zunshynn Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Does the Church definitively say that Lucifer was an archangel? Or is that just from literature and art? Because if he was the highest of the angels it seems like it would make more sense for him to have been a seraph. Because how could an archangel be the highest in the hierarchy? It seems absurd that an archangel could have led all of those angels to rebel. And it'd be kind of cool if Michael the Archangel was strong enough to throw out a seraph from heaven because he was on God's side... like God strengthens the week kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now