Angeology: Is it wrong for a Catholic to engage in Eastern Orthodox spirituality concerning angels?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

As I’m sure some of you know, Catholics believe in the nature of intercession, and that includes interceding to the angels. Catholics generally acknowledge that there are three Archangels: St. Michael (“who is like God?”), St. Gabriel (“messenger of God”), and St. Raphael (“medicine of God”).

Angeology is one part of theology I’m interested in. A few days ago, I Google-searched “St. Uriel”, and did some research about him. Apparently, St. Uriel is venerated in the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodox, but not in Roman Catholicism. So, there I was browsing along, and I found out that there are more Archangels that are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox tradition: St. Barachiel, St. Jegudiel, St. Selaphiel.

Now, the reason why Roman Catholics don’t venerate these angels (or so I’ve read) is that Pope Zachary condemned it because of what he saw was a rising cultural trend of “angel-worship”. So he restricted intercession to only the three mentioned in Scripture explicitly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel and St. Raphael) and not apocrypha (e.g. Book of Enoch).

As Catholics, are you still bound by that restriction? It’s important to note that Pope Zachary’s restriction - to my understanding - doesn’t necessarily mean that St. Barachiel, St. Jegudiel and St. Seraphiel do not exist. What it seems to mean was that he wanted Catholics “to play it safe” and intercede only to those three angels mentioned in Scripture. But surely if the Eastern Orthodox venerate these angels, then it must be okay…right?

 

[ciero]

We Eastern Catholics certainly DO venerate ALL 7 of the Archangels we have names for, not just the 3 leaders of the Archangels, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael.

We have a large icon of the 7 in our church.

As I’m sure some of you know, Catholics believe in the nature of intercession, and that includes interceding to the angels. Catholics generally acknowledge that there are three Archangels: St. Michael (“who is like God?”), St. Gabriel (“messenger of God”), and St. Raphael (“medicine of God”).

Angeology is one part of theology I’m interested in. A few days ago, I Google-searched “St. Uriel”, and did some research about him. Apparently, St. Uriel is venerated in the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodox, but not in Roman Catholicism. So, there I was browsing along, and I found out that there are more Archangels that are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox tradition: St. Barachiel, St. Jegudiel, St. Selaphiel.

Now, the reason why Roman Catholics don’t venerate these angels (or so I’ve read) is that Pope Zachary condemned it because of what he saw was a rising cultural trend of “angel-worship”. So he restricted intercession to only the three mentioned in Scripture explicitly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel and St. Raphael) and not apocrypha (e.g. Book of Enoch).

As Catholics, are you still bound by that restriction? It’s important to note that Pope Zachary’s restriction - to my understanding - doesn’t necessarily mean that St. Barachiel, St. Jegudiel and St. Seraphiel do not exist. What it seems to mean was that he wanted Catholics “to play it safe” and intercede only to those three angels mentioned in Scripture. But surely if the Eastern Orthodox venerate these angels, then it must be okay…right?

 

[TrueLight]

We Eastern Catholics certainly DO venerate ALL 7 of the Archangels we have names for, not just the 3 leaders of the Archangels, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael.

We have a large icon of the 7 in our church.

Hey Ciero,

Where did the names of the others come from?

 

[Blenderx]

Yes, I’m curious too. I’ve never heard of this before. Any more info would be great!

 

[ciero]

Hey Ciero,

Where did the names of the others come from?

I believe the names come from a variety of sources. Scripture including the dueterocanonical books, tradition both Jewish (including the Talmud) and early Christian.

The icon I have seen names each of the seven and ascribes a color and an element to each…I think there was something else ascribed to each but I’m not sure…I’ll check on Sunday.

 

[Digitonomy]

While reading another thread, I wanted to look up the precise wording of a decree or instruction from the Council of Rome in 745, but I can’t find any source for this. It doesn’t even have its own Wikipedia entry, nor its own entry in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

All that I’ve been able to find is that it prohibited veneration of several named angels, condemned “heavenly epistles” written directly by Christ in heaven, and is cited as a reference for this line from 633 in the Catechism:

Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

Any idea where I can track down the acts or decrees of the Council of Rome?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a link to some information on it.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think this is better called a synod than a Council. Either way, it was convened at the Lateran Basilica by Pope St. Zachary to hear and respond to a report from St. Boniface, bishop and missionary to the Germans, who was fighting certain schismatics and heretics. A History of the Christian Church, vol. 4, explains:
The leaders of the opposition to Rome and to Bonifacius among his predecessors and contemporaries were Adelbert and Clemens. We know them only from the letters of Boniface, which represent them in a very, unfavorable light. Adelbert, or Aldebert (Eldebert), was a Gaul by nation, and perhaps bishop of Soissons; at all events he labored on the French side of the Rhine, had received episcopal ordination, and enjoyed great popularity from his preaching, being regarded as an apostle, a patron, and a worker of miracles. According to Boniface, he was a second Simon Magus, or immoral impostor, who deceived the people by false miracles and relics, claimed equal rank with the apostles, set up crosses and oratories in the fields, consecrated buildings in his own name, led women astray, and boasted to have relics better than those of Rome, and brought to him by an angel from the ends of the earth. Clemens was a Scotchman (Irishman), and labored in East Franconia. He opposed ecclesiastical traditions and clerical celibacy, and had two sons. He held marriage with a brother’s widow to be valid, and had peculiar views of divine predestination and Christ’s descent into Hades. Aldebert and Clemens were condemned without a hearing, and excommunicated as heretics and seducers of the people, by a provincial Synod of Soissons, a.d. 744, and again in a Synod of Rome, 745, by Pope Zacharias, who confirmed the decision of Boniface. Aldebert was at last imprisoned in the monastery of Fulda, and killed by shepherds after escaping from prison. Clemens disappeared.
There is further information and context here in Manual of Universal Church History, vol. 2, § 173.

As for the proceedings of the synod itself, I have not been able to find them in English, but they are in Vol. 12 of Cardinal Baronius’ Annales Ecclesiastici. You can read it in Latin here, starting at paragraph 21. The list of bishops present is in paragraph 22; the portion about angels in 35-36; the portion referred to in the Catechism about Jesus descending to the dead in 37. If you have a specific question I can try to answer it.

 

[Digitonomy]

I started another thread about the decrees of the Council of Rome that has borne some fruit, although only in Latin:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=594544

I’m curious whether the prohibition on veneration of these angels is intended to apply to private devotions, or if it merely applies to public acts - i.e. the priest can’t lead a prayer to St. Uriel, a parish or statue can’t be erected in honor of one of these angels, etc.

 

[Digitonomy]

That’s great, thanks for the links:thumbsup:

If you have a specific question I can try to answer it.

My question is whether the prohibition against venerating angels from apocryphal books applies to personal devotions or only public acts.

Since the question is really more germane to the thread that inspired my quest for Council/Synod of Rome documents, perhaps it would be better answered there:
Angeology: Is it wrong for a Catholic to engage in Eastern Orthodox spirituality concerning angels?

 

[MarkThompson]

To follow up from Digitonomy’s post, when the Synod (or Council) of Rome in 745 was convened by Pope St. Zachary, a number of writings of the heresiarch Adelbert (or Aldebert) were read in their presence. As recorded in Vol. XII of Caesar Baronius’ Annali Ecclesiastici, a prayer Adelbert had composed included the line:
“I pray ye and conjure ye, and supplicate myself to ye, angel Uriel, angel Raguel, angel Tubuel, angel Michael, angel Adimis, angel Tubuas, angel Sabaoth, angel Simuel.”

And when this sacreligious prayer had been read to the end, the holy Pope Zachary said: How, holy brothers, to you respond to this?

The holy bishops and venerable priests responded: What else is to be done, but that all these things that have been read in our presence should be burned in flames; and their authors cast into the chains of anathema? For the eight names of Angels, which Adelbert has invoked in his prayer, are not, excepting Michael, names of Angels, but rather of demons, whom he has invoked to bring aid to himself. But we (as taught by your holy Apostleship), and as divine authority transmits, acknowledge no more than the names of three Angels, that is, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. These the Fathers [say]. By whom you perceive that the book called by the vulgate name Fourth Esdras, in which there is frequent mention of the angel Uriel, is rejected and altogether proscribed by the Roman Church. The same is held, concerning three Angels only, in the Capitularies of Charles the Great =Carloman? Not Charlemange in 745. Perhaps this refers to the Synod of Soissons in 744].
As best I can tell, this is the only portion of the proceedings that deals with the topic of Uriel and other angels.

 

[Digitonomy]

Thanks for the great translation.

What else is to be done, but that all these things that have been read in our presence should be burned in flames; and their authors cast into the chains of anathema? For the eight names of Angels, which Adelbert has invoked in his prayer, are not, excepting Michael, names of Angels, but rather of demons, whom he has invoked to bring aid to himself. But we (as taught by your holy Apostleship), and as divine authority transmits, acknowledge no more than the names of three Angels, that is, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.

Wow, that seems awfully harsh. I would have been inclined to say Adelbert was guilty of sacrilege for invoking angels for his own self-aggrandizement, rather than suggesting that these angels are actually demons simply because they are found in a non-canonical book (similar to the names of the three wise men). But then I’m not a priest or bishop, and I wasn’t there, so perhaps he was actually invoking the names of demons that happened to have the same names as angels recognized by Eastern Churches.

