Today, a Greater Double, the Feast of the Holy Guardian Angels, the antiphon for the Benedictus in both the Breviary and the Liturgy of the Hours draws on Hebrews 1:14 to describe the Angels as leitourgika Spirits sent for diakonia. Is this why there is an iconographical convention of showing angels wearing dalmatics? Has anybody ever thought of using this to defend the (corrupt?) medieval practice whereby Byzantine Bishops wear not chasubles but dalmatics by saying that a Bishop is the Angel (see Rev 2:1 etc. and cf apostellomena of Heb1:14) of his Church? (BTW, I have an ikon of the 1920s Bishop of Aegina, S Nektarios, wearing a chasuble; a delightful example of the conservatism of Byzantine iconography. Incongruously, he is also wearing a black hat!)
Incidentally, in this antiphon both the Breviary and LH change a very clear future (tous mellontas cleronomein which becomes capient haereditatem in both Vulgates) to a present capiunt: 'those who are already inheriting salvation'. Was there a nest of prescient adherents of C H ('Realised Eschatology') Dodd among the sixteenth century liturgists who put this office together?
I return, DV, tomorrow to my series on liturgical language based on the work of Christine Mohrmann. A correspondent commenting on an earlier post rather interestingly suggests that her demonstration can be strengthened and taken back earlier by pointing out the Septuagintal character of the liturgical sections of the Book of Revelation.