all the angelic armies as one unit since there is no specific St Seraphim or St Cherubim)
What are your thoughts?
I totally agree with you Reminkimi on the theological vs. spiritual. I am sorry if my comment sounded theological. The doxology by default are meditations. Yes they may contain theological facts but mainly meditations and story-telling.
I realize that it is not found in Scripture or Patristics, but I did mention that these were my own personal meditations. Thank you for all the sources though, they were very interesting to say the least. Bear in mind though, I do not, for one second, think that there is a hierarchy (whether implied or explicit) in the doxology or in my own meditation. It would imply that there was a hierarchy within the Trinity, which is clearly not the case. All Divine Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and co-equal. That being said, in the meditation, I was just relating the roles of the archangels with roles of the Trinity.
That being said, I do think there is a hierarchy of angels, as we know that there are different ranks (or types) of angels. You have the Seraphim, the Cherubim, the Archangels, the Angels, the Thrones, the Dominions and the Powers. I do not think they are all equal (though they are all 'ministering flames of fire').
Let's clarify some things. Correct me if anything is wrong.
1. The doxology does imply a hierarchy since it states first, second and third.
2. There is a hierarchy of roles in the Trinity, not essence or divinity.
3. There is a hierarchy among all the angelic powers: powers, dominions, principalities, lordships, cherubims, seraphims, four living creatures, 144,000 etc. But there is no hierarchy in roles. (At least a hierarchy that we know of)
4. There is no extra veneration for a particular angelic powers. In other words, we don't venerate the 144000 virgins more than the lordships. So even though there are different types of angelic powers and there is a hierarchy of some sort, there is no substantial difference that requires a hierarchy. They are always treated as one unit.
5. There is no doubt that certain archangels have shown a unique role in helping humans and that is why we honor them. There is nothing theologically wrong with venerating Archangels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Suriel. But we need to realize there's a fine line between veneration and unconsciously fabricating facts motivated by cult-like blind devotion. We see this happening a lot in Kiahk praises.
Pray for me.
George M.
http://caelumetterra.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/1114/
The first thing that hit me as I read this post is the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham. The actual subject of the icon is based on the Biblical story about the visit by three Angels to the Prophet Abraham and his wife Sarah and how they are symbols of the Holy Trinity. When we read in the doxology 'A symbol of the Trinity' it could possibly be what the verse in this doxology is referring to. Those are my two cents.
Pray for me.
George M.
Thanks George.
The three who visited Abraham were the Son, the second hypostasis,along with two angels.
I don't really want to diverge from the topic of angels but take the following examples.
Someone had extreme love for the Virgin and correlated an image of the incarnation of Christ as "rain without cloud". And in another instance "rain without cloud" became "Christ will come as rain and dew". (different imagery). And then to validate this imagery, the attached the author as "Sophonios", which may or may not be Zephaniah (Zephaniah in Greek is Sophonios but there is no mention of rain and clouds in the Book of Zephaniah). And it may or may not be derived from Hosea 6:3 (but Hosea 6 speaks about repentance. It may or may not be derived from Jude 1:12 since it talks about "Clouds without rain". (Again different imagery) But Jude's image describes hypocrisy, not the Virgin, the Incarnation or Second coming of Christ. So this ultra-blind veneration of the Virgin introduced imagery and hymns that are not substantiated by scriptures, patristics or even apocrypha.
There is also the example is found in the Antiphonarium of the Virgin's Assumption. It says "They wept and mourned for the Virgin because they did not want to be separated from her. Dionysius of Areopagus and Timothy also came with them." There is no recorded history of who was present at the Virgin's assumption outside the 12 disciples. But the author of this antiphonarium entry wanted to venerate Paul and he included some of his Gentile (non-Jewish) followers be present at the Assumption.
There is also an example of seven "Mary's" present at the Assumption of Virgin, which is found in the Glorification hymns. I'll have to look up the exact text.
Then there is a hymn where St Shenouda is laughing at Emperor Constantine in the public baths of Rome. Ironically, the emperor during the 5th century was Emperor Theodosius II, not Constantine. I'll have to look up the hymn to be sure of the exact text.
There are more examples. But I think you get the idea. Some of the context in our hymns are so far in left field that we are trying to rationalize their meaning and existence. I don't want to discourage people from enjoying our Coptic hymns. We just need to keep an eye open for ambiguity.
