Don't Name Your Guardian Angel

  • Thread starter Thread starter choliks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure if I buy the whole thing about naming automatically relating to a position of authority. After all, we can give nicknames to our friends. We are, presumably, on equal footing with out friends, so the authority issue doesn’t factor in. As long as he accepts the name and doesn’t feel like you’re teasing him (as can happen with some nicknames), then you should be okay. Yeah, your guardian angel probably already has a name, but it’s also probably in some starfish language (angels not having throats and all that), so if he wants to let you call him Steve or Bob or Larry because the two of you are such good friends, I’m not going to bother you about that.
 
I don’t think that when the Pope says, paraphrased, “here is a cute story about a cute kid who named his Guardian Angel”, that it necessarily translates to: “We should change the previous decision about whether or not to name our guardian angels”.

Kids and others will do things that aren’t necessarily the way the Church would teach us to do it, and it can even be cute as the dickens when they do it, but that doesn’t mean our faith changes as a result. I had a foster child who came to church with us, but had not been baptized. After several weeks, he felt comfortable going up with us during Communion. He tried to get the priest to let him have a host, but the priest was familiar with our family and aware of who is, and who is not, receiving communion. On the way back to our pew, this sweet little 6 year old said (quite loudly) “What a GYP!!!”

It was cute as the dickens. And it’s a cute story to tell. Someday I expect to hear that story as part of a homily… but the fact that he thought it was a gyp does not make it a gyp!

I never thought to name my Guardian Angel, but I know that if I had heard of others doing it, I would have done so. Does that mean I did something wrong? No. But I’ll bet there are some guardian angels who talk about their humans and how cute we are to presume to give them little pet names… in much the same way as I think my former foster son’s thoughts about communion are cute.

I’m sure God has given my own guardian the nickname “YOU AGAIN?”. But I probably won’t start my prayers with that…
 
Loving_disciple said:
You are right though I am trying to figure out if I have am or am not following the Church’s teaching.
Click to expand...
Giving a name to ones Angel is yes not what the Church wants anyone to do…

and thus NOT what the Angel wants.

He has his name from God.
 
Simply pray to ones Angel.

Such as “Holy Angel” or “Guardian Angel”

or “Angel of God” as in the prayer.

Angel of God,
my guardian dear,
To whom God’s love
commits me here,
Ever this day,
be at my side,
To light and guard,
Rule and guide.
Amen.
 
The story presented the Holy Father with multiple choices. He could avoid mentioning the naming at all and so trivialize it. He could mention it while also taking a pause to catechize and point out the error there. But he chose to recount it whole and intact, whereby to me at least, gives it a veneer of approval. Sometimes silence is the best teacher; when His Holiness has said that we must go beyond small-minded rules, perhaps he is telegraphing that he considers this to be one of many.
 
I just posted this reference to the Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy in a thread not too long ago. 🙂

Just to look at things from another perspective, 15 years agon, I heard of the practice of asking your Guardian Angel’s name before you go to sleep and then when you wake up in the morning, a name will immediately jump into your head and that is supposed to be your Guardain Angel’s name.

I admit, I tried that out when I first heard of it (in my defense, this was several years before the DPP was even published ;)). When I woke up that morning, I had completely forgotten about it, but I did get a name clearly enter my head and only in retrosepct recalled what I had asked the night before. So, in that sense, one might argue that I did not name my Guardian Angel at all but that the name was rather revealed to me. In that sense, it would not be a violation of what the DPP is discouraging.

In practice, though, I stopped using the name simply because I trust the DPP more than I trust the authenticity of my solitary experience.
 
