Saint Uriel

[babochka]

So is it your understanding that there is only one liturgical calendar in the Catholic Church?

To expand on this: St. Charles Borromeo is not found on the calendar of the Byzantine Catholic Church, nor the Russian Catholic Church, nor the Maronite Catholic Church, mor the Coptic Catholic Church, nor the Chaldean Catholic Church (you get the picture), yet we all acknowledge him as a saint because we are all members of the universal Church. Likewise for saints only found on the Byzantine Calendar. Would you have an issue with any Catholic, Latin or otherwise, having a devotion to Blessed Theodoore Romzha, whose feast day is on October 31? Or St. Maron or St. Charbel, both of whom only appear on the Maronite calendar? Or should nobody venerate these saints because they “do not appear on the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church?”

 

[Seraphim73]

Let me repeat this. The Catholic Church does not recognise Uriel as an angel/archangel.
Uriel is not on the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. Uriel is commemorated on tomorrow as a matter of fact in the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

 

[simpleas]

What I learnt about Uriel is that he is a guardian angel, not a saint.
The name Uriel means God is my light.

If I have a GA I’d hope is Uriel.

 

[patrick457]

His is listed as an Archangel in Jewish tradition. He is mentioned in the non-canonical book Esdras IV. More specifically, he is the Angel of Death that was called down upon the Egyptians.

The Orthodox recognize him as an Archangel, as do the Anglicans

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the Angel of Death, but does not attribute a name to him. Private veneation is permitted, just as it is for one’s personal angel, or any angel for that matter.

But public veneration is prohibited, which is a real shame. I would LOVE to see a Catholic grade school football team somewhere named the St. Uriel Smiters.

I posted this in another thread. It might be of use here as well:

In Second Temple period Jewish literature you had this idea of four principal ‘angels of the presence’ that surround God’s throne and do the important jobs - acting as intercessors for humans and waging war against fallen angels. Only the names of three angels are consistent across different works: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. On the other hand there was less consistency about the fourth angel: he is either named Uriel or Sariel or Phanuel. Sometimes instead of four you had six or seven principal angels, which is where we get the idea of the seven archangels from. Even when they are named though, the only constant names are Michael and Gabriel (Raphael is also more constant than the other names though sometimes he is omitted as well).

The reason why public veneration was limited to the three angels whose names are in Scripture in the West during the 8th century was because there was a French bishop named Adalbert who coined a prayer/incantation invoking the angels Uriel, Raguel, Tubuel, Michael, Inias, Tubuas, Sabaoc, and Simiel. (Invoking the names of angels is a common feature of Jewish and Christian magic.) Adalbert was really on the ‘cultist’ fringe: he erected crosses in different places and directed that the liturgy should be performed in those places instead of churches, he dedicated churches to himself, and was venerated as a living saint by his disciples, with his own nail clippings and his hair being treated as relics. He claimed to have knowledge of all his followers’ past sins - so he thought confession was unnecessary. As a reaction, Pope Zachary declared that only the angels named in Scripture can be venerated and forbade the veneration of these ‘other’ angels in Adalbert’s prayer (saying that they were demons in disguise), and had Adalbert and another bishop named Clement excommunited.

 

[thereseozi]

womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=33690

Beware of Rogue Angels!
Posted on October 2, 2014 by SBrinkmann from EWTN’s Women of Grace

This week marks the celebration of one of the most beloved beliefs of a Christian souls – angels – a good time to review what is Catholic teaching and what is not.

These extraordinary beings, which were created by God to be pure spirits, are possessed of powers that are incomprehensible to the human mind: their exalted intelligence; their ability to move at the speed of thought; their herculean strength; the uncanny way they communicate with one another simply by opening their minds and revealing what they wish to “say.”…

For instance, Michael is the angel that sent Lucifer packing during the great war that took place in heaven between the good and the bad angels. Gabriel is the angel who announced the birth of John the Baptist to Zachariah, who received Our Lady’s fiat to become the Mother of the Messiah, and who announced his birth to the shepherds. Raphael, who is believed to be the angel who stirred the healing waters in the pool of Bethsaida is also the angel who healed Sarah of a curse of the demon Asmodeus that prevented her from enjoying a successful marriage.

We do not know the names of the rest of the seven, although there are plenty of people who claim to know them.

Consider this article, published on Spirit Daily on September 26, which claims that “In the year 1040, St. Celias made an exhaustive study of the approved writings of the Early Church Fathers up to the 4th Century. Through his studies we have come to know seven of the names of the Archangels, the meaning of their names and the sacrament each is the patron of.”

