Why are Eastern Catholics allowed to have extra scripture and named angels but Western Catholics aren't?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WonderAndAwe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding is that the Church does not accept naming angels because to name someone/something one must be in the position of authority. Adam named the animals, we name our children, etc.

Angels have authority over us. As it says in the Guardian Angel prayer, “to light and guard, to rule and guide.”

Peace.

+JMJ+
 
Last edited:
WonderAndAwe said:
But he’s a demon. There are only 3 holy Angels with names and any angel with a name outside them is a demon.
Click to expand...
Where does this come from? I’ve never heard it before. Could you give a source for this belief?
 
Last edited:
Because most of the Eastern Catholics came back to the Church from being in schism and part of the Eastern Orthodox whose view of scripture is not as defined as Catholics. In fact the only reason ours is is because the Protestant Reformation almost made it necessary to establish a infallible biblical Canon. Even different regions of the Catholic Church had different inspired books. Not New Testament but Old Testament is where it gets shady. For example, prior to the Council of Trent, most editions of the Vulgate had the Prayer of Manesseh following 2 Chronicles, and 3 and 4 Esdras following 1 and 2 Esdras ( now known as Ezra and Nehamiah). The naming of Esdras is confusing but the 3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate is now more often called 1 and 2 Esdras as that’s what it was in the KJV apocrypha.
Following the Council of Trent, these three texts were put in an appendix to the Vulgate and I believe still remain in the official Vulgate. These three books were very popular in the early church and still do remain worthy to read. They actually appear in our liturgy rarely but enough to notice if you look.
As for 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151, which I believe are most likely the Orthodox books foreign to the Latin Rite. 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are in Orthodox Bibles. 4 Maccabees appears in an appendix to the Greek Orthodox Bible. The reason they have these texts( or and those three texts also in the Vulgate appendix also have canonicity in Orthodoxy.), but 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 appear in the Greek Septuagint. Even the Catholic Church used this to define it’s Old Testament. Why these three texts didn’t make it into the Roman Canon is , no-one knows. But they aren’t. The Orthodox stay true to the Septuagint. Thus these texts which I think are the ones you are referring too, have always had a place in Orthodoxy. However , like I said earlier, although there was a Synod of Jerusalem in the 1600s that also is seen by some as the Orthodox version of the Council of Trent, some Orthodox don’t agree with that because not all Patriarchs were present. In the end 3 and 4 Maccabees are harmless. I’ve read them. They appear in most common bibles which are becoming more and more popular to adhere to all traditions.
All Trent did was define which books ARE Canon. They never said it is not possible other texts aren’t they just verified the texts that were being questioned by the reformation, those books that appeared in the Septuagint but not the Hebrew Bible, and did not verify the books now in the Vulgate appendix.
 
Really? In 4 Esdras which is in the Latin Vulgate appendix, he seems like a very righteous angel.
And that painting of Uriel saving the righteous in the Vatican seems very good as well.
 
I take it as unfounded nonsense. Uriel is certainly an angel. As are there many others amongst his number.

I’d be curious to read what was likely an older original and more complete text, as there are clear parallels between Enoch 1- and other Biblical narratives.

Perhaps focus your attention on what motivates people to exclude various books.

Some have clear dating discrepancies. Others elminated for consistency errors; and then there are those in the reformation, that simply didn’t suit someone’s agenda. Much like Luther’s attempt at dismissing James.

You all presumably have the good fortunate of either being Catholic or open to their ideas. Therefore I suggest you research and review all the material for yourself.

Evaluation and knowledge go a long way. Wether you accept an idea ultimately or not, should still be based upon reason and discernment. Blind faith in what man has spoon fed you is never good reason to believe anything. Despite how unpopular that view may be.

As for the texts in question. When something has clearly been used as a base resource by apostles in their own works, one would suggest you at least give them passing concern/consideration.
 
Last edited:
WonderAndAwe said:
If it’s wrong for us, it’s wrong for them.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that isn’t true, people under different Rites have different rules that apply to them - also, you haven’t yet demonstrated that referencing Uriel is inherently wrong or that it is inherently wrong to use the books that are not part of the Latin canonical Bible.
 
“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.” - Directory of Piety

If the motive for saying that something should be discouraged is equally applicable, then the need for discouragement is equally applicable.

There are legitimate traditions in the East which have been wrongly suppressed in some cases (e.g. infant communion), but just labeling any bad practice which has cropped up in the East as “Eastern tradition” is nonsensical. Many people in the west used to think that Anointing of the Sick could only be imparted at the hour of death, was that a “legitimate Latin tradition”?

That Latinizations have happened doesn’t make the law of non-contradiction a Latinization.
 
