Hark, the Herald Angels...Sing?

[FerventGodSeeker]

HI, haven't got to look up much on the 'doctrines of Satan', and where they all fit together in Scripture, however I did find one passage in Ezekiel, which although speaks of the king of Tyrus, is thought to speak of Satan by some scholars. I will underline the 'musical' references...I italicized some parts that seem to be a portrayal of Lucifer. Like I said, I have not studied it, although I am sure there are some very scholarly in-depth books on the scriptural aspects of this Christian doctrine....

28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Thanks for the Bible reference, this does seem to be an indication that Satan was a cherub who may have played some sort of musical instrument(s). However, I'm still not seeing anything about angels singing.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Scuba Pete]

However, I'm still not seeing anything about angels singing.

Or not singing.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Or not singing.

Nor playing the bagpipes while hopping on one foot, sticking their tongue out while cross-eyed, or jumping small buildings in a single bound...Do we really have to go through this again?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[SunMessenger]

Nor playing the bagpipes while hopping on one foot, sticking their tongue out while cross-eyed, or jumping small buildings in a single bound...Do we really have to go through this again?

FerventGodSeeker

According to revelations they can certainly play one mean trumpet even if they don't sing ... Be Well and God Bless...

 

[Jay Snell]

Interesting but the Received Text, both Stephanus 1550 and Elzevir 1624, use the word "lego" which means to say.
Jay

 

[Scuba Pete]

Nor playing the bagpipes while hopping on one foot, sticking their tongue out while cross-eyed, or jumping small buildings in a single bound...Do we really have to go through this again?

FerventGodSeeker

Just clarifying what it DOESN'T say. But feel free to take umbrage at my clarifications! I just wanted to point out that MY opinion is just as valid as YOUR opinion on this: God didn't make it all that clear, one way or the other, now did he?

BTW, won't YOU be surprised when you see that angel playing the bagpipes while hopping on one foot, sticking their tongue out while cross-eyed at the pearly gates!

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Just clarifying what it DOESN'T say. But feel free to take umbrage at my clarifications! I just wanted to point out that MY opinion is just as valid as YOUR opinion on this: God didn't make it all that clear, one way or the other, now did he?

Well that's the thing...opinions are just opinions. Your opinion and my opinion aren't really relevant in the big scheme of things. The issue is, does Scripture or Tradition indicate that angels sing? No, they don't. Unless you automatically assume that someone who plays an instrument also sings (I think a lot of professional musicians would take exception to that), then you can't assume it (or at least I see no reason why you should). I think you have formed your opinion that angels sing based on the fact that you've heard about angels singing in Christian music (lots of Christmas songs mention it) or art, and thus the thought of singing just comes naturally to your mind when you think of angels. While it's obviously not a major point of doctrine and not something to get one's knickers in a twist about, I am simply pointing out that I think that is a faulty assumption (or at least, that's the way it seems at this point) since the idea is not stated in Scripture nor has it been taught by Holy Tradition (although since you're not Catholic, you don't even accept that).

BTW, won't YOU be surprised when you see that angel playing the bagpipes while hopping on one foot, sticking their tongue out while cross-eyed at the pearly gates!

Yes, I would be quite surprised:angel2: . I just hope God doesn't give us a quiz on the nature of angels before He lets us in: "So, Nick, do angels or do angels not sing? By the way, this question could determine the fate of your soul."

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Scuba Pete]

The issue is, does Scripture or Tradition indicate that angels sing?

Dude... you are missing the BIG POINT. Does scripture or tradition indicate OTHERWISE??? No, it doesn't indicate it EITHER WAY. WHY??? It's not that important, now is it? Yours is a legalistic rendition while mine is by grace. YOU want to make a LAW out of whether angels sing or not, and I am pointing out that there are far bigger issues to determine your salvation.

Don't draw lines in the sand that God doesn't specifically draw. Just because YOU believe something does not make it so. Let's look at what Paul had to say about those who want to put burdens on others:

Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Jesus DIED to free us from the Mosaic laws... why are you trying to make any more?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Dude... you are missing the BIG POINT. Does scripture or tradition indicate OTHERWISE???

So does that mean we should assume as true anything that Scripture or Tradition don't make mention of? Of course not. So why do we assume in this case?

No, it doesn't indicate it EITHER WAY. WHY??? It's not that important, now is it?

Yes, and I've said it's not that important multiple times.

Yours is a legalistic rendition while mine is by grace. YOU want to make a LAW out of whether angels sing or not, and I am pointing out that there are far bigger issues to determine your salvation.

When did I EVER say that this determined our salvation??? In my last post I was KIDDING when I mentioned God testing us about the nature of angels.

Don't draw lines in the sand that God doesn't specifically draw. Just because YOU believe something does not make it so.

Ditto. Don't assume things if God doesn't even make mention of them. Rather, draw on the information God does give us (which is quite a bit on its own), rather than adding your own. If God doesn't ever mention angels singing, there's no reason to assume that they do, any more than there is reason to assume they play chess.

Let's look at what Paul had to say about those who want to put burdens on others:

Who have I put a burden on? It's jsut a thread about something I found interesting which I wanted to discover the history of.

Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Jesus DIED to free us from the Mosaic laws... why are you trying to make any more?

When did I mention the making of ANY law?? I simply said I don't think there's a reason to assume that angels sing when there's no mention of it in any of the revelation we have been given from God. There's plenty of information that He has given us to fill our knowledge of angels without filling in more information of our own assumption that God never told us.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[SunMessenger]

Dude... you are missing the BIG POINT. Does scripture or tradition indicate OTHERWISE??? No, it doesn't indicate it EITHER WAY. WHY??? It's not that important, now is it? Yours is a legalistic rendition while mine is by grace. YOU want to make a LAW out of whether angels sing or not, and I am pointing out that there are far bigger issues to determine your salvation.

Don't draw lines in the sand that God doesn't specifically draw. Just because YOU believe something does not make it so. Let's look at what Paul had to say about those who want to put burdens on others:

Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Jesus DIED to free us from the Mosaic laws... why are you trying to make any more?

This was a harmless question. If anyone is creating a burden perhaps you are in your own mind. What law is this person writing. It was a simple interesting question. Perhaps you misunderstood the concept of this thread. It would not hurt to read the original post again. Relax . Why cant people discuss the simplest of topics without someone making it an issue? :faint: Be Well and God Bless ...

 

[James the Persian]

the idea is not stated in Scripture nor has it been taught by Holy Tradition (although since you're not Catholic, you don't even accept that).

Just a minor point, but you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to accept Holy Tradition. Both the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions have much the same attitude to Holy Tradition that Roman Catholics do.

I'd also say that you're remarkably sure that Holy Tradition doesn't teach that angels sing. I certainly couldn't be anywhere near as sure (and in fact suspect the opposite) and yet I'm a member of a church that does cling to Holy Tradition. Could you explain what you think Holy Tradition entails? You see, part of Holy Tradition is Liturgics and Hymnography. I'm pretty sure then that those Protestants who do accept Holy Tradition (Anglicans are it as far as I'm aware) could legitimately say that it does simply by reference to their hymnography. Likewise, given that an important (and difficult to sing) part of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is the Cherubic Hymn which, quite apart from the name, states that we who are singing are representing in the Church the cherubim, who are angels, in our singing, I would say that Holy Tradition, on balance, does teach the idea that angels sing. In this case specifically, the Thrice Holy hymn, or Trisagion.

James

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Just a minor point, but you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to accept Holy Tradition. Both the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions have much the same attitude to Holy Tradition that Roman Catholics do.

I did realize that; sorry if I was being too exclusive with Catholicism, I was just arguing from my perspective.

You see, part of Holy Tradition is Liturgics and Hymnography. I'm pretty sure then that those Protestants who do accept Holy Tradition (Anglicans are it as far as I'm aware) could legitimately say that it does simply by reference to their hymnography. Likewise, given that an important (and difficult to sing) part of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is the Cherubic Hymn which, quite apart from the name, states that we who are singing are representing in the Church the cherubim, who are angels, in our singing, I would say that Holy Tradition, on balance, does teach the idea that angels sing. In this case specifically, the Thrice Holy hymn, or Trisagion.

To be honest I am not nearly as versed in Tradition as I am in Scripture, as I am a pretty new convert (in fact not even an official one yet) to Catholicism. I was not aware that everyday hymns were considered Holy Tradition, as opposed to just individual traditions that one particular rite may prefer, etc. I have also always been taught that there is a distinction between an angel and a cherub. However, you do make a good point, and I'll have to look into it further.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[James the Persian]

I did realize that; sorry if I was being too exclusive with Catholicism, I was just arguing from my perspective.


To be honest I am not nearly as versed in Tradition as I am in Scripture, as I am a pretty new convert (in fact not even an official one yet) to Catholicism. I was not aware that everyday hymns were considered Holy Tradition, as opposed to just individual traditions that one particular rite may prefer, etc. I have also always been taught that there is a distinction between an angel and a cherub. However, you do make a good point, and I'll have to look into it further.

FerventGodSeeker

Unlike the RCC we don't really have 'everyday hymns', so I can't say whether or not you would consider them to be the sort of hymnography that constitutes a part of Holy Tradition. You'd have to ask a fellow RC about that. Our Liturgical hymnography is, however, considered part of Holy Tradition and the major ones are very ancient (though the music to which they are set has evolved over time). The Cherubic Hymn was added into the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (which is our usual Liturgy) in the 6th century, so this is no exception.

As for there being a distinction between angels and cherubs, you are half right. Angels is used both as the overarching term and as a specific rank of angel. As cherub is also an angelic rank, there is a distinction here, but that doesn't mean that they aren't angels in the overall sense. The ranks of angels are: thrones, cherubim and seraphim (closest to God), virtues, dominions and powers (further out from God), and angels, archangels and principalities (closest to man). I'm not sure whether or not the RCC teaching is quite as clear as ours on this, but as this is based on both Scripture and the Fathers (especially St. Dionysios the Areopagite), I would imagine so. Here's a link that explains (from an Orthodox perspective) the ranks of the angels:

http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_angels.htm

James

 

[Quiddity]

To my knowledge, the Church does not consider Liturgical hymnography as Holy Tradition. We do consider it tradition (small "t"), but what is to be sung is subject to change. Here is a short snip it of Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum dealing with Protestant hymns in the Mass. It will give you glimpse as to what the Church cares about.

