Which angels are acknowledged by the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TradionalWay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a Catholic Good news Bible with the book of Esdras in it,it talked about the end of the world and the Angel Uriel.

Is this book not accepted by the Catholic church?

why is it in this Catholic Bible then?

Im sure this bible i have was made after the life of Pope Zachary
 
Which book of Esdras?
I dont have the bible anymore ,and im not sure which book of Esdras was exactly in in,but i definetly read about Archangel Uriel,maybe it was this one below-

4 Ezra
**
Chapters 3–14, or the great bulk of 2 Esdras, are a Jewish apocalypse also sometimes known as 4 Ezra,**[10] or the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra. The latter name should not be confused with a later work called the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra.

Among Greek Fathers of the Church, 4 Ezra is generally cited as Προφήτης Εσδρας (“The Prophet Esdras”) or Αποκάλυψις Εσδρα (“Apocalypse of Ezra”). Wellhausen, Charles, and Gunkel have shown that the original composition was in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek, and then to Latin, Armenian, Ethiopian and Georgian, but the Hebrew and Greek editions have been lost.

Slightly differing Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Armenian translations have survived; the Greek version can be reconstructed (without absolute certainty, of course) from these different translations, while the Hebrew text remains a bit more elusive.

The Ethiopian Church considers 4 Ezra to be canonical, and calls it Izra Sutuel (ዕዝራ ሱቱኤል); it was also often cited by the Fathers of the Church. In the Eastern Armenian tradition it is called 3 Ezra.
**
*4 Ezra consists of seven visions of Ezra the scribe. The first vision takes place as Ezra is still in Babylon. He asks God how Israel can be kept in misery if God is just. The archangel Uriel is sent to answer the question, responding that God’s ways cannot be understood by the human mind. Soon, however, the end would come, and God’s justice would be made manifest. Similarly, in the second vision, Ezra asks why Israel was delivered up to the Babylonians, and is again told that man cannot understand this and that the end is near. In the third vision Ezra asks why Israel does not possess the world. Uriel responds that the current state is a period of transition. Here follows a description of the fate of evil-doers and the righteous. Ezra attempts to intercede for the condemned, but is told that no one can escape his destiny.

The next three visions are more symbolic in nature. The fourth is of a woman mourning for her only son, who is transformed into a city when she hears of the desolation of Zion. Uriel says that the woman is a symbol of Zion. The fifth vision concerns an eagle with three heads and twenty wings (twelve large wings and eight smaller wings “over against them”). The eagle is rebuked by a lion and then burned. The explanation of this vision is that the eagle refers to the fourth kingdom of the vision of Daniel, with the wings and heads as rulers. The final scene is the triumph of the Messiah over the empire. The sixth vision is of a man, representing the Messiah, who breathes fire on a crowd that is attacking him. This man then turns to another peaceful multitude, which accepts him.***
 
This thread`s become serious again! :eek:
Some folks here seem to have an axiom to grind, but no proof.
Nice sub-thread running through this thread. 🙂
Nothing smart about that comment: Euclid deduce that from plane observation. 😛
No circular reasoning required.
Someone suffering from dimension might have trouble, though. 🤷
 
I had a Catholic Good news Bible with the book of Esdras in it,it talked about the end of the world and the Angel Uriel.

Is this book not accepted by the Catholic church?

why is it in this Catholic Bible then?

Im sure this bible i have was made after the life of Pope Zachary
Esdras is not in the canon. Go to the USCCB website and check this for yourself.

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

The American Bible Society is not a Catholic group and got this one wrong.
 
Esdras is not in the canon. Go to the USCCB website and check this for yourself.

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

The American Bible Society is not a Catholic group and got this one wrong.
Ok…I read that the Council of Trent didnt include Esdras in the list of canonical books…

I remember the bible i had which said on it that it was a Catholic bible…and it had Esdras in it…

Im not sure what u mean about the American Bible society…if they published that bible i had and they are not Catholic ,then why would it say it was a Good news Catholic study bible?

It was like this Bible with the hard cover-

amazon.com/Good-News-Bible-Catholic-Edition/dp/0840712308
 
Im not sure what u mean about the American Bible society…if they published that bible i had and they are not Catholic ,then why would it say it was a Good news Catholic study bible?
The American Bible Society publishes the Good News Bibles and have the copyright on that translation (Today’s English Version). They have had a Catholic Bible out for a while. They are non-denominational and they just promote Scripture reading. They are also non-profit, which is why their Bibles are cheaper.

I note the cover says it contains both the deuterocanicals and the apochrypha. Are these in a separate section in you Bible from the Old Testament?
 