We probably couldn’t say their angelic name, though we have some names in scripture revealed in earthly language. Also we shouldn’t assume that we always have the same angel. They might work in shifts, and take time off! 😉
 
The_Serpent said:
We probably couldn’t say their angelic name, though we have some names in scripture revealed in earthly language. Also we shouldn’t assume that we always have the same angel. They might work in shifts, and take time off! 😉
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Here are the teachings of Thomas Aquinas about Guardian Angels:

Each human being, without exception, has a guardian angel as long as he is a wayfarer, that is, during his whole earthly life. In heaven a man will have an angel companion to reign with him, but not a guardian; no guardian is needed when the guarded journey has been successfully completed. In hell, each man will have a fallen angel to punish him.

Each human being has his guardian angel from the moment of his birth, and not, as some have taught, only from the moment of baptism.

The guardian angel is a gift of divine providence. He never fails or forsakes his charge. Sometimes, in the workings of providence, a man must suffer trouble; this is not prevented by the guardian angel.

Guardian angels do not grieve over the ills that befall their wards. For all angels uninterruptedly enjoy the beatific vision and are forever filled with joy and happiness. Guardian angels do not will the sin which their wards commit, nor do they directly will the punishment of this sin; they do will the fulfillment of divine justice which requires that a man be allowed to have his way, to commit sin if he so choose, to endure trials and troubles, and to suffer punishment.
 
I suppose there could be some subtle spiritual dangers involved here. Suppose one is being tempted in a very subtle manner by a demon. Remember that no tempter is blatant, he tries to make the temptation sound good in some way. Suppose you think of this inner voice as your angel and ask him to reveal his name, and a name is revealed to you, but it is given by a demon, not an angel. Then in the future you would be invoking the demon by using the name.
 
I’ve often heard that you should never name your guardian angel. Remember you could summons an evil angel…that would be very hard to get rid of! 😦
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Wrong…
Click to expand...
The poster who posted before you isn’t necessarily wrong; this issue, which I see most prevalently in the Western Church, is the inability to distinguish the difference between dogma and theologoumena. What Aquinas writes about angels is not dogmatic - it is completely permissible as a Catholic to disagree with Aquinas’s writings [on angels] and still be an orthodox individual.
 
Confusing. Saint Pio: "“Joe, pick a name for your Guardian Angel and call him by the name always. When you send him to me, he will come instantly.”

Any way; When I was in my twenties, I named my Guardian Angel. It felt odd and uncomfortable and I couldnt bring myself to use the name. Even to this day I imagine my good Angel’s disapproval, lol…so I quit using it. He is my simply my Guardian Angel.
 
MaryandJoseph said:
I understand the Church’s position on this and will be obedient, but, with that being said.

We know from scripture and Holy Mother Church that God has given each of us a guardian angel to gently (and in my case, NOT so gently) lead us on the right path. If my understanding is correct, and please let me know if its not (as a convert, this was not really covered much in my learning), that our guardian angels are assigned to us for all eternity.

Having a name allows for a more personal relationship. We are encouraged to pray to our guardian angel that we follow the will of God and for his heavenly protection, **why then should we not have a name in which to address him? **

I struggle with this.
Click to expand...
Because the Church discourages it. That’s all you need to know.

Regarding your other points. Yes we are all assigned guardian angels but we do not know and the Church does not teach that its one on one. One guardian angel may be assigned to more than one person.
Then we do not know if a guardian angel is assigned for eternity or only until we die. The Church is also silent on this.
 
choliks said:
Naming Your Guardian Angel: Don’t Do It
by Dr. Taylor Marshall

You are not allowed to name your Guardian Angel. Some Catholics practice a devotion of giving personal names to their guardian angels. However, the Holy See does not allow this practice and formally discourages it. Read More]
Click to expand...
I copied this and sent it to my one and only younger sister. About a month ago, she told me that someone in her church told her that if she set in church and meditated deeply for an hour that the name of her guardian angel would be revealed to her. Yes, she’s a lifelong Catholic too.

After I quit “Bwa-ha-ha-ing” and realized she was both serious and sober, I asked her if, indeed, it had worked. She assured me that it had absolutely worked. So I asked her exactly what her angel’s name was. She told me that her angel’s name was “George” I asked her if she was certain of this and she firmly insisted that she was POSITIVE that she had a guardian angel whose name was George!. No, I’m not kidding.