This saint, of whom I could find no record, claims the names of the seven angels are: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jehudiel, Sealtiel and Barachiel.

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports that of the seven archangels that appear in the angelology of post-Exilic Judaism, only three are named in canonical Scripture – Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. The other names are taken from a non-canonical source – the Book of Enoch – with derivatives found in other apocryphal sources.

It’s important to note that the Vatican does not approve of the veneration of these and other “rogue” angels. In this 300-page Directory of Public Piety which was published in 2001 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, the faithful are discouraged from “assigning names to the Holy Angels . . . except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael.”

These directives serve to protect the faithful from being drawn into devotions to phony angels such as those being promoted by proponents of the New Age movement. Angel intuitives and card readers form a virtual cottage industry on the internet and who make a variety of absurd claims about angels who do everything from find our soul mate to insure our financial success…

God has given us a celestial bodyguard to guard us who is possessed of such extraordinary power and beauty they expose these cheap New Age imitations for what they truly are – either figments of someone’s imagination or visitations from the dark side.

 

[babochka]

It’s important to note that the Vatican does not approve of the veneration of these and other “rogue” angels. In this 300-page Directory of Public Piety which was published in 2001 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, the faithful are discouraged from “assigning names to the Holy Angels . . . except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael.”

Acknowledging the existence of an angel that Jewish and Christian tradition calls Uriel is hardly the same thing as “the faithful assigning names to the Holy Angels”. I could decide to call my guardian angel “Jason”. That would be problematic, according to this document. I hardly think that the Eastern Churches’ veneration of this angel, by the name of Uriel, is what is intended by the church in this document.

These directives serve to protect the faithful from being drawn into devotions to phony angels such as those being promoted by proponents of the New Age movement. Angel intuitives and card readers form a virtual cottage industry on the internet and who make a variety of absurd claims about angels who do everything from find our soul mate to insure our financial success…

Before doing some reading for this thread, I was unaware that there was such a connection with the New Age movement and I understand the caution with which this subject is approached. However, if the veneration of St. Uriel is good enough for my (Byzantine) Catholic Church, it is good enough for me. I’ll pray for all on this thread tomorrow morning, when I attend the Divine Liturgy in honor of St. Michael and all the Holy Angels.

 

[Seraphim73]

womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=33690

Beware of Rogue Angels!
Posted on October 2, 2014 by SBrinkmann from EWTN’s Women of Grace

This week marks the celebration of one of the most beloved beliefs of a Christian souls – angels – a good time to review what is Catholic teaching and what is not.

These extraordinary beings, which were created by God to be pure spirits, are possessed of powers that are incomprehensible to the human mind: their exalted intelligence; their ability to move at the speed of thought; their herculean strength; the uncanny way they communicate with one another simply by opening their minds and revealing what they wish to “say.”…

For instance, Michael is the angel that sent Lucifer packing during the great war that took place in heaven between the good and the bad angels. Gabriel is the angel who announced the birth of John the Baptist to Zachariah, who received Our Lady’s fiat to become the Mother of the Messiah, and who announced his birth to the shepherds. Raphael, who is believed to be the angel who stirred the healing waters in the pool of Bethsaida is also the angel who healed Sarah of a curse of the demon Asmodeus that prevented her from enjoying a successful marriage.

We do not know the names of the rest of the seven, although there are plenty of people who claim to know them.

Consider this article, published on Spirit Daily on September 26, which claims that “In the year 1040, St. Celias made an exhaustive study of the approved writings of the Early Church Fathers up to the 4th Century. Through his studies we have come to know seven of the names of the Archangels, the meaning of their names and the sacrament each is the patron of.”

This saint, of whom I could find no record, claims the names of the seven angels are: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jehudiel, Sealtiel and Barachiel.

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports that of the seven archangels that appear in the angelology of post-Exilic Judaism, only three are named in canonical Scripture – Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. The other names are taken from a non-canonical source – the Book of Enoch – with derivatives found in other apocryphal sources.

It’s important to note that the Vatican does not approve of the veneration of these and other “rogue” angels. In this 300-page Directory of Public Piety which was published in 2001 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, the faithful are discouraged from “assigning names to the Holy Angels . . . except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael.”