I hope this helped.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144932#msg144932 date=1316488037]
1. The doxology does imply a hierarchy since it states first, second and third.
I wouldn't call that an implied hierarchy. When speaking about more than two things, one will often list them by saying first, second, third... etc. That is not a hierarchy, just a way of ordering what you are about to discuss. In the case of the hymn, I read it as saying 'Michael is the first (archangel that we shall speak of), Gabriel is the second (archangel that we shall speak of), Raphael is the third (archangel that we shall speak of), a symbol of the Trinity.' I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144932#msg144932 date=1316488037]
2. There is a hierarchy of roles in the Trinity, not essence or divinity.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a 'hierarchy of roles'. That each hypostasis of the Trinity has a different role is not questioned. What I question is that there is one role that is 'higher' or 'more superior' to another. That is what hiearchy (at least to me) implies, a sense of greater superiority, leaving one inferior to the one above it. Again, I don't think we can say that about the Trinity. If we do, wouldn't we run the risk of the heresy of Subordinationism?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144932#msg144932 date=1316488037]
3. There is a hierarchy among all the angelic powers: powers, dominions, principalities, lordships, cherubims, seraphims, four living creatures, 144,000 etc. But there is no hierarchy in roles. (At least a hierarchy that we know of)
I agree. Within each angelic hierarchy, those angels are all equal (as far as we know).
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144932#msg144932 date=1316488037]
4. There is no extra veneration for a particular angelic powers. In other words, we don't venerate the 144000 virgins more than the lordships. So even though there are different types of angelic powers and there is a hierarchy of some sort, there is no substantial difference that requires a hierarchy. They are always treated as one unit.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the bolded section seems to contradict everything you said in point 3. I agree with everything you've said except the bolded portion. There is a hierarchy of angelic powers. Within each rank of angelic powers, there is no hierarchy (that we know of). However, I do feel that some ranks receive greater veneration than others (whether for better or worse). For instance, we know the names of the 7 archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Suriel, Sadakiel, Sarathiel and Ananiel). Wouldn't you say they receive a bit more veneration than any of the dominions or powers? Particularly Michael and Gabriel as we have hymns specific to them as well as icons of them that we can venerate?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144932#msg144932 date=1316488037]
5. There is no doubt that certain archangels have shown a unique role in helping humans and that is why we honor them. There is nothing theologically wrong with venerating Archangels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Suriel. But we need to realize there's a fine line between veneration and unconsciously fabricating facts motivated by cult-like blind devotion. We see this happening a lot in Kiahk praises.
I couldn't agree more with this.
The scriptures do differentiate between angel and an archangel meaning that the archangel has angels below him who belong to his army.
Tradition also teaches us that that there are angels who have the rank of "head of the heavenly"
I wouldn't call that an implied hierarchy. When speaking about more than two things, one will often list them by saying first, second, third... etc. That is not a hierarchy, just a way of ordering what you are about to discuss. In the case of the hymn, I read it as saying 'Michael is the first (archangel that we shall speak of), Gabriel is the second (archangel that we shall speak of), Raphael is the third (archangel that we shall speak of), a symbol of the Trinity.' I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.
I see what you're talking about. But even in this contemplation, there is a hierarchy of time (the order we speak of each archangel). And in the end we are claiming it is a typology of the Trinity. It would imply that there is at least a time hierarchy of the Trinity (i.e., we always speak of the Father first, then we speak of the Son second and the Holy Spirit third). This is all fine and good. But there is a fine line here. And it is very easy for someone to think there is another hierarchy of time (i.e., the Father exists first, the Son second and the Holy Spirit third. Which is obviously a heresy). But now I see that the doxology doesn't necessarily imply a hierarchy of honor or nature among the archangels, just a time hierarchy. I see what you're saying. I understand hierarchy of roles in terms of business organization. The CFO of company is in charge of all financial decisions, while the COO is in charge of operations, the CEO is in charge of executing the company's goals. The CFO is not greater than the CEO since the CEO can't operate without the CFO and vice versa. They are only superior to their junior officers, not to each other. In this sense, it would apply to the Trinity. I think St Athanasius talks about this in the Incarnation of Christ. Sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to say is that nearly 99%+ of biblical scripture and patristic writings about angelic service is described in generic terms. For example, all angels are called "flaming ministers". All angels stand before the throne in the Book of Revelation and all angels, regardless of angelic order or class, bow down and worship the Lamb. There are so many examples of an angel, usually described generically, who serves God by helping humans some way. God sends a Cherubim to guard the Garden of Eden and another angel to save the Three Children of Babylon. The scriptures don't give specific names or specific honor. This is what we find in scripture and patristics. Hymnology and veneration is a different process. For some reason, (probably unintentionally) hymn-writers took "poetic license" to create a hierarchy of honor which is not based on scriptures or patristics. For example, we have plenty of hymns for 4 archangels and nothing for the remaining three archangels. We don't even have any corroborating evidence of the names of the three remaining archangels. Another example of "poetic licence" is giving the angel who saved the Three Children a name and a face, even though the scriptures refrained from this. Ironically, these hymn-writers validated their hierarchy and writings by attaching scripture authors (and many times applying it to the wrong scripture author).
