When Are Guardians Appointed?

There are two schools of thought here: that guardian angels are appointed from birth, or that they are appointed from the moment of baptism. The Summa first quotes St. Jerome in stating that “each soul has an angel appointed to guard it from its birth.” [3] Aquinas prefers this view because of the difference in benefits due to a man as a Christian versus those due to him because he is a rational being. Guardian angels are justified due to man’s state as a rational being, subject to the temptations of sin and spiritual assaults, and this nature is not related to whether or not he has been baptized. This is contrasted with benefits man receives from being a Christian, such as participation in the Eucharist, which are conferred by God at baptism. [4]

What Can They Do?

The primary purpose of guardian angels is to protect mankind from spiritual dangers during life:

Man while in this state of life, is, as it were, on a road by which he should journey towards heaven. On this road man is threatened by many dangers both from within and from without, according to Psalm 141:4: “In this way wherein I walked, they have hidden a snare for me.” And therefore as guardians are appointed for men who have to pass by an unsafe road, so an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as he is a wayfarer. [5]

Writings show medieval man to be greatly concerned with spiritual danger, more so than many people are today. Dangers ranged from small temptations to sin to attack from demons. If one believes in a real spiritual danger, one will take great comfort in spiritual protection.

Guardian angels can offer more than just spiritual protection. Medieval theologians believed that angels can enlighten men. [6] They cannot change a man’s will. [7] This means that people may receive guidance from their guardian angels, but the angels will not force them to obey—they cannot take away free will. If people disobeyed the advice of their guardian angels, medieval theologians still believed that the angels would never forsake their charges, though they may temporarily leave them or fail to prevent them from falling into some trouble or sin “according to Divine judgment.” [8] If angels failed to prevent their charges from falling into trouble, it would be because God judged that course of action to be best, not because the angels desired punishment. Guardian angels are like the Secret Service—they’ll keep their charges safe, but they won’t babysit them.

Role in Medieval Thought

I have found many references to angels in medieval literature, but a curiously small number of references to guardian angels specifically. This may simply be a difference of vocabulary. I can think of no romance in which a knight is rescued by a guardian angel, though there are some didactic pieces where he is rescued by the Virgin Mary. This makes sense. Angelic intercession in literature is usually depicted when the innocent and weak, those who are unable to defend themselves, are saved from physical threat. Knights are usually well-equipped to save themselves from physical threat. The Virgin Mary intercedes for knights when they need rescuing from spiritual temptation, illness, or slander, all areas in which knights are no more or less able to defend themselves than non-knights. The Virgin is a more appropriate intercessor here than an angel because of a medieval belief in woman’s moral superiority. More on that later.

1. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2^nd ed. (1920, online ed. Kevin Knight: 2008), I 113 1. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article1
2. Ibid. I 113 2. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article2
3. Ibid. I 113 5. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article5
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. I 113 4. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article4
6. Ibid. I 111 1. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1111.htm#article1
7. Ibid. I 111 2. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1111.htm#article2
8. Ibid. I 113 6. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1113.htm#article6

And when we reached camp, we found that [King Louis IX] had marked out the sites in person, where our quarters were to be. My quarters he had chosen alongside those of the Count of Eu, because he knew that the Count of Eu liked my company.

I will tell you of the tricks the Count of Eu used to play on us.

I had built a hut, where I used to take my meals,—I and my knights—lighted through the doorway. Now the doorway gave onto the Count of Eu’s quarters; and he, who was very ingenious, made a little machine to throw into it, and used to watch when we went to table, and set up his machine in a line with our table and break our jugs and glasses. [1]

I’m terribly amused by this. My first thought is, what kind of machine is it? Surely it’s a tiny version of the siege engines they may have been using in actual warfare. A catapult? A trebuchet? Ballistas were known for their accuracy, but the passage specifically says “throw.”

This passage leaves me with the mental image of a grown man in armor gleefully plopping himself on the ground outside Joinville’s doorway and aiming a tiny catapult. Not only has Eu had the time and will to build this tiny siege engine, but he uses it repeatedly, enough times to really annoy Joinville. He has good aim, too. I’ll bet Eu likes Joinville’s company because Joinville is the only person willing to put up with him.