It is to be noted that many (inside and outside the Church, etc.) often voice their objections to the Church allowing such things. They say that the Church is becoming to "Prostestant friendly". But the Church has always stretched the poles (paganism trying to lurk into the Church) as far as she can without deviating from truth.


<snip>

This should be taken into account in the case of Protestant hymns. They may be used in the liturgy provided they conform to Catholic doctrine. Any hymn that contains doctrine contrary to Catholic teachings, or is ambiguous, should not be used.

Liturgical melodies are there to assist prayer and should be distinctive in style and tone from worldly music. Their function is to elevate the spirit — not set the foot tapping or the imagination rolling. Therefore, they should never be baptized versions of current hits — or, as is more common, hits from the previous generation — but should seek to express the religious value of the text for, in Catholic tradition, the text always has priority over the music and in a sense is its soul.

<snip>

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITURG8.HTM

 

[James the Persian]

To my knowledge, the Church does not consider Liturgical hymnography as Holy Tradition. We do consider it tradition (small "t"), but what is to be sung is subject to change. Here is a short snip it of Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum dealing with Protestant hymns in the Mass. It will give you glimpse as to what the Church cares about.

It is to be noted that many (inside and outside the Church, etc.) often voice their objections to the Church allowing such things. They say that the Church is becoming to "Prostestant friendly". But the Church has always stretched the poles (paganism trying to lurk into the Church) as far as she can without deviating from truth.


<snip>

This should be taken into account in the case of Protestant hymns. They may be used in the liturgy provided they conform to Catholic doctrine. Any hymn that contains doctrine contrary to Catholic teachings, or is ambiguous, should not be used.

Liturgical melodies are there to assist prayer and should be distinctive in style and tone from worldly music. Their function is to elevate the spirit — not set the foot tapping or the imagination rolling. Therefore, they should never be baptized versions of current hits — or, as is more common, hits from the previous generation — but should seek to express the religious value of the text for, in Catholic tradition, the text always has priority over the music and in a sense is its soul.

<snip>

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITURG8.HTM

Just to be clear, you are referring to Liturgical Hymnography in a different way to what I mean, right? As I understand it you seem to be saying that the sort of protestant style hymns (what the previous poster referred to as everyday hymns) aren't Holy Tradition. On that, I think we can agree. The closest we have to anything like that is perhaps Christmas carols (generally sung outside the Church). That's very different, though, from things like the Cherubic Hymn, the Trisagion etc. These are integral parts of the Liturgy (which like a traditional RC Mass is almost entirely sung) and as such unless you were to say that the Liturgy (or Mass) itself is not Holy Tradition then you cannot possibly regard them as anything other than Holy Tradition, or can you? I'd also point out (as it was mentioned in your quote) that I am talking of the texts and not the music. As I said, the music has evolved over time and differs depending on the specific church. That, then, is clearly a small t tradition.

James

 

[Quiddity]

Just to be clear, you are referring to Liturgical Hymnography in a different way to what I mean, right? As I understand it you seem to be saying that the sort of protestant style hymns (what the previous poster referred to as everyday hymns) aren't Holy Tradition. On that, I think we can agree. The closest we have to anything like that is perhaps Christmas carols (generally sung outside the Church). That's very different, though, from things like the Cherubic Hymn, the Trisagion etc. These are integral parts of the Liturgy (which like a traditional RC Mass is almost entirely sung) and as such unless you were to say that the Liturgy (or Mass) itself is not Holy Tradition then you cannot possibly regard them as anything other than Holy Tradition, or can you? I'd also point out (as it was mentioned in your quote) that I am talking of the texts and not the music. As I said, the music has evolved over time and differs depending on the specific church. That, then, is clearly a small t tradition.

James

It does sound like I am seeing this differently. The Mass certainly is Holy Tradition. Perhaps if we were to dig further we would agree, but unfortunately I have helped lead us off topic.

 

[Snowbear]

I think the NIV is lacking in a lot of ways. On top of being written at an 8th grade reading level (no joke), it actually deletes a number of verses from Scripture.

Really??? Which ones???

Though I occasionally cross-reference the NIV, it's not the one I usually read, so just wondering....

 

[Snowbear]

I have seen such logic used to condemn the use of musical instruments in a church or even having a kitchen or a nursery. Were they to FULLY extend the folly of their logic, there should be no AC, bathrooms or even electricity in those buildings either.

Not to mention parking lots or podiums or sound and recording systems

 

[Scuba Pete]

Unfortunately, they just don't see the fallacy of the thinking here.

 

[Snowbear]

So Doc.... you are a member of your local church of Christ, right??

Is the leadership of your church open to the suggestion that just because a concept (like intrumental music during church services) is not mentioned in scripture means it can't be done? I'm kind of taking this a step farther and wondering if things like a capela music ARE mentioned as a part of formal worshop services? If not, why is music allowed at all during worship services