Tonight we celebrated the feast day of St. Michael and All Angels. We'll continue our celebration tomorrow. Saturday Divine Service tends to be a bit austere, but tonight we were blessed by St. Paul's choir joining us. They sang a paraphrase of Psalm 23 (The King of Love) and did an outstanding job. It was a great joy to me to hear their song tonight - especially given a rather sad and trying day. And it was joy beyond words to take all the day's anxieties and lay them down before the throne of the Lamb and know that He would do what is always best, what is good beyond our knowledge and right beyond our hopes. To rest in His love is the only peace this poor world has, but such love He has given us! The angels delight to adore it, and when we join their adoration, their peace is ours too.
"Through Him Your majesty is praised by all the holy angels and celebrated with one accord by the heavens and all the powers therein. The cherubim and seraphim sing Your praise, and with them we laud and magnify Your glorious name..."
Pr Weedon,
ReplyDeleteForgive horrible ignorance about such matters, but this feast has prompted a few curious questions.
Let me preface my line of questioning by saying that I am not attacking the existence of the feast in the Lutheran church. I think that it is good and should be retained. In fact, I observe it in my personal devotion. I just have questions about the nuance of what we are saying here.
I always understood the "saints" to be human believers both living and dead. In fact, that is how the dictionary defines it. The Bible also seems to limit the saint title to humans on earth and in heaven. Rome clearly does not define it that way, but their definition is bound up in purgatory, saint intercession, and saintly merit. I have some guesses about why the name "St. Michael" was retained, but I'd like to hear your responses.
1. Have I been wrong in defining the saints as human believers both living and dead? Is that definition too narrow? What is the proper definition of a saint?
2. Why do Lutherans call Michael the Archangel a saint?
3. If the Archangel Michael is considered a saint, is he to be understood to be in the "Communion of Saints" which we profess in the Creeds? Are all angels part of the Communion of Saints? Is it St. Gabriel... etc? How does their inclusion/exclusion effect our understainding of the term "Communion of Saints"?
4. What is the scriptural support that Lutherans have used for the answers to these questions?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteSorry this response is so delayed. Been away at a pastoral conference.
You ask:
1. Have I been wrong in defining the saints as human believers both living and dead? Is that definition too narrow? What is the proper definition of a saint?
Saint properly just means "holy one" - I.e., one belonging to THE Holy One and in that way the angels may be called "saints" - they are HIS, His holy angels. The usage of "holy ones" (saints) is used of the angels in Daniel 4:17.
2. Why do Lutherans call Michael the Archangel a saint?
It's the name of the feast that they inherited from the Church of the middle ages. They mean it, though, simply in the form of "Holy" - as in Holy Michael the Archangel - He is the Lord's.
3. If the Archangel Michael is considered a saint, is he to be understood to be in the "Communion of Saints" which we profess in the Creeds? Are all angels part of the Communion of Saints? Is it St. Gabriel... etc? How does their inclusion/exclusion effect our understainding of the term "Communion of Saints"?
Among all the Fathers, St. Augustine especially heads in that direction - he speaks of the "city of God" being made of the holy angels and the redeemed of the earth. About using St. with Gabriel or Raphael or Uriel (latter two in apocrphya), yes, that is the church's normal usage.
4. What is the scriptural support that Lutherans have used for the answers to these questions?
Daniel 4 above is key (think of the hymn "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones!").