If you would like your own tiny siege engine, I recommend finding Siege the Day at a Renaissance faire. Their quality is superb and the staff is excellent. I would have purchased a catapult for my office, but I don’t have an office.

1. Wedgewood, Ethel, The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville by Jean de Joinville (London, Murray: 1906) 299-300.

Dress has extensive records of materials and designs accompanied by many illustrations. This book was originally published in 1986, but realizing that many people use this book for costuming purposes, Owen-Crocker has included information on how to wear historical costumes in this updated version. Owen-Crocker has even modified some research on the basis of advice from historical costume reproducers, such as the idea that wrist clasps are terribly uncomfortable for working, so Anglo-Saxon women would likely have rolled up their sleeves for work and worn wrist clasps only on social occasions.

Much of the evidence for Dress comes from grave goods. Reading the catalogues of personal items does get a little tedious, but it is also a wealth of information not only for dress, but also religious development. The type of items carried by men, women, and children also gives insight as to their positions in society and the items most treasured by or most useful to a man or woman of the period.

Dress is divided chronologically, which allows it to trace clothing development by period. Men’s and women’s clothing are discussed separately. Each chapter is divided by types of clothing (for example, shoes versus hair), and divided geographically where necessary. Footnotes are extensive, as is the bibliography. One may easily use this book both for research and for producing costumes with a great deal of accuracy. One warning is necessary—it rarely mentions armor, so if you’re interested in the dress of warfare, this isn’t your book.

I feel the need to include a comment that has no relevance to this review, but has been a point of conversation with my colleagues who have seen this book. It’s really heavy. I don’t know why. Perhaps the paper is very thick. Perhaps the cover is very dense material. Regardless, it’s remarkably heavy for a book of its size. I’ll take it as a sign of important knowledge.

Table of Contents

• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction to the revised edition
• A historical framework
• Women’s costume in the fifth and sixth centuries
• Men’s costume in the fifth and sixth centuries
• Women’s costume from the seventh to the ninth centuries
• Men’s costume from the seventh to the ninth centuries
• Women’s costume in the tenth and eleventh centuries
• Men’s costume in the tenth and eleventh centuries
• Textiles and textile production
• The significance of dress
• Appendix A: Old English garment-names
• Appendix B: A possible cutting plan for an eleventh century gown (Robin Netherton)
• Bibliography
• Index

All Three Are God

St. Augustine uses John to justify that all three members of the Trinity are God. First, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [3] Next, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” [4] Augustine explains that the Word has to mean the Son because the second passage refers to the incarnation. We can see that the Word is God and is also with God, which shows that the Father and the Son are the same substance. [5] The Church confirms this in the Nicene Creed (381) by stating that the Son is “consubstantial to the Father” (of the same substance of the Father) but also “begotten.” [6] The Nicene Creed was in use through the Middle Ages and continues to be used today.

In joining the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son, Augustine quotes 1 Corinthians: “Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own?” [7] He argues that it would be senseless to argue that one’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit was inferior to Christ because 1 Corinthians also says “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” [8] If the body is equated with the Holy Spirit and Christ, it would be profane to argue that it is equal to both the inferior and superior things.

All three persons of the Trinity are “co-eternal and co-equal to one another,” [9] meaning that all three are equal to each other in greatness and power, even though the Father begat the Son and the Holy Ghost. For comparison, take the human relationship of a father and his daughter (let’s call them Charlie and Susan). Charlie and Susan are equal because they are both humans—equally fallible, equally mortal, of equal potential for accomplishments. If we say that Charlie is greater than Susan or Susan is more valuable than Charlie, we would base this conclusion on aspects like their benefits to society, not their inherent worth as human beings.

“Co-eternal” means that the Son has always been with the Father—there was never a time when the Father existed, but not the Son. [10] This is hard to explain in terms that are both simple and accurate, but the Summa cites St. Augustine with the explanation that “no mode of the procession of any creature perfectly represents the divine generation.” [11] We use the terms “father” and “son” because they are the most accurate terms available to understand the relationship, but not a perfect representation.

