THE ANGELS

 

The following is a college paper submitted in 1966 by myself for a History of Philosophy class. It presumes basic familiarity with the Scholastic approach to metaphysics. This perspective provides a framework to analyze all that exists. It has been rejected by many as outdated or irrelevant. I continue to find it helpful and illuminating.

 

DO ANGELS EXIST?1

 

Faith

 

This is a teaching of the Church based primarily on scripture, especially the New Testament. There are many Old Testament reference to angels. However, the use of the term “angel” is not always the same and should not always be taken literally. The appearances of angels in the New Testament, however, are incontestably real (examples: dream of Joseph, Annunciation, Nativity, Resurrection). The Church officially recognizes the existence of angels in the liturgy (Feast of St. Michael, references in the Canon, references in other liturgical feasts).

 

Reason

 

Pseudo Dionysius: Their existence is necessary to fill the gap between God and man. This is part of his doctrine of Hierarchy.

 

St. Thomas: 1) followed Pseudo Dionysius’ proof by Hierarchy and held his nine choir division: “At the summit of the scale is the absolute simplicity of God: at the summit of the corporeal world is the human being, partly spiritual and partly corporeal: there must, therefore, exist between God and man beings which are wholly spiritual and yet which do not possess the absolute simplicity of the Godhead.”2 (2) their creation was most fitting since pure intelligences alone can imitate God in the most perfect way.

 

HYLOMORPHIC COMPOSITION (relationship of matter and form in angels)

 

Avicebron (Salomon Ibn Gabriol): there is in creatures a hylomorphic composition which marks them off from God, for in God there is no composition.

 

William of Auvergne: William objects to Avicebron’s notion that angels are hylomorphically composed.  Objections: Angels are not sensible; what function could primary matter serve? N.B.: William restricted prime matter to the sensible world and made a distinction between essence and existence.

 

Bonaventure: Since matter is the principle of potency and angels have an element of potency they must possess matter. This possession is also fitting since it allows for a multiplicity of angels within the same species which would seem to conform to scripture.

 

St. Thomas: Angels are necessarily immaterial. But to be immaterial does not mean to be pure act—as Bonaventure would hold. There is a distinction of potency and act in all creation, but the distinction of matter and form pertains only to material creation. Spiritual creatures, angels, differ in essence. They are pure forms. Matter by itself, prime matter, is pure potentiality, which cannot exist by itself except as a concept. (St. Bonaventure conceived of matter as mere possibility or potency. Copleston clarifies his position in the following passage: “In so far as matter is looked on as providing a foundation for form in regard to being (in ratione entis), it is essentially the same in both spiritual and material creatures, since both spiritual and material creatures exist and subsist, and one can consider their existence by itself, without going on to consider their existence by itself, without going on to consider the precise way in which they exist or the kind of things they are.”3

 

Scotus: It is not clear whether or not he did teach the hylomorphic composition of angels. In his De Anima he stated that it can be deduced from the premises of Aristotle and St. Thomas that there is matter in the soul, since for Aquinas matter is the principle of individuation. This argument is proposed to support Scotus’ belief in the individuality of the rational soul after death. However, Scotus does not state that this deduction represents his own opinion. If Scotus held this view on the materiality of the soul, a belief in the materiality of the angel would necessarily follow.

 

MULTIPLICITY IN THE SPECIES

 

Bonaventure: “The scriptures show us some angels as exercising similar functions and this argues similarity of being, while the ‘love of charity’ also demands the multiplicity of angels within the same species.”4

 

St. Thomas: Angels differ in the order of being alone, that is by essence and existence. They are pure forms; they possess no matter. Since they are immaterial they cannot be distinct within the order of Essences. This necessarily results in the Thomistic tenet that each angel is its own species.

 

Copleston contrasts the two positions as follows: “In the angels there is no matter, but there is none the less potentiality. (St. Bonaventure argued that because matter is potentiality, therefore it can be in angels. He was thus forced to admit the forma corporeitatis in order to distinguish corporeal matter from matter in the general sense. St. Thomas, on the other hand, as he made matter pure potentiality and yet denied its presence in the angels, was forced to attribute to matter an exigency for quantity, which comes to it through form. Obviously there are difficulties in both views.) The angels can change by performing acts of intellect and will, even though they cannot change substantially: there is, therefore, some potentiality in the angels. The distinction between potentiality and act runs, therefore, through the whole of creation, whereas the distinction between from and matter is found only in the corporeal creation.”5

 

THE SIN OF THE ANGEL6

 

We can be certain of the sin of the angels through divine revelation. To explain this sin requires a deep understanding of the nature of sin, the nature of freedom, and the nature of knowledge. Sin consists in the voluntary non-consideration of the divine law. In the case of the angels it consisted in making themselves (the fallen angels) their own rule and disregarding the rule of God. It is important to note here that angels know by intuition, not by abstraction, since they are immaterial. Thus they can in no way plead ignorance of rule or weight of circumstance as could a human being. Jacques Maritain has divided the angels’ trial into two instants. In the first, the instant of nature, he states, that all the angels loved God with a love of nature. It was their nature, as for all creation, to reflect God’s glory. This love in innate but is not to be confused with the love of an act of charity (voluntary). The second instant, the instant of the love of free preference or of free refusal, was the instant of decision. In this instant the angels fully realized who they were and, to a sufficient degree, who God is. In that instant they chose between God or themselves. The angels who at that moment chose themselves over God sinned once and for all. Their sin was one of pride. God alone is His own end; His essence is His existence; His nature is His own end. A finite creature such as an angel is not his own rule of existence. In choosing himself to be so he voluntarily challenges and defies the Godhead and thus must face the consequences of this monstrous act of defiance.

 

 

  1. Raymond Regamey, What is an Angel? New York, Hawthorn Books, 1960.

  2. Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy. New York, The Newman Press, 1962, volume II, p. 329.

  3. Copleston, p. 271

  4. Copleston, p. 273

  5. Copleston, p. 331

  6. Jacques Maritain, The Sin of the Angel. Westminster, Md., 1959.