seems to me if you’re catholic you don’t engage in this kind of origin/source analysis. at least not as a relevant test for truth. for catholics biblical bases can be very thin or only defensible allegorically without any real intellectual tension. for you (and me) you’re still primarily interested in scriptural justifications for doctrine and especially when something seems so... syncretic? it’s hard to just trust that the tradition got it right

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765538)

you know that the Protestant position is that the original documents are inspired, right? there’s no official Protestant version except weird low iq groups. meanwhile at the council of Trent the Catholic Church actually had the audacity to claim the true authoritative Bible is the Vulgate, an incredibly bad translation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765667)

but I can’t bring myself to just accept things like what you’re describing ITT. plus I have a hard time accepting life in a Cath/Ortho parish where 90% plus are just in it for cultural/ethnic reasons with no interest in discipleship whatsoever

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765574)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p5.htm

afaik the specific rankings and circles are tradition but not Tradition. (I would be open to being shown wrong on this point.) that being said it's been developed by very smart people and I have no reason to believe I could, personally & individually, devise a more accurate angelology ab nihilo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40767572)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2654032/posts

I will go on a limb and believe this collection is accurate, its a copy of something i've seen before on a more credible website.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765701)

The nature of angels is spiritual. (De fide.)

The angels are by nature immortal. (Sent. communis.)

God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of God, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end. (Sent. Certa.)

The angels were subjected to a moral testing. (Sent. certa. as regards the fallen angels, Sent. communis as regards the good.)

The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.

The primary task of the good angels is the glorification and the service of God. (Sent. certa.)

The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation. (De fide on the ground of general teaching.)

Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism. (Sent. certa.)

The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin. (De fide.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765705)

Though the angels who appear in the earlier works of the Old Testament are strangely impersonal and are overshadowed by the importance of the message they bring or the work they do, there are not wanting hints regarding the existence of certain ranks in the heavenly army.

After Adam's fall Paradise is guarded against our First Parents by cherubim who are clearly God's ministers, though nothing is said of their nature. Only once again do the cherubim figure in the Bible, viz., in Ezechiel's marvellous vision, where they are described at great length (Ezekiel 1), and are actually called cherub in Ezechiel 10. The Ark was guarded by two cherubim, but we are left to conjecture what they were like. It has been suggested with great probability that we have their counterpart in the winged bulls and lions guarding the Assyrian palaces, and also in the strange winged men with hawks' heads who are depicted on the walls of some of their buildings. The seraphim appear only in the vision of Isaias 6:6.

Mention has already been made of the mystic seven who stand before God, and we seem to have in them an indication of an inner cordon that surrounds the throne. The term archangel occurs only in St. Jude and 1 Thessalonians 4:15; but St. Paul has furnished us with two other lists of names of the heavenly cohorts. He tells us (Ephesians 1:21) that Christ is raised up "above all principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion"; and, writing to the Colossians (1:16), he says: "In Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations, or principalities or powers." It is to be noted that he uses two of these names of the powers of darkness when (2:15) he talks of Christ as "despoiling the principalities and powers . . . triumphing over them in Himself". And it is not a little remarkable that only two verses later he warns his readers not to be seduced into any "religion of angels". He seems to put his seal upon a certain lawful angelology, and at the same time to warn them against indulging superstition on the subject. We have a hint of such excesses in the Book of Enoch, wherein, as already stated, the angels play a quite disproportionate part. Similarly Josephus tells us (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 7) that the Essenes had to take a vow to preserve the names of the angels.

We have already seen how (Daniel 10:12-21) various districts are allotted to various angels who are termed their princes, and the same feature reappears still more markedly in the Apocalyptic "angels of the seven churches", though it is impossible to decide what is the precise signification of the term. These seven Angels of the Churches are generally regarded as being the Bishops occupying these sees. St. Gregory Nazianzen in his address to the Bishops at Constantinople twice terms them "Angels", in the language of the Apocalypse.

The treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia", which is ascribed to St. Denis the Areopagite, and which exercised so strong an influence upon the Scholastics, treats at great length of the hierarchies and orders of the angels. It is generally conceded that this work was not due to St. Denis, but must date some centuries later. Though the doctrine it contains regarding the choirs of angels has been received in the Church with extraordinary unanimity, no proposition touching the angelic hierarchies is binding on our faith. The following passages from St. Gregory the Great (Hom. 34, In Evang.) will give us a clear idea of the view of the Church's doctors on the point:

We know on the authority of Scripture that there are nine orders of angels, viz., Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Throne, Cherubim and Seraphim. That there are Angels and Archangels nearly every page of the Bible tell us, and the books of the Prophets talk of Cherubim and Seraphim. St. Paul, too, writing to the Ephesians enumerates four orders when he says: 'above all Principality, and Power, and Virtue, and Domination'; and again, writing to the Colossians he says: 'whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers'. If we now join these two lists together we have five Orders, and adding Angels and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, we find nine Orders of Angels.

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:108), following St. Denis (De Coelesti Hierarchia, vi, vii), divides the angels into three hierarchies each of which contains three orders. Their proximity to the Supreme Being serves as the basis of this division. In the first hierarchy he places the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; in the second, the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers; in the third, the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. The only Scriptural names furnished of individual angels are Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel, names which signify their respective attributes. Apocryphal Jewish books, such as the Book of Enoch, supply those of Uriel and Jeremiel, while many are found in other apocryphal sources, like those Milton names in "Paradise Lost". (On superstitious use of such names, see above).

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765719)

Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765742)

2. there /is/ biblical references to choirs and orders of angels

3. you could be propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology or sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy.

not "heretical", but odd. ignoring the direct biblical referenced orders seems silly. the choirs also made it into the Eucharist Prayer (the proper, first one). so it would scandalous to publicize but perhaps not mortally sinful as a private belief.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765763)

publicly? i think it would be scandalous to besmirch the choirs as referenced in Eucharistic Prayer I, and certainly those that get named in the old testament. perhaps gravely so and thus constitute mortal sin (with proper other conditions)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4604995&forum_id=2:#40765791)