The Father

The Father is probably the person of the Trinity least likely to give confusion. “The Father = God” is a pretty safe way to engage this person of the Trinity, provided that one recognizes a more specific definition may be helpful for advanced theological work. The Father is the principle, meaning that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from (come from) the Father. [12]

The Son

“The Son = Jesus” is also a safe definition to start with. We recognize a separation between Father and Son, but this doesn’t make Christianity polytheistic. Christians state that the Father and the Son are the same substance, whereas  Charlie and Susan are both different substances (even though they’re both the same type of being).

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the most problematic of the three persons for most people. Just as “Word” is a proper name for the Son, so is “Love” a proper name for the Holy Spirit. [13] Approaching the Holy Spirit as a relationship is not the most accurate definition, but it’s a good place to start.

The Summa says, “The Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the Father and Son, inasmuch as He is Love; because, since the Father loves Himself and the Son with one Love, and conversely, there is expressed in the Holy Ghost, as Love, the relation of the Father to the Son, and conversely, as that of the lover to the beloved. But from the fact that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the third person in the Trinity; whereas as regards the aforesaid relation He is the bond between the two persons, as proceeding from both.” [14] In short, the Father and the Son love each other (it is no surprise to us if a parent and child love each other), and that love between them is the Holy Spirit. This love is to be understood as an actual thing and not just a relationship. This shouldn’t be too hard to understand if one thinks about just how often we use the word “love” as a proper noun, not just an idea two people share.

The Summa also defines the Holy Spirit using the word “charity” from the Latin caritas. This should be understand by older definitions of the word, meaning “God’s love to man,” “The Christian love of one’s fellow human beings,” or simply “love” and “right feeling.” [15] This love is not just a disposition, but a “divine essence.” [16]

Holy Spirit vs. Holy Ghost

These are the same thing. The difference is merely one of vocabulary and common usage. “Spirit’ became more common as “ghost” became a term purely for the floaty white incorporeal remains of dead people.

1. St. Augustine, “On the Trinity,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3, trans Arthur West Hadden, ed. Phillip Schaff, (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887) 1 5 8. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm
2. Ibid.
3. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. John 1:1.  http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50001.htm
4. Ibid., John 1:14. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50001.htm
5. Augustine, “On the Trinity,” 1 6 9.
6. Wilhelm, Joseph, “The Nicene Creed,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1911). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
7. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:19. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53006.htm
8. Augustine, “On the Trinity,” 1 5 13.
9. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2^nd ed. (1920, online ed. Kevin Knight: 2008), I 42 2 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm#article2
10. Ibid. I 33 2 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm#article2
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid. I 37 1 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1037.htm#article1
14. Ibid.
15. Oxford English Dictionary, 2^nd ed., s.v.  “charity.”
16. Fathers, Summa, I 38 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1038.htm

In the Somerset Fragments, written during the 14^th C, we find a curious passage. The text was written by a fifth son of a prominent family whose name was originally signed on several documents, but was destroyed over time by water damage on the ms. The text contains a collection household accounts, fragments copied from a psalter, and personal accounts. From the surviving pages, which are estimated to be only half of the original ms, we can ascertain that the unknown man traveled to the east (east of what has yet to be determined) and was amused by the variety of figures he encountered. We can make out that he received “michel mirþe” from the foreign dress and could only record his impressions once he had “cesed to laughe”:

In þe eest þe habbaþ wæde þæt þey clepan “Loppestere Pyjámas,” which ys pantalons þæt þey wearan for slepynge. Þys pantalons hæbbaþ hymages on þem of Loppsteres eke Crabbes eke all manere of Crustacea þæt are on lyfe inne þe se. Þe ȝonge folke wearan þe Loppestere Pyjamas nat oonlie to bedde, but alswe to werke eke to scule. Þe olde folke ne wearan þe Loppestere Pyjamas, butan þey are seke, for þey þinc þem foolishe, ac verye comfee.