It sounds like this decree is comprised of specific disciplinary acts rather than a pronouncement about what individual Catholics are permitted to do in their personal devotions:

• Adelbert anathematized
• His books burned
• Only three angel names are acknowledged
• Fourth Esdras rejected and proscribed by the Roman Church

Obviously a Catholic in that time and place would be advised to take the hint, even if though there was no explicit command not to invoke the names of non-canonical angels.

I’m curious about the issue of the canon - could the ban on 4th Esdras at some point be reversed to bring the Latin canon of scripture into line with those of some of the Eastern Churches? The Council of Trent certainly doesn’t prohibit it, if you read the fine print. Or am I wrong about the nature of this act of the Synod of Rome, and the rejection of 4th Esdras is permanent?

 

[ciero]

There is no such thing as a non canonical angel! Either your an angel or a demon. I’m more inclined to follow the Easterners on this one!

Thanks for the great translation.Wow, that seems awfully harsh. I would have been inclined to say Adelbert was guilty of sacrilege for invoking angels for his own self-aggrandizement, rather than suggesting that these angels are actually demons simply because they are found in a non-canonical book (similar to the names of the three wise men). But then I’m not a priest or bishop, and I wasn’t there, so perhaps he was actually invoking the names of demons that happened to have the same names as angels recognized by Eastern Churches.

It sounds like this decree is comprised of specific disciplinary acts rather than a pronouncement about what individual Catholics are permitted to do in their personal devotions:

• Adelbert anathematized
• His books burned
• Only three angel names are acknowledged
• Fourth Esdras rejected and proscribed by the Roman Church

Obviously a Catholic in that time and place would be advised to take the hint, even if though there was no explicit command not to invoke the names of non-canonical angels.

I’m curious about the issue of the canon - could the ban on 4th Esdras at some point be reversed to bring the Latin canon of scripture into line with those of some of the Eastern Churches? The Council of Trent certainly doesn’t prohibit it, if you read the fine print. Or am I wrong about the nature of this act of the Synod of Rome, and the rejection of 4th Esdras is permanent?

 

[Digitonomy]

There is no such thing as a non canonical angel! Either your an angel or a demon.

I’m afraid I don’t buy any of that.

First, I have always understood that there are many more angels than those we know the names for. If an angel is not mentioned in the canon of scripture, it is one of many non-canonical angels.

Second, assuming we are talking about names, I don’t know why a name must be either that of an angel or that of a demon. To take a facetious example, is it an angel or a demon that is named “Jimmy Swaggart made me Catholic”? For that matter, there is no reason a name couldn’t be both that of an angel and that of a demon.

 

[At_Trent]

I believe the names come from a variety of sources. Scripture including the dueterocanonical books, tradition both Jewish (including the Talmud) and early Christian.

The icon I have seen names each of the seven and ascribes a color and an element to each…I think there was something else ascribed to each but I’m not sure…I’ll check on Sunday.

That sounds occult.

Anything like this ?
unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Opus%20Angelorum.htm

unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/OpusAngelorumSatanic.htm

 

[AJV]

As I’m sure some of you know, Catholics believe in the nature of intercession, and that includes interceding to the angels. Catholics generally acknowledge that there are three Archangels: St. Michael (“who is like God?”), St. Gabriel (“messenger of God”), and St. Raphael (“medicine of God”).

Angeology is one part of theology I’m interested in. A few days ago, I Google-searched “St. Uriel”, and did some research about him. Apparently, St. Uriel is venerated in the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodox, but not in Roman Catholicism. So, there I was browsing along, and I found out that there are more Archangels that are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox tradition: St. Barachiel, St. Jegudiel, St. Selaphiel.

Now, the reason why Roman Catholics don’t venerate these angels (or so I’ve read) is that Pope Zachary condemned it because of what he saw was a rising cultural trend of “angel-worship”. So he restricted intercession to only the three mentioned in Scripture explicitly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel and St. Raphael) and not apocrypha (e.g. Book of Enoch).

As Catholics, are you still bound by that restriction? It’s important to note that Pope Zachary’s restriction - to my understanding - doesn’t necessarily mean that St. Barachiel, St. Jegudiel and St. Seraphiel do not exist. What it seems to mean was that he wanted Catholics “to play it safe” and intercede only to those three angels mentioned in Scripture. But surely if the Eastern Orthodox venerate these angels, then it must be okay…right?

One may certainly venerate the seven archangels but it is discouraged, at least in the Roman tradition, to give them names, other than the three whose names are revealed in Scripture. This was repeated as recently as 2001 in the Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy which stated "The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture. "

That being said, however, some or all of the names have also been occasionally used by certain saints especially in the early mediaeval period and the injunction of Pope Zachary can be interpreted in a less strict light.