Yes. But that didn't stop Paul challenging him.
Gets tricky here. The apostles and most Catholics, yes, because they were Jewish and saw no contradiction. Many gentiles also did, a practice that's been noted before the church. But many gentiles equally did not, and asked why they should, and should they follow all the Jewish laws and customs, for example ... so a dialogue is ongoing ...
But it was the common practice long before then, it didn't begin then. It was always the practice to fulfil their Sabbath obligations and then meet on the Lord's Day.
Which is a shame, and to our cost.
OK. Just the only scripturally named.
Catholic tradition calls Michael, Gabriel and Raphael archangels,
but Scripture only named Michael. The Eastern Catholic Churches also venerate Uriel, Selaphiel, Jegudiel, Barachiel and Jerahmeel.
, seven Angels were considered to be of special significance, who stand before the Throne of God. Michael is called a prince of the seraphim, but again, that's a late (13th c) tradition of St Bonaventure, whereas his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, says he ain't. You takes your pick.
Christian art often portrays archangels together. Michael and Gabriel accompany Mary in a Byzantine icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary that has been the subject of widespread Catholic devotions for centuries.
I don't have to, it's not dogmatic. I'm not obliged to believe either way – it's a traditional opinion, that's all.
My fault here, I was referring to the Books of Enoch. The 2nd and 3rd books are 2nd century, I think.
Not infallibly, no. Like any encyclopaedia, many of the articles are out-dated.
OK. Catechism of the Catholic Church. That's the go-to reference. Stick to that and you won't go wrong.
When I did my degree, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
by Dr. Ludwig Ott was the advised resource for a quick reference, gives a brief background, then you proceed from there.
Popes, cardinals, bishops, theologians, etc., are a matter of taste.
Some of my references were orthodox, some debatable. Some not even Catholic. For example Karl Rahner wrote a must-read work on the Trinity for scholars, but he was questionable in other areas. N T Wright, an Anglican, was a common reference for Pauline studies.
Again, we were required to read 'condemned' or refuted materials to understand the arguments. You can't, as a scholar, write an essay on the Eucharist in the modern era without reference to Edward Schillebeeckx, who had some very controversial opinions.
OK - in as much as they were angels.
OK. Then I have to say, you missed it, because the doctrine is founded on Scripture.
What you mean is you can't find any other trinity, surely?
And regarding the Scriptural Trinity, two points:
1: The Son is not subservient to the Father. He fulfills the Father's will, but as you know as a parent, (and I wish you every good thing in your upcoming arrival) the last thing we parents want is our children to be subservient to us.
2: The Holy Spirit is 'his own person' – he might be 'the anonymous one' as one of my tutors liked to call him, but he has his function and mission. Again, his personhood is argued from scripture.
To be honest, I've never given it much thought. Angelology was never a topic of mine. The tradition no doubt says seven, somewhere. I'm closer to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism on some aspects, and they list seven ... as I said, it's not a deal-breaker.
I didn't think you were. Nor am I trying to convince anyone to believe in the Trinity.
All I do here is defend the emergence of doctrine against errors and assumptions. You know @muhammad_isa
and I have had a long slog over Arius. I actually think he was nowhere quite as bad as the histories would have us believe. And he believed what he believed in good faith. I will defend his doctrine against erroneous assumption, as much as I disagree with it.
I did not mean to defame the memory of your professor. I see I was a bit heavy-footed there, I meant no offence, but when it comes to calling oneself Catholic, then some beliefs are simply a matter of choice, others are non-negotiable – and unfortunately the Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity are two non-negotiable doctrines. If you don't believe that, you are not recognisably Catholic – or if one says when is, then what to be Catholic actually means becomes nebulous, if not meaningless.
With regard to the heart, that's not for me to say.
When I was doing my degree, we had a Professor of Catholic Moral Theology – OMG, he could be difficult, and more than once simply cut the discussion dead with, "Well then, you're a heretic and that's the end of it." One of the toughest men to argue with, one of the nicest to know. He had a parish in a very run-down part of the country, and was loved even by those who never set foot in a church, because he lived the Christian message, and they knew they could trust him. He might judge what they did, buit they saw he saw passed that, to look and speak to them.