Arkansan said:
“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.” - Directory of Piety

If the motive for saying that something should be discouraged is equally applicable, then the need for discouragement is equally applicable.

There are legitimate traditions in the East which have been wrongly suppressed in some cases (e.g. infant communion), but just labeling any bad practice which has cropped up in the East as “Eastern tradition” is nonsensical. Many people in the west used to think that Anointing of the Sick could only be imparted at the hour of death, was that a “legitimate Latin tradition”?

That Latinizations have happened doesn’t make the law of non-contradiction a Latinization.
Click to expand...
Discouraged is not the same as forbidden.

And what is the motive in this situation for discouraging the faithful from assigning names to angels? It seems to me that it has to do with the association of this practice with New Age practices. Clearly, that is not the case with Eastern veneration of the archangels by the names that the tradition of the Church has given them.
 
babochka said:
40.png
Arkansan:
“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.” - Directory of Piety

If the motive for saying that something should be discouraged is equally applicable, then the need for discouragement is equally applicable.

There are legitimate traditions in the East which have been wrongly suppressed in some cases (e.g. infant communion), but just labeling any bad practice which has cropped up in the East as “Eastern tradition” is nonsensical. Many people in the west used to think that Anointing of the Sick could only be imparted at the hour of death, was that a “legitimate Latin tradition”?

That Latinizations have happened doesn’t make the law of non-contradiction a Latinization.
Click to expand...
Discouraged is not the same as forbidden.

And what is the motive in this situation for discouraging the faithful from assigning names to angels? It seems to me that it has to do with the association of this practice with New Age practices. Clearly, that is not the case with Eastern veneration of the archangels by the names that the tradition of the Church has given them.
Click to expand...
If the practice of naming angels was acceptable in itself but objectionable only on account of its association with New Age, then the Church would issue guidelines on precisely what was and was not acceptable about it (indeed, making such distinctions between authentic Christian practices and New Age ones was the entire point of the Directory).

The reason why the practice ought to be discouraged is because it’s inherently dangerous to invoke the aid of spiritual beings whose existence (or goodness) is uncertain. It’s very unlikely that the CDW was unaware of Uriel (especially given that he is frequently part of the New Age practices they were addressing), so their judgment is clearly that the tradition present in some times and places in the history of the Church does not warrant sufficient certitude of his being a good angel to justify venerating him or invoking his aid.

It’s true that they didn’t strictly forbid it, but the judgment of the Holy See that a spiritual practice is inadvisable should not be taken lightly. That the CDW has jurisdiction over Latin Catholics is not relevant, since the question is one which necessarily has a universal answer (either Uriel exists (and is a good angel) or not, if so then there’s no reason to discourage anyone from venerating him, if not then everyone should be so discouraged).
 
By priest has never mentioned him or other Eastern Catholics venerating all seven archangels.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really tell us anything. Has he ever mentioned veneration of St. Bucolus or St. Parthenis? Both are on the calendar for this week.
Eastern Catholics as far as I know only venerate the three biblical archangels.
Click to expand...
Now you know differently. 🙂
Eastern Catholics use the same Bible as Roman Catholics as do Eastern Orthodox except for the Ethiopian and Eritrean Tewahdo Orthodox Churches which are Oriental Orthodox churches and are the only Oriental Orthodox churches that accept Enoch and other books in their Canon.
Click to expand...
This is not correct.
Eastern Catholics have their own theology, their own catechism, their own liturgy and calendar and various traditions
Click to expand...
Of course. And those traditions include a different canon of scripture and the veneration of the archangels by the names that they are traditionally known.
 
i understand OP’s thinking, but the use of the word “allowed” is a little provactive

the easterns “allow” themselves to name an extra archangel or two…

the eastern church never asked the western’s permission to do this…

is it sinful? well, that is above all of our paygrades here…
 
Last edited:
I’m going to copy and past what @FrDavid96 said on this topic several years ago. It is lengthy, but he covers every aspect of the question
First and foremost, the Vatican does not prohibit the use of the name Uriel. The absence of a name is not the same thing as a prohibition against it. One must be careful not to confuse these two ideas.

Eastern Catholic spirituality is completely equal to Western spirituality. Neither is superior to the other. The question itself implies that Eastern Spirituality must “obey” that of the West. The Church rejects that kind of thinking.