These directives serve to protect the faithful from being drawn into devotions to phony angels such as those being promoted by proponents of the New Age movement. Angel intuitives and card readers form a virtual cottage industry on the internet and who make a variety of absurd claims about angels who do everything from find our soul mate to insure our financial success…

God has given us a celestial bodyguard to guard us who is possessed of such extraordinary power and beauty they expose these cheap New Age imitations for what they truly are – either figments of someone’s imagination or visitations from the dark side.

Well whatever the Vatican says the Eastern Catholic Churches venerate Uriel and have done so longer than the Curia has existed. And they will continue to do so regardless of what the Vatican thinks. And to suggest that this very ancient tradition is “new age” is laughable.

 

[lit_lover88]

Of course! How else does person become a saint under the current process? In order to have a miracle attributed to his intercession, somebody had to pray to Pope John Paul II before his beatification. That’s the way the process works. We would have no new saints if we did things your way.

I second that!

 

[FrDavid96]

Let me repeat this. The Catholic Church does not recognise Uriel as an angel/archangel.
Uriel is not on the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Catholic Church.

Yes, Uriel is on the liturgical calendars of the Catholic Church.

 

[thistle]

The Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Catholic Church.

Yes, Uriel is on the liturgical calendars of the Catholic Church.

Okay. Let me rephrase what I previously said. The Latin Church does not recognise Uriel as an angel or saint and Uriel is not on the Latin Church liturgical calendar.

May I ask a question? If the Vatican (which speaks for the entire Catholic Church) has said Uriel must not be venerated then why do the Eastern Catholics not obey that?

 

[FrDavid96]

Okay. Let me rephrase what I previously said. The Latin Church does not recognise Uriel as an angel or saint and Uriel is not on the Latin Church liturgical calendar.

OK. However, I think it would be better to say that the Latin Church does not “use the name” Uriel for the name of an Archangel. The way you put it, one could interpret that to mean that there’s some imposter-angel named Uriel. The Western Church simply does not use that name. There is a difference.

May I ask a question? If the Vatican (which speaks for the entire Catholic Church) has said Uriel must not be venerated then why do the Eastern Catholics not obey that?

I’ll be happy to address that later in the day.
When I have some time, I’ll get back to this thread.

 

[Seraphim73]

Okay. Let me rephrase what I previously said. The Latin Church does not recognise Uriel as an angel or saint and Uriel is not on the Latin Church liturgical calendar.

May I ask a question? If the Vatican (which speaks for the entire Catholic Church) has said Uriel must not be venerated then why do the Eastern Catholics not obey that?

The Vatican doesn’t always speak for the entire Church. Sometimes it simply speaks for its own patriarchate.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

That merely expresses a difference in tradition. It expresses the legitimate diversity in the Church.

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.

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.

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.
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.

 

[thistle]

Many thanks Father.

 

[suko]

Yes, thanks so much Fr.! For many years, I had been discouraging others and saying that the Church does not recognize these names. But I feel like you’ve removed the mud from my glasses.

As a reward, I’ll allow u to buy me pizza and have it delivered to my house for the next 2 weeks.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the explanation Father.

I think the root of the confusion is partly the Adalbert-Pope Zachary incident, where ‘Uriel’ happened to be one of the names named in Adalbert’s invocation, and the strong reaction against said invocation (that the only angelic names revealed in Scripture were Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, and that the names mentioned in Adalbert’s formula - excepting Michael - were not that of angels but of demons). IMHO, you have to take that in context: first, I think the point was not so much that ‘Uriel was de-canonized’ (as some people insinuate) but that ‘there was something fundamentally wrong with Adalbert’s invocation’. The prayer begins by invoking God, which is all well and good (“O Lord God almighty, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega who sits above the seven thrones and upon the cherubim and seraphim…”), but by the end it begins to take a turn for the weird:

Precor vos, et coniuro vos et supplico me ad vos, angele Uriel, angele Raguel, angele Tubuel, angele Michael, angele Inias, angele Tubuas, angele Sabaoc, angele Simiel.

“I pray you and I conjure you and I kneel down before you, angel Uriel, angel Raguel, angel Tubuel, angel Michael, angel Inias, angel Tubuas, angel Sabaoc, angel Simiel.”

Second, as Adalbert’s invocation shows, the reason for the discouragement of ascribing names to other angels and limiting veneration to the three Scriptural archangels by medieval canonists was because there was a danger of worship of angels or anything that veered into idolatry and heresy which was present at that time (it still is today).