I'm not saying there isn't some sort of hierarchy of honor for the archangels. But this honor hierarchy was intentionally vague in scriptures and patristics. So vague that for all intensive purposes, there really isn't a hierarchy in practice. However, hymn-writers went out of their way to sharpen this hierarchy and in the process fabricate facts. The next step after this is apocryphal writings, where the honor hierarchy went a mock and Judas Iscariot is the hero in his gospel.
I hope this makes sense.
I do not agree with the word "fabriacate" .. what do you mean?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144955#msg144955 date=1316538138]
I see what you're talking about. But even in this contemplation, there is a hierarchy of time (the order we speak of each archangel). And in the end we are claiming it is a typology of the Trinity. It would imply that there is at least a time hierarchy of the Trinity (i.e., we always speak of the Father first, then we speak of the Son second and the Holy Spirit third). This is all fine and good. But there is a fine line here. And it is very easy for someone to think there is another hierarchy of time (i.e., the Father exists first, the Son second and the Holy Spirit third. Which is obviously a heresy). But now I see that the doxology doesn't necessarily imply a hierarchy of honor or nature among the archangels, just a time hierarchy.
Forgive me, but I'm also not comfortable with the concept of a 'hierarchy of time' either. To me, implicit in the definition of the word 'hierarchy' is a sense of superior vs. inferior. Just because we order something in a certain way (in this case ordering the archangels) doesn't necessarily imply that we are ranking them from superior to inferior. I could see the potential for some to do that, but they would have to be really looking to skew the meaning of first, second and third in order to achieve it. I mean, if we extend this and look at the Creed, you could argue that there is also a 'hierarchy of time' as we first speak about the Father (Creator of all things visible and invisible) then the Son (Light of Light, True God of True God) and then the Holy Spirit (Co-essential with the Father and the Son). Would you say that there's a 'hierarchy of time' in this case, simply because we speak of the Father first, then the Son and then the Holy Spirit? I, personally, wouldn't.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144955#msg144955 date=1316538138]I see what you're saying. I understand hierarchy of roles in terms of business organization. The CFO of company is in charge of all financial decisions, while the COO is in charge of operations, the CEO is in charge of executing the company's goals. The CFO is not greater than the CEO since the CEO can't operate without the CFO and vice versa. They are only superior to their junior officers, not to each other. In this sense, it would apply to the Trinity. I think St Athanasius talks about this in the Incarnation of Christ.
I like the analogy and I agree with it fully. However, as I mentioned above, when using the word 'hierarchy' it, at least to me, implicitly indicates a kind of superior vs. inferior situation. As you mentioned, the CEO is no more senior than the COO who is no more senior than the CFO. They just perform different roles (with no role being superior to the other) within the context of the company.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144955#msg144955 date=1316538138]Sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to say is that nearly 99%+ of biblical scripture and patristic writings about angelic service is described in generic terms. For example, all angels are called "flaming ministers".
I agree. But this describes their nature. All angels possess the same nature, just as all humans possess the same nature, though there is a hierarchy within, say, the Church. You have archbishops, metropolitans, bishops, heguomen, priests, archdeacons, deacons, subdeacons, chanters, singers and laypeople. All possess the same nature, yet all are not 'equal' in the context of the Church hierarchy.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144955#msg144955 date=1316538138]
All angels stand before the throne in the Book of Revelation and all angels, regardless of angelic order or class, bow down and worship the Lamb. There are so many examples of an angel, usually described generically, who serves God by helping humans some way. God sends a Cherubim to guard the Garden of Eden and another angel to save the Three Children of Babylon. The scriptures don't give specific names or specific honor. This is what we find in scripture and patristics. Hymnology and veneration is a different process. For some reason, (probably unintentionally) hymn-writers took "poetic license" to create a hierarchy of honor which is not based on scriptures or patristics. For example, we have plenty of hymns for 4 archangels and nothing for the remaining three archangels. We don't even have any corroborating evidence of the names of the three remaining archangels. Another example of "poetic licence" is giving the angel who saved the Three Children a name and a face, even though the scriptures refrained from this. Ironically, these hymn-writers validated their hierarchy and writings by attaching scripture authors (and many times applying it to the wrong scripture author).
I agree with everything you said. Regarding the angel who saved the Three Children, isn't the consensus among the Fathers that it was a pre-incarnate Christ who saved them based on the statement of Nebachunezzer that the fourth looked like 'the Son of God'?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12160.msg144955#msg144955 date=1316538138]
I'm not saying there isn't some sort of hierarchy of honor for the archangels. But this honor hierarchy was intentionally vague in scriptures and patristics. So vague that for all intensive purposes, there really isn't a hierarchy in practice. However, hymn-writers went out of their way to sharpen this hierarchy and in the process fabricate facts. The next step after this is apocryphal writings, where the honor hierarchy went a mock and Judas Iscariot is the hero in his gospel.