The Eastern Churches, and the West as well, have long ascribed names to persons whose actual names are unknown; at least from canonical sources. The Gospels themselves give no names to the parents of our Blessed Mother, yet the Church has long regarded them as Joachim and Anna, even though those names come from non-canonical sources. Likewise, the names of the Maji, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar are extra-canonical, yet the Church both East and West has accepted these names without actually declaring that the names are historically or scripturally accurate. The two thieves crucified with Christ were Dismas and Gesmas, even though these are not in the Gospels. The rich man who knew the poor man Lazarus is called “Dives” even though that’s not even a name. It’s a word that means “wealthy.” Yet, Dives is that name that the Church has called him for over a thousand years. The point is that there are plenty of examples of names coming from outside the canonical scriptures. The use of the name Uriel or Arial is hardly unique, but rather expresses a long-standing and well-established Christian tradition of ascribing names beyond what is read directly in Sacred Scripture.

In Eastern Christian practice, the name Uriel has been used as a name for an Archangel since time immemorial.

Since the spirituality of the East and the West are equal to each other, neither one is “more equal” than the other (to borrow from Orson Wells).

Western tradition is to use only the 3 names found in Sacred Scripture: Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.

Eastern tradition uses either 4 or 7 names. The additional names coming from extra-canonical sources. Just like the names Joachim and Anna come from non-canonical sources.
Click to expand...
Continued next post…
 
Last edited:
That merely expresses a difference in tradition. It expresses the legitimate diversity in the Church.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Churches use the name Uriel, as they have done for more than a thousand years. There is simply no problem with that.

If one thinks that the Vatican somehow “prohibits” the use of the name Uriel, then one is reading too much into the documents. There is no such prohibition. Just because someone posts an article on the web denouncing the use of the name Uriel (such as the article “Beware of Rogue Angels”) that does not mean that the Vatican holds the same position. The author is confusing different issues. There is a great deal of difference between some New Age practice of naming an angel (like some imaginary skateboarding guardian angel of the city park across the street or an “angel” who is said to live under a bridge on Water Street) and the long accepted practice of the Eastern Churches. That distinction is absolutely essential, and yet the 2 ideas are merged into one by the writer; and wrongly so.
Click to expand...
The author writes “it is important to note that the Vatican…” but then changes the entire meaning of the sentence actually found in the Directory on Popular Piety. That is an example of someone who presents her own personal opinion and claims that it is a teaching of the Vatican. The Vatican document says nothing about “rogue angels”–that’s something the author simply made up. The statement itself is absolutely false.
The Vatican certainly does approve of venerating the archangels whose names we do not know for certain. The prohibition is against private persons assigning names to angels. The article is misleading at best. The absence of a known name is not the same thing as a “rogue angel” (which seems to mean some kind of false angel) and yet the author chooses to combine these two concepts into one.
Most of what she says is true and trustworthy. But that part about the names of the Archangels goes too far. She imposes her personal opinion and tells her readers that this is the “teaching of the Vatican.” That’s not the case.
Click to expand...
If one wants a canonical argument for the name Uriel, then look to canon law. The Directory on Popular Piety (which is a rather low level of special law) is dated December 2001. In the Latin Code, practices (“custom”) which are contrary to the current law enjoy the force of law if they are more than a century old, or if they are from “time immemorial”
Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

The Directory #217 states
…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.
Click to expand...
continued…
 
Last edited:
First, it says “should be discourage” not “is forbidden.” There is a difference. The other difference is that it speaks about “assigning” names, not using names already being used from time immemorial and part of the overall tradition of the Church. Again, a significant difference.

The Directory does not say that traditional names for Angels are prohibited. It simply does not say that. Rather it addresses the problem of people giving names to angels as a form of personal piety. The law deals with the future, not the past (see canon 9).

The Eastern practice of naming the archangels is a custom from time immemorial, and therefore not even subject to paragraph 217 of the 2001 Directory on Popular Piety.
Click to expand...
 
No offense to Fr. David, but that argument is very pedantic. In the first place, it is not a matter of law but of advise (“should be discouraged”), so trying to argue that there is no legal prohibition misses the point, because no one argues that there is (if someone was in fact making that argument in the thread you’re quoting from, then my apologies to Fr. David, but such is not the case here).

Moreover, if by “assigning names” they were speaking only of the practice of making up angelic names out of scratch, they wouldn’t have stated an exception for Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Likewise if there’d been an implied exception for names which have been widely used throughout history. You could argue that they simply overlooked Uriel, but that’s very implausible given that New Age practices often include invoking him.

The comparison to saints’ names fails for two reasons. One is that those names are universally accepted, whereas there’s as long a history of Uriel’s existence being rejected as there is of it being accepted. The second is that those are human beings. The danger of invoking deceased human beings who are not actually among the blessed is not comparable to that of invoking angels of doubtful status (which is why the Church does not discourage privately asking for the prayers of deceased relatives).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top