From this passage, we can ascertain several things. First, this manner of dress existed during the 14^th C. This overturns a great deal of study which first dated the roots of the word “pyjamas” as entering the language at the turn of the 19^th C. This piece of information is of great value to English language study. Second, we may determine that crustaceans were figures of honor, as evidenced by the writer’s need to capitalize all references. This justifies his amusement at the juxtaposition of seeing such important creatures depicted on what he would likely have regarded as an undergarment. Finally, we may determine that the author’s travel writings were dear to him, as they occupy the same space in a bound volume as his household accounts and his religious material. Either he was a man with an interested consideration for foreign cultures, or he had little sense of order in the production of expensive literary material.

The Somerset Fragments were discovered in the late 19^th C, but had been hoarded away in a safety deposit box for nearly a hundred years, only discovered recently when the current owner failed to pay the rental fee, leading to confiscation of the property. The family refuses to name the ms’s owner who originally hid it away, but have hinted that he may have been a modernist dedicated to the perpetuating the idea of “the Dark Ages.” Scathing comments on his goals will soon begin circulating in social media.

Definition

Medieval man distinguished between those who had mental challenges from birth and those who developed them later, either from physical injury, “evil spirits,” or various forms of trauma. In deciding a person’s diagnosis and responsibility, attention was given to whether a person had lucid intervals or was continually of unsound mind.

natural/congenital idiot: This was a person who was “incompetent from birth.” He was placed in the wardship system; his protector would oversee his care and maintain his property until his death, when the lands would pass to his next of kin. [1]

lunatic: This was a person who had become “incompetent” during the course of his life. He was not cared for under the wardship system. Sometimes the king or lord would oversee his lands, but care was a family issue, and a person deemed a lunatic could still own property, which he would maintain during his lucid periods. [2]

From the late 13^th C, “congenital idiots” were protected by law. [3] Care of “lunatics” was the family’s responsibility, but if the family could not or would not provide for them, the government would step in. [4] Care for the intellectually challenged was considered a community responsibility. [5]

Treatment

Popular imagination usually assumes that treatment of the mentally ill in the Middle Ages would be ineffective and undignified, at best. C.H. Talbot argues that

“The general assumption seems to be that the Middle Ages was far more brutal in [treatment of psychological cases] than we are today and that mental patients were bound with thongs, flogged, put into irons, thrown into noisome prisons and dungeons or even executed as felons. It may come as a surprise to learn that this was by no means the case. The law in England, at least from the thirteenth century onwards, was not very different from what it is today, and the treatment meted out to the offenders was mild, reasonable and compassionate.” [6]

Medieval men and women were not idiots (modern use). They observed frequently that the mental faculties were disrupted by a blow to the head or fever. They observed that some people had diminished mental faculties from birth. Cruel treatment of such a person would no more be permissible than cruel treatment of children, the elderly, or the infirm.

A person’s incapacity was determined through inquisition, and thus no inquisition was valid unless the subject was interviewed in person. [7] Nobody could have his neighbor thrown into prison or have his lands confiscated by simply accusing him of madness. Questions to verify incapacity were generally common sense and included “memory tests, simple skills, and general knowledge.” [8] Some recorded questions are identical to the ones patients are immediately asked today in cases of head trauma—what is today’s date? What are your parents’ names? However, a formal process of inquisition was usually necessary only when the subject owned land and thus needed the legal system to assure fair maintenance. [9] If legal property is not in jeopardy, there is no need for a legal verification of incapacity, as it did not decide the person’s care.

Medieval art and stories frequently depict madness being cured by saintly intercession. This does not reflect the norm from historical records and likely is intended to teach something about the saint, not about the patient. By the 14^th C, insanity brought by trauma or fever was widely understood. [10] While humorism influenced medieval treatments, medieval society recognized a range of psychological issues and “commonsense attitudes to insanity were widespread.” [11] Charms and incantations were frequently used by the uneducated for treatment of permanent conditions, but dietary and herbal treatments were also common and most likely to be used by doctors. [12] Medieval man understood a physical cause for mental disorders and thus did not need to resort only to the supernatural for healing.