I agree. All we know from scripture is that there are different ranks of angels. However, whether within those ranks there is a hierarchy, we don't know, and we don't really need to know.
Forgive me, but I'm also not comfortable with the concept of a 'hierarchy of time' either. To me, implicit in the definition of the word 'hierarchy' is a sense of superior vs. inferior. Just because we order something in a certain way (in this case ordering the archangels) doesn't necessarily imply that we are ranking them from superior to inferior.
Just like the word "hierarchy" can imply a sense of superiority, so do the words "First, second and third." As I said in my initial post, the doxology specifically says "Michael is the first", not "Michael is one of them (archangels)". The simple use of "first, second and third," means Michael is different than Gabriel and different than Raphael in some sort of fashion that allows us to mention Michael first. If it is not a difference in nature, and it's not a difference in superiority, then why go out of the way to say "first, second and third" rather than "one of them"? I wouldn't like it since it is very, very easily skewed into heresy. But if define "hierarchy of time" specifically to order of time we speak, then it is a feasible term. This is exactly what I'm getting at. The consensus among the Father is the angel was Christ. However, the Coptic hymn Va nitenh `nhat states, "You, Michael the Archangel, have the silver stretched-out wings, the girdle of pearls and the garment of gold. You flew to Babylon to the Three Children, you delivered them from the fiery furnance of King Nebuchadneezar". Now we are faced with reconciling patristics with hymn-writers who took poetic license to write hymns that are contradicting scriptures or patristics at worst, and stating facts that can't be corroborated at best.
imikhail, maybe "fabricate" is too strong. We can at least say these hymns have "suspicious" facts as I just described above. In response, many people state these suspicious "facts" are the Tradition passed down to us. I personally think we should be smarter in what words we pray with.
Edit: I fixed the message. Sorry for that. Thanks Unworthy for also fixing it.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12160.msg144974#msg144974 date=1316617235]
Forgive me, but I'm also not comfortable with the concept of a 'hierarchy of time' either. To me, implicit in the definition of the word 'hierarchy' is a sense of superior vs. inferior. Just because we order something in a certain way (in this case ordering the archangels) doesn't necessarily imply that we are ranking them from superior to inferior.
Just like the word "hierarchy" can imply a sense of superiority, so do the words "First, second and third." As I said in my initial post, the doxology specifically says "Michael is the first", not "Michael is one of them (archangels)". The simple use of "first, second and third," means Michael is different than Gabriel and different than Raphael in some sort of fashion that allows us to mention Michael first. If it is not a difference in nature, and it's not a difference in superiority, then why go out of the way to say "first, second and third" rather than "one of them"? I wouldn't like it since it is very, very easily skewed into heresy. But if define "hierarchy of time" specifically to order of time we speak, then it is a feasible term. This is exactly what I'm getting at. The consensus among the Father is the angel was Christ. However, the Coptic hymn Va nitenh `nhat states, "You, Michael the Archangel, have the silver stretched-out wings, the girdle of pearls and the garment of gold. You flew to Babylon to the Three Children, you delivered them from the fiery furnance of King Nebuchadneezar". Now we are faced with reconciling patristics with hymn-writers who took poetic license to write hymns that are contradicting scriptures or patristics at worst, and stating facts that can't be corroborated at best.
imikhail, maybe "fabricate" is too strong. We can at least say these hymns have "suspicious" facts as I just described above. In response, many people state these suspicious "facts" are the Tradition passed down to us. I personally think we should be smarter in what words we pray with.
Interesting discussion and it's difficult to answer it. However, perhaps I may add that there are two additional traditions that, perhaps through further research, could shed more light on this doxology's words.
First, there is Pseudo-Dionysius' Celestial Hierarchy, where he talks about the hierarchy of the heavenly beings, where there are 3 choirs with 3 kind of beings each, all together "imaging" the God the Trinity, as they are "images of God": the first choir consists of the thrones, cherubim, and seraphim; the second choir consists of the authorities, dominations, and powers; and the third choir consists of the angels, archangels, and principalities.
Second, there's the Russian iconography of the "Council of Archangels," which is an icon of the Archangels Michael, Gabriel, and (perhaps) Raphael. According to the theologian Bulgakov, there is a trinitarian structure of the Archangels since they each serve one of the Persons of the Trinity. So, he explains that Michael represents the truth, so he is in service of God the Word; Gabriel represents beauty and serves the Holy Spirit, proven in creation of life and the Incarnation; and Raphael represents the good, and serves God the Father who is good. This can be found in Bulgakov's work titled Jacob's Ladder.