The Angelic Hosts BEFORE They Grew Up
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    OK... couldn't resist this one. Was in a restaurant today and saw this pic on the wall. Immediately the dialogue appeared in my mind so I did a little Indesign work and behold:
    angelJoke.jpg
    1200 x 797 - 360K
    Thanked by 6Vilyanor ClergetKubisz MBW CharlesW StimsonInRehab JulieColl
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    ok... it also contains facts about angelology. two clues... what are the two facts?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,416
    .
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    o come now MJO! you can certainly make your "point" with at least a few words.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Get rid of the name Uriel.
    Name the angel on the left Michael.
    Name the angel center bottom Lucifer.
    The angel above Lucifer says "you wont be needing this any more".
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,934
    Ahh, the squabbling of the heavenly choirs. It reminds me of a scene in Dorothy Sayers's The Zeal of Thy House where a young (sic?) cherub/thurifer asks the Archangel Gabriel a question about cosmic justice and the whole angelic host basically rips him a new one. I guess I'm not quite clear on what incorporeal beings in the beatific vision can and can't know?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    Of course this is all dimly thought about in human terms and has been written about in tradition, and therefore is somewhat TIC more or less, but heh... it's fun to imagine.

    Gabriel, (reported to be Mary's guardian angel), is 'more liked by mom' (but she probably truly doesn't have any favorites. Favoritism is hard to imagine, but then again, God found favor with... so, who knows.)

    Michael is leader of the Archangels, second choir above angels. Each archangel leads one of the nine divisions. Michael is 'in charge' so to speak.

    Each archangel bears a charism that is exemplified in the colors of their regalia. Michael of course is the slayer of the dragon and bears a 'sword or spear'.

    Uriel is the archangel that leads the Seraphim and was pro ported to meet Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    The name Uriel is not in Scripture, and it is bad practice to use any such angel names: when CDF reformed the angel-devotion movement Opus Angelorum, CDF forbade it to make reference to any names beyond what is in Scripture.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,094
    Chonak

    IIRC, what is forbidden is the use of names derived from what is at best private revelation. That fourth archangel is the subject of a feast in the Eastern tradition, after all, from the Second Book of Ezra [correction: Esdras/Ezdras], which is recognized apocrypha in the Roman tradition. Nothing like naming your guardian angel Bubba.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    Liam

    I believe you mean Ezdras, yes? I don't think that is part of the apocrypha, but is recognized and used in our liturgies in the RC rite.

    http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=342470&language=en

    There are seven archangels and they all have names. Although the Roman rite does not acknowledge them, you can find them in other Catholic rite church theology. (and Uriel is cited in many of those references)

    Please remember. Scripture is not the be all end all (sola scriptura). Our church also relies on tradition and the magisterium. It's a three legged stool.

    CharlesW... do you have any info on this?

    NOTE: The new age has significantly distorted the understanding and theology of these bodiless spiritual powers, but we are to rely on them just as Jesus mentioned calling on angels in the Gospel.

    an putas quia non possum rogare Patrem meum et exhibebit mihi modo plus quam duodecim legiones angelorum
    Matthew 26:53

    Sola scriptura ("Bible alone")

    The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants." Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope [Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church], the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.
    newadvent
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    A discourse on the names of angels, from Fr. Pascal Parente's book "The Angels" (TAN Books, original title: "Beyond Space") is on-line at
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/angel6.htm

    He notes:
    The Sacred Scriptures have revealed the proper names of only three Angels, all of whom belong to the Choir of the Archangels. The names are well known to all, namely: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. Ancient apocryphal literature of the Old Testament contains several other names of Archangels in addition to the three just mentioned. Like the sources themselves, these other names are spurious. Names like Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jeremiel are not found in the canonical books of Sacred Scripture, but in the apocryphal book of Enoch, fourth book of Esdras, and in rabbinical literature. The Church does not permit proper names of Angels that are not found in the canonical books of the Bible. All such names that were taken from apocryphal writings were rejected under Pope Zachary, in 745. There must have been danger of serious abuses in this regard during that century, because a similar step was taken in a synod held at Aix-la-Chapelle in 789.
    Thanked by 4Liam francis CHGiffen eft94530
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    Chonak:

    While I find that information most interesting, it is vague. I would like to see the resources, documents, etc. that back the claims (The church does not permit... were rejected...) of Fr. Parente. Abuses are always a problem, especially today.

    Here is an interesting article from the Orthodox church. Let me know your thoughts on this.

    http://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/11/08/103244-synaxis-of-the-archangel-michael-and-the-other-bodiless-powers
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    CharlesW... do you have any info on this?


    Not on the angels specifically and we don't talk about them much. But there are editions of the Bible considered canonical by some eastern churches that differ from the canon of the western Bible.

    However, in the Orthodox Churches, Uriel is commemorated together with the other archangels and angels with a feast day of the "Synaxis of the Archangel Michael and the Other Bodiless Powers" on November 8 of the liturgical calendar (for those churches which follow the Julian Calendar.