Hospitals

England did not have any institutions specifically allocated for mental patients. However, St. Mary Bethlem (Bedlam), a hospital established in 1247, was converted to a mental hospital at the end of the 14^th C. [13] Records show that this hospital had “fetters, irons and stocks” that were used on the patients. However, records also show that patients were allowed to walk about at their will. C.H. Talbot insists that records prove restraints were only used when patients were violent and were removed once the paroxysm ended. [14] Records of donations to St. Mary Bethlem show a desire from both the doctors and their patrons to “provide whatever medical and scientific means were available at that time for the benefit of the insane,” [15] thus showing that such people were not regularly abused or treated only as an embarrassment to be hidden away.

Social Perception

On the whole, the perception of the mentally challenged in the Middle Ages was “kindly and tolerant, full of compassion rather than of criticism, based on the realization that mental disturbance was often the outcome of emotional upset and resulted in diminished responsibility.” [16] Of course, this doesn’t mean you won’t find instances of the mentally disabled being abused or taken advantage of. However, this was not the norm, nor was it allowable. As always, consider the difference between the actions of good and bad men.

Demonic Possession

Both history books meant to be riveting and student research papers tend to latch onto demonic possession as the main cause medieval man would claim for mental instability: “In the popular mind the Middle Ages was a period of unreason in which belief in possession was a commonplace, and indeed the perception has coloured many scholarly examinations of insanity in former centuries.” [17] There is little evidence that demonic possession was routinely blamed for any mental condition save epilepsy. [18] I find references to the influence of “evil spirits” used most often when the afflicted has committed a crime or done violence during an episode, and this term seems to refer to the gravity of the case rather than a literal belief in evil spiritual influence.

1. Roffe, David, and Christina Roffe, “Madness and Care in the Community: A Medieval Perspective,” BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311.7021 (1995): 1709.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., 1708.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Talbot, C.H. Medicine in Medieval England (London: Oldbourne, 1967), 180. This passage uses the word “offenders” because it focuses on cases where a crime had been committed and led to the question of diminished responsibility.
7. Roffe, “Madness,” 1710.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., 1709.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Talbot, Medicine, 183.
14. Ibid., 184.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., 185.
17. Roffe, “Madness,” 1708.
18. Ibid., 1709.

Ads

The ads are gone (yay!) I have put a link to the Made of Ƿ store in the sidebar. It’s on a slow rotation for now, so let me know if the changing image is too distracting. Made of Ƿ is now officially a participation in the Amazon Affiliates program. This means that if you click on a link to Amazon and buy the book, Made of Ƿ gets a tiny kickback. These links will  appear only on review posts, so it should be obvious when a link will send you to Amazon through this program. I will not be putting additional advertisements in the sidebars (unless someone like Oxford University Press should pay me to advertise here…which is very, very unlikely).

Your regularly scheduled programming will continue next week with a new “Misuse of the Word ‘Medieval’” post.

Ich am of Irlaunde/The Irish Dancer

Ich am of Irlaunde,
Ant of the holy londe
Of Irlande.

Gode sire, pray ich þe,
For of Saynte Charite,
Come ant daunce wyt me–
In Irlaunde.

C. 14th C
from the Rawlinson fragments

PS: I’m impressed, Google!

St. Augustine defines angels by saying,

“Angel” is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ‘spirit’; if you seek the name of their office, it is ‘angel’: from what they are, ‘spirit’, from what they do, ‘angel.’” With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they “always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” they are the “mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word. [1]

Angels are spiritual beings. This is meant literally, beings that truly exist, and not as mere “ideas.” Though we use the word “angel” to mean what they are, it is really a description of what they do. The etymology and history are complicated, but the short version is that “angel” translates as “messenger.” [2] Dionysius the Areopagite (who, along with Augustine, had a huge influence on medieval theology) says “Divine illumination comes to them at first hand, and through them there pass to us manifestations above our capacities.” [3] He then gives numerous Biblical examples of angels transmitting messages to mankind.

All we are certain of concerning angels is that they are spiritual beings who pass on God’s messages to mankind. Is there more to them than that? Probably. Have they told us what it is? No.

