Heaven, Hell and afterlife

  • Thread starter Thread starter COPLAND_3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

COPLAND_3

Guest
I am working on some decriptions of some places of the afterlife, such as Heaven, Hell/Lake of Fire, Hades, Tartarus, and Purgatory. These are often obscure for many people and I hope to bring some clarification on it. I just got done working on Tartarus litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Tartarus

If there are any questions or any suggestion then please let me know. I will be providing Scripture, tradition and Tradition for each.
 
Just one comment. The Catholic Church does not recognise St Uriel as a Saint or even an angel of any kind.
 
thistle said:
Just one comment. The Catholic Church does not recognise St Uriel as a Saint or even an angel of any kind.
Click to expand...
You are correct about not being a Saint, which I corrected. But tradition does have him as an archangel. My Catholic Sourcebook lists him as one of the 7 Archangels. It describes him as " (God is my light) Interpreter of prophesy; guarded Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2); appeared to Ezra in a dream.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
You are correct about not being a Saint, which I corrected. But tradition does have him as an archangel. My Catholic Sourcebook lists him as one of the 7 Archangels. It describes him as " (God is my light) Interpreter of prophesy; guarded Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2); appeared to Ezra in a dream.
Click to expand...
Father Serpa would disagree with you. See his answer from Ask An Apologist:

QUOTE

Hi,

If the being is in heaven, then it is a saint. However, the Catholic Church does not consider Uriel an angel, let alone a saint, because Uriel is only found in some Old Testament apochryphal writings.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

UNQUOTE
 
thistle said:
Father Serpa would disagree with you. See his answer from Ask An Apologist:

QUOTE

Hi,

If the being is in heaven, then it is a saint. However, the Catholic Church does not consider Uriel an angel, let alone a saint, because Uriel is only found in some Old Testament apochryphal writings.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

UNQUOTE
Click to expand...
I respect his opinion. He can disagree with me, but I think you misuderstand what I have said for him to disagree with me. What I am saying is that there is a solid tradition that recognizes Uriel as one of the 7 archangels, such as apocrypha, Church Fathers, Aquinas, etc. If there is a disagreement on that then I am sorry, that’s a fact. But if there is a disagreement concerning whether that tradition is right in saying that Uriel is really an angel, then that is a matter of an opinion.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I respect his opinion. He can disagree with me, but I think you misuderstand what I have said for him to disagree with me. What I am saying is that there is a solid tradition that recognizes Uriel as one of the 7 archangels, such as apocrypha, Church Fathers, Aquinas, etc. If there is a disagreement on that then I am sorry, that’s a fact. But if there is a disagreement concerning whether that tradition is right in saying that Uriel is really an angel, then that is a matter of an opinion.
Click to expand...
But if the Church rejects Uriel as an angel doesn’t that mean tradition is wrong and not a matter of opinion?
 
thistle said:
But if the Church rejects Uriel as an angel doesn’t that mean tradition is wrong and not a matter of opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, if of course the Church has declared it. If the Catholic Church has declared that Uriel is not an angel then please show me so I can take a dogmatic position on it. All I can see is that Fr. Serpa may be indicating that, but it is not completely obvious if he is meaning that the Church actually rejects Uriel as an angel or just does not declare he is an angel. I have plenty of Catholic sources that support Uriel as one of the 7 archangels, which seems to be who the 7 spirits of God are in Revelation 1:4 and the 7 archangels mentioned in Tobit 12:15.

I have found where Uriel was taken off the list of names of angels for veneration(Council of Rome of 745 by Pope St. Zachary), but I am not sure if that means that it actually rejects his existence. Any information to confirm neigh or yea would be helpful!
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Yes, if of course the Church has declared it. If the Catholic Church has declared that Uriel is not an angel then please show me so I can take a dogmatic position on it. All I can see is that Fr. Serpa may be indicating that, but it is not completely obvious if he is meaning that the Church actually rejects Uriel as an angel or just does not declare he is an angel. I have plenty of Catholic sources that support Uriel as one of the 7 archangels, which seems to be who the 7 spirits of God are in Revelation 1:4 and the 7 archangels mentioned in Tobit 12:15.

I have found where Uriel was taken off the list of names of angels for veneration(Council of Rome of 745 by Pope St. Zachary), but I am not sure if that means that it actually rejects his existence. Any information to confirm neigh or yea would be helpful!
Click to expand...
Sorry if this is derailing the thread. Its not my intention and I am eager to find out why Uriel is contentious. I know very little about Uriel. I am basically going on what Father Serpa said. I am assuming when he says the Church does not consider Uriel to be an angel or saint he must have something to support that. Uriel is not part of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition so I guess the debate is whether Uriel is part of tradition with a small “t” and if so whether the Church “rejects” this tradition as being wrong…
What Catholic sources do you have that supports Uriel being an angel? I would be interested in reading them. I assume by using the word Catholic these sources are views of individuals and not a Church position.
 
thistle said:
Sorry if this is derailing the thread. Its not my intention and I am eager to find out why Uriel is contentious. I know very little about Uriel. I am basically going on what Father Serpa said. I am assuming when he says the Church does not consider Uriel to be an angel or saint he must have something to support that. Uriel is not part of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition so I guess the debate is whether Uriel is part of tradition with a small “t” and if so whether the Church “rejects” this tradition as being wrong…
What Catholic sources do you have that supports Uriel being an angel? I would be interested in reading them. I assume by using the word Catholic these sources are views of individuals and not a Church position.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about derailment, no such thing here, I am always searching for truth no matter if it challenges my understanding. This has been an interesting topic for me, its made me learn more about Uriel.

It appears to me that the Church’s view on Uriel is much like it is on other traditions that comes from apocryphal writings, such as how the Apostles were martyred, where they evangelized, etc. Since those were not in Scripture it is not always acccepted as 100%, but at the same time it is not rejected as dangerous to the Faith. Since there was an abuse going on in the 8th century over angels, the Pope rightfully safeguarded the flock by eliminating some possibilities by allowing verneration of angels only found in Scripture, but it did not demand a rejection of believing in their existance.

As for some Catholic sources on Uriel, here are some

St. Ambrose refers to him here in 3.20 newadvent.org/fathers/34043.htm

Origen here in chapter 25 newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

This comes from the Catholic Source Book with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Angels
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Don’t worry about derailment, no such thing here, I am always searching for truth no matter if it challenges my understanding. This has been an interesting topic for me, its made me learn more about Uriel.

It appears to me that the Church’s view on Uriel is much like it is on other traditions that comes from apocryphal writings, such as how the Apostles were martyred, where they evangelized, etc. Since those were not in Scripture it is not always acccepted as 100%, but at the same time it is not rejected as dangerous to the Faith. Since there was an abuse going on in the 8th century over angels, the Pope rightfully safeguarded the flock by eliminating some possibilities by allowing verneration of angels only found in Scripture, but it did not demand a rejection of believing in their existance.

As for some Catholic sources on Uriel, here are some

St. Ambrose refers to him here in 3.20 newadvent.org/fathers/34043.htm

Origen here in chapter 25 newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

This comes from the Catholic Source Book with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Angels
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
ryanoneil said:
Under “Lake of Fire/Gehenna,” You might include (Mk 9:48) and (Rev 20:10). If your not particular about the word Lake being included you might add (Mt 13:41-42).

Peace
Click to expand...
I did not list all the places due to being so many, but I may change my mind, and I’ll sure check out those passages you suggested. Thank you very much!
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I did not list all the places due to being so many, but I may change my mind, and I’ll sure check out those passages you suggested. Thank you very much!
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. that is a nice website.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top