She is still a little tweaked at me because everytime I see her now I say “Hi, Jan–oh, and George, how are things with you too?” A few weeks ago, I found a random bird feather in the yard and gave it to her saying “Ya might want to give this back to George–it might be causing him problems with his aerodynamics!” We are both in our 60’s–so yes, I should try to grow out of my infantile sense of humor–and I plan to work on it someday----right after I find a bird’s egg and give it to her saying" “Look Jan! Did George tell you that he was pregnant?” LOL!:yup::newidea:
 
Elizium23 said:
The story presented the Holy Father with multiple choices. He could avoid mentioning the naming at all and so trivialize it. He could mention it while also taking a pause to catechize and point out the error there. But he chose to recount it whole and intact, whereby to me at least, gives it a veneer of approval. Sometimes silence is the best teacher; when His Holiness has said that we must go beyond small-minded rules, perhaps he is telegraphing that he considers this to be one of many.
Click to expand...
I kind of think you hit the nail on thee head. I have never named my GA–infact having been away from the church for awhile–I didn’t even really think much about my GA until recently. Even now, I often forget to pray to him–I’m trying to do better. I think that while naming your GA is a little silly–that this may just be along the lines of what Pope Francis means when he is telling us to basically “lighten up a little”. With all the genuinely important crises that face the church today–is someone deciding to nick-name their GA really on the top tier? Hmmm…
 
Because the Church discourages it. That’s all you need to know.
Click to expand...
Responses like this are infuriating. Sort of like the response to, “should we drive the speed limit?” “The government has ordered us to. That’s all you need to know.”

The Church’s discouragement seems to come from the idea that it is incorrect to suppose one names the guardian angel - whereas it has been given a name since its creation. If one does NOT suppose this, the Church’s discouragement does not seem to apply. The practice potentially allows a closer relationship of the ward to the guardian (we are incarnational creatures, and a devotional name helps us bridge the gap from proposition to experience), and if done with right intention, is in no wise contrary to the Church’s teaching.

It would be as if the Church (let us suppose) abolished the indult permitting the faithful to receive Holy Communion in the hand; someone might ask why, and the answer, “Roma locutus est”, while true, is in no wise satisfying, is insulting to the intelligence, and says nothing the inquirer did not already know.
 
Philosoraptor said:
Responses like this are infuriating. Sort of like the response to, “should we drive the speed limit?” “The government has ordered us to. That’s all you need to know.”

The Church’s discouragement seems to come from the idea that it is incorrect to suppose one names the guardian angel - whereas it has been given a name since its creation. If one does NOT suppose this, the Church’s discouragement does not seem to apply. The practice potentially allows a closer relationship of the ward to the guardian (we are incarnational creatures, and a devotional name helps us bridge the gap from proposition to experience), and if done with right intention, is in no wise contrary to the Church’s teaching.

It would be as if the Church (let us suppose) abolished the indult permitting the faithful to receive Holy Communion in the hand; someone might ask why, and the answer, “Roma locutus est”, while true, is in no wise satisfying, is insulting to the intelligence, and says nothing the inquirer did not already know.
Click to expand...
While I against doing something just because someone said not to, there are really good reasons not to name your guardian angel. Your guardian angel is an angel, a super powerful being who is guiding you through your life, much much superior to you. He is not your buddy, or your old pal or chum. He is watching over you, but allowing you to make mistakes, but ever at your side to light and guard and rule and guide.
 
I remember as kids our dad suggested we should name our guardian angels but I couldn’t bring myself to do it, it felt very uncomfortable. I’m glad I didn’t now. If our names are “written in heaven” then surely angels must already know what their names are in as much as names have meaning?

I don’t think it is something which is very damaging, it’s just another example of something superficial masquerading as something meaningful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top