Hierarchy

St. Augustine says that nobody knows exactly what the organization of angels is. [4] Dionysius, writing several hundred years before Augustine, agreed that only God knows the true organization of angels, but God has also revealed some information to us through the prophets. [5] Dionysius gives three choirs of angels existing at three levels with the first being the highest:

1. Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones
2. Lordships, Powers, and Authorities
3. Principalities, Archangels, and Angels [6]

Aquinas quotes Dionysius and gives Biblical citations for the use of each name. [7] I have seen other hierarchies given, but I’m not terribly familiar with the variations. Some may be due to vocabulary choice in translation. I would recommend using Aquinas and Dionysius as default rankings unless your text gives you reason to do otherwise.

A strict distinction is often not made between terms. “Angel” is usually used when it is not necessary to distinguish between choirs, which is most of the time. Sometimes you will see only “angel” and “archangel,” meaning comparatively higher and lower ranks, but not necessarily the lowest two choirs. The context should make clear what use is intended.

Sometimes you will see two terms used together, such as “St. Michael the Archangel, Prince of the Seraphim.” Here you see two terms, “archangel” and “seraph.” Here, “seraph” means the highest choir, while “archangel” means “a super-important angel.” Michael is given particularly high distinction because of his role in casting out Satan. [8]

Names

The three angels named in the Bible are Michael, [9] Gabriel, [10] and Raphael. [11] These are the angels you will see referenced most often in medieval writings, with the first two being the most common. If you see an angelic name apart from these three, you are likely dealing with ideas not accepted by the Church as a whole.

Appearance

Angels are described in the Bible and in medieval literature. However, the Summa asserts that angels do not have physical bodies, [12] but they may “wear” physical forms when necessary for interacting with mankind. [13] Here is one Biblical description:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated: and his train filled the temple. Upon it stood the seraphims: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings: with two they covered his face, and with two they covered his feet, and with two they flew. [14]

Ezekiel 1 gives the oddest descriptions of angels as being variously having animal faces, being multi-eyed, being in the shapes of flaming wheels, etc. [15] Dionysius reminds his readers that sacred things may be represented poetically in order to communicate something specific to the reader. [16] He catalogues reasons for various forms, [17] both the ordinary and the bizarre, which are too lengthy for me to summarize here.

The usual depiction of angels in medieval writing and art is as beautiful young men or women. Here’s my guess as to why. The medieval mind associated several physical aspects with nobility, particularly the fair skin of those who don’t have to perform manual labor and a physical attractiveness that is associated with goodness (likewise, evil is often ugly). Galahad always looks the same. Depicting angels as attractive young men indicates that they are noble, wise, and good/holy. They are also depicted as human in form due to the nature of their interaction with mankind—one can scarcely imagine listening to a divine message from a flaming wheel. That depiction serves a different purpose. Modern depictions and interpretations of angels vary, but they were a well-established and beautiful aspect of medieval culture.

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 329. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM
2. Oxford English Dictionary, 2^nd ed., s.v. “angel.”
3. Pseudo-Dionysius (The Areopagite). The Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius. Trans. John Parker. (London: Skeffington & Son, 1894), 24. http://books.google.com/books?id=7boVr7aqvWYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
4. St. Augustine. “The Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love.” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Vol. 3. Trans. J.F. Shaw. Ed. Phillip Schaff. (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). 58. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm
5. Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial, 25-26.
6. Ibid., 27.
7. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2^nd ed. (1920, online ed. Kevin Knight: 2008), I 108 5. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1108.htm#article5
8. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. Revelation 12:7. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73012.htm
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., Luke 1:19. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/49001.htm
11. Ibid., Tobit 12:15. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/17012.htm
12. The Summa, I 51 1. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm#article1
13. The Summa, I 51 2. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm#article2
14. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. Isaiah 6:1-2. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/27006.htm (I have amended the last word from my print copy.)
15. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. Ezekiel 1 http://www.drbo.org/chapter/31001.htm
16. Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial, 17.
17. Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial, 44.