Dom Augustin Calmet in his dictionary tries to square this condemnation of the ‘bad’ Uriel with the ‘good’ Uriel (i.e. the one venerated in the Eastern Church and the angel mentioned by St. Ambrose) by saying that:

It is proper to observe, that the intention of this council was to reject all new and unusual names of angels; which this man endeavoured to introduce into the church. But Uriel was no modern name; it had long been admitted even among the Latins, as may be seen, lib. iv. cap 33. n. 20. of William Durand, bishop of Mendes, who died in 1296.

I think this fits with what Father said.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the explanation Father.

I think the root of the confusion is partly the Adalbert-Pope Zachary incident, where ‘Uriel’ happened to be one of the names named in Adalbert’s invocation, and the strong reaction against said invocation (that the only angelic names revealed in Scripture were Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, and that the names mentioned in Adalbert’s formula - excepting Michael - were not that of angels but of demons). IMHO, you have to take that in context: first, I think the point was not so much that ‘Uriel was de-canonized’ (as some people insinuate) but that ‘there was something fundamentally wrong with Adalbert’s invocation’. The prayer begins by invoking God, which is all well and good (“O Lord God almighty, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega who sits above the seven thrones and upon the cherubim and seraphim…”), but by the end it begins to take a turn for the weird:

Precor vos, et coniuro vos et supplico me ad vos, angele Uriel, angele Raguel, angele Tubuel, angele Michael, angele Inias, angele Tubuas, angele Sabaoc, angele Simiel.

“I pray you and I conjure you and I kneel down before you, angel Uriel, angel Raguel, angel Tubuel, angel Michael, angel Inias, angel Tubuas, angel Sabaoc, angel Simiel.”

Second, as Adalbert’s invocation shows, the reason for the discouragement of ascribing names to other angels and limiting veneration to the three Scriptural archangels by medieval canonists was because there was a danger of worship of angels or anything that veered into idolatry and heresy which was present at that time (it still is today).

Dom Augustin Calmet in his dictionary tries to square this condemnation of the ‘bad’ Uriel with the ‘good’ Uriel (i.e. the one venerated in the Eastern Church and the angel mentioned by St. Ambrose) by saying that:

It is proper to observe, that the intention of this council was to reject all new and unusual names of angels; which this man endeavoured to introduce into the church. But Uriel was no modern name; it had long been admitted even among the Latins, as may be seen, lib. iv. cap 33. n. 20. of William Durand, bishop of Mendes, who died in 1296.

I think this fits with what Father said.

Sure, throughout the entire Christian era, there have been people who use illegitimate practices to “conjure” or try to manipulate, or even outright worship angels. Today, we see the same thing with a new name: we call it “new age.”

It’s that sort of thing, whether ancient or contemporary, that the Vatican is cautioning against. Do not give names to angels. The Directory on Popular Piety says not to do it, but the exception for Michael, Gabriel and Raphael is necessary, for obvious reasons.

What makes Uriel the obvious “other” exception is that the Eastern Catholic Churches have long accepted that name. In fact, the use of the name predates the birth of Christ, because it’s found in the non-canonical book of Enoch (from about 300 B.C.) If the Eastern Churches want to continue their tradition of using that name, there’s nothing wrong with that.

In this particular thread, what concerns me is the notion of applying a prohibition against superstition (whether ancient or contemporary) to a legitimate practice of the Eastern Catholic Churches by combining and confusing two very different types of practice. That’s what the author attempted to do in the article that was referenced earlier, and it goes on from there.

If someone (Latin) were to read that article, then visit an Eastern Catholic Church and see an ikon of Uriel, such a person would come away with the false impression that Eastern Catholics practice superstition by venerating some kind of “rogue angel” (the author’s words, not the Church’s words). The author does a real dis-service to the Catholic community by equating (a) using an ancient name with (b) new age superstition.

If we take the exact same criteria (ie, in canonical scripture or not) and apply it to other names, then we would start calling Joachim and Anna “rogue saints” and accusing anyone who celebrates their feast-day of superstition. Needless to say, that’s not acceptable.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Excuse my ignorance…

But is there a particular reason to pray to Uriel vs Mary, St. Francis, Micheal or even just Jesus Himself?

 

[Seraphim73]

Excuse my ignorance…

But is there a particular reason to pray to Uriel vs Mary, St. Francis, Micheal or even just Jesus Himself?

There is no “versus.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Excuse my ignorance…

But is there a particular reason to pray to Uriel vs Mary, St. Francis, Micheal or even just Jesus Himself?

There could be.

One could ask exactly the same question about any saint. Why pray to St. Anthony if one can pray to St. Michael?