Im not sure if the Bible i had, had the Imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon though

I wonder if these GN bibles with Imprimatur by this Catholic bishop have Esdras in it?
 
I note the cover says it contains both the deuterocanicals and the apochrypha. Are these in a separate section in you Bible from the Old Testament?
Yes mine said on the cover and side the same thing

I think they were seperate ,there was a section in the middle which had all these books together
 
What Eastern Church?
Byzantine churches I am sure. I dot know for sure about Copts, Syriacs and so on, but in general their canons are larger even than Byzantines.

I don’t know myself how this works. Trent defined a list. The Byzantines have a larger one. The Western Church seems to say that even the Orthodox don’t need to change their liturgy, including their saints and liturgical readings.

So as Latina can we say books like 4 Esdras are free from error, worthy of reading, but we still don’t read them in our liturgy? I honestly don’t know.
 
Byzantine churches I am sure. I dot know for sure about Copts, Syriacs and so on, but in general their canons are larger even than Byzantines.

I don’t know myself how this works. Trent defined a list. The Byzantines have a larger one. The Western Church seems to say that even the Orthodox don’t need to change their liturgy, including their saints and liturgical readings.

So as Latina can we say books like 4 Esdras are free from error, worthy of reading, but we still don’t read them in our liturgy? I honestly don’t know.
I know the Orthodox except them. I notice not of the Churches mentioned are Catholic. I did a little digging and found that the Council of Trent infallible defined the Canon of Scripture. I guess subsequent Councils might have defined other canons acceptable, but have not found where that is the case.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=369215&language=en
“The council follows the example of the orthodox Fathers and with the same sense of devotion and reverence with which it accepts and venerates all the books of both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; it also accepts and venerates traditions concerned with faith and morals as having been received orally from Christ or inspired by the Holy Spirit and continuously preserved in the Catholic Church.”
wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_books_are_there_in_the_Catholic_Bible
"The Old Testament: five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon; the first book of Esdras and the second, which is called Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Dave’s Psalter of one hundred and fifty psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, that is Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and the second.
 
Michael: I know about Trent. However, the Byzantine Catholics use the same Canon as the Orthodox. In fact they are liturgically the same (or at least ideally would be) as the Orthodox – the only differences should be that they commemorate the Pope, AFAIK.

Now the fact that Trent defined something different, honestly, confuses me. I don’t know how to reconcile these two different Canons, since there’s one Church and one Holy Ghost.

Edited to add: according to a Byzantine Catholic deacon on byzcath.org (Fr Deacon Lance), the Prayer of Manasses is an example of a work that must be inspired since it is used in Byzantine Liturgy (at Compline) but is not in the list defined by Trent (per my look at the list).

So is it inspired or not?

Or perhaps it’s inspired but not canonical? Is that possible?
 
Maybe its be just the discipline/rule/practice of the Latin/Roman Church not to accept these books into its list

If others do ,well thats their discipline.choice/rule

or did Rome say these other books are false or full of error?
 
Why I must buy expensive pills while I can get generics differin on line with delivery to my place and for considerably lower price. I am ready to accept the situation that customer support sometimes can be dull when I want to trace my order plus lamisil
 
Maybe its be just the discipline/rule/practice of the Latin/Roman Church not to accept these books into its list

If others do ,well thats their discipline.choice/rule

or did Rome say these other books are false or full of error?
No, and there’s an interesting discussion about this at byzcath (an Eastern Christian forum). Some have claimed that Trent defined a list of inspired books as a minimum and anathematized those who reject any of those books or parts of them, but that Trent did not exclude other possible inspired books.

I frankly don’t know if that’s an accurate reading, but it sounds reasonable.

Especially since Trent (and that part of it) was directed towards Protestants who rejected True Scripture. It was not directed towards Byzantines who were using books that Western Christians were not using – I don’t think the Western Church has ever though this problematic since no heresies arose from the books, they seem sound, and importantly, even Western Fathers quote from them.
 
I don’t know if this was said already, but it was my understanding that the Church only approves of referring to the angels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael by name.
 
I don’t know if this was said already, but it was my understanding that the Church only approves of referring to the angels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael by name.
That’s what we’re disputing.

Clearly a holy Pope wanted us to at least liturgically or officially limit ourselves to this.

But the Byzantine Catholics don’t limit themselves to it.

And there Western Fathers referred to other angels.

So perhaps in conclusion: for sake of private devotion, study and prayer, no problem with St. Uriel. A Latin-Rite church shouldn’t be named St. Uriel, and St. Uriel should not be put in the Litany of the Saints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top