    Only three angels are recognized in the canon of Catholic scriptures. But you know those Latins! "Canon" is like the word "ecumenical" they use, thinking it is all about them and no one else. LOL.

    St. Wikipedia says, "At the Council of Rome of 745, Pope St. Zachary, intending to clarify the Church's teaching on the subject of angels and curb a tendency toward angel worship, condemned obsession with angelic intervention and angelolatry, but reaffirmed the approval of the practice of the reverence of angels. This synod struck many angels' names from the list of those eligible for veneration in the Church of Rome, including Uriel. Only the reverence of the archangels mentioned in the recognized Catholic canon of scriptures, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, remained licit."
    Thanked by 1francis
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,318
    On the other hand, we have never condemned the extra Orthodox books. Trent even ordered some books to be preserved even though they were not canonical.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    and thus we have dissension among the ranks, O God, heal our divisions. I believe Satan wanted remove the knowledge of the seven archangels from the church among other things such as iconography from the western church. it is my conjecture that the Latin church embraced a humanistic art form put forward by Michaelangelo, which is a more base form of art depicting the spiritual realm that does not possess the purity that iconography puts forward. This is also linked to the humanistic form of polyphony found in the classical period in music, which also lost its crystal transparency, which then decayed further into the romantic era that became entirely fleshly which of course ended in the formulation of chaos theory. "given over to our own thinking". see recent thread on Aquinas.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    At the time, Francis, Pope Zachary was working to drive out surviving influences of paganism and syncretism. He was dealing with a dubious character named Adalbert; you can read his story at the link. The angel names he invoked, including "Uriel", "Raguel", and others, according to the late historian Jeffrey B. Russell, could be traced plausibly to various sources, some Jewish, some Gnostic; a couple even sound as though they might be invoking demons. And that's what Pope Zachary thought of some of them.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    I've been trying to follow this a little, but it just seems really off the subject of the Forum. I might be wrong.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    the adalbert character is certainly odd. the part about not confessing is a dead giveaway. what are your thoughts on the link from the Orthodox Church above?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    I don't understand the questions exactly, but are you saying that the original cartoon was mostly about music? That's the connection to the forum that I am not making very well, unfortunately.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    Kathy

    it was originally intended (and nothing more) to be a light hearted joke. apparently my using the name Uriel struck some nerves and the whole thing was unfurled into a theological debate on the names of the archangels. I unfortunately fueled the fire by alluding to Uriel being the leader of the Seraphim and then the debate really gained momentum. Uriel is of course mentioned in Ezdras and the Synaxis of the Angels is common knowledge.

    I am sorry if this has caused such a stir. it was just s light hearted stab at angels when they were suffering sibling rivalry.

    the painting is in a sub shop and has no captions. I myself thought to add them and did so in Photoshop.

    that book from Tan that Richard mentioned is one of the better books on angelology which has been a particular interest of mine for over 25 years.

    it is also common knowledge and widely documented that Michael appeared to the children of Fatima in 1916 and gave them supernatural communion in preparation for the appearance of Our Lady a year later.

    I hope this explanation helps. Mea Culpa for any confusion my little joke has caused.
    Thanked by 3Kathy CHGiffen chonak
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    Those angels in that picture remind me of some of the middle-schoolers I used to teach. LOL.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Where's Maroni?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Do you mean Moroni?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    Do you mean Moroni?


    He's the one in the angel panties.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    still awaiting your assessments of the orthodox take on angelology

    http://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/11/08/103244-synaxis-of-the-archangel-michael-and-the-other-bodiless-powers
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    No assessment, it is what it is. The Orthodox honor other angels mentioned above, although they are not in the Latin canon of scripture. Tradition is a biggie in the east and most would consider that good enough. Pope Zachary probably had what he thought were good reasons for restricting devotion to angels not in the Latin scriptures. The east has had times of good and bad relations with Rome. These days, I don't think the east would care so much what the Latin church does or who it honors. However, it has been the practice for centuries that the churches accept each other's saints.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    Charlesw

    thank you for your assessment just the same
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    Francis, I don't understand what you are looking for. What remained of the Latin culture at the time of Pope Zachary went in a different direction on angels than the Greek culture in the east. Keep in mind that paganism was a more significant problem in the west than in the east. Surely, we all know there are more than three archangels, whether seven or three hundred. If you are asking if I accept that there are more than the three named in the west, yes I do. Is there much information available about the others, not so much, other than brief mentions in other scriptures and perhaps private revelations.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    I am not looking for anything really. It is just a true crime that the west lost touch with some of the vital aspects of the faith, including angelology, icons, sacred music, vestments, architecture... gee... what's left? Dogma? hmmm... even THAT is now under scrutiny!

    This all started as a lighthearted joke and ended in theological debate. Seems to be the way things go here.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    I am not looking for anything really. It is just a true crime that the west lost touch with some of the vital aspects of the faith, including angelology, icons, sacred music, vestments, architecture... gee... what's left? Dogma? hmmm... even THAT is now under scrutiny!


    Losing touch with culture is what happens when a society is invaded and defeated. I agree on the aspects that didn't survive and also find it regrettable. On the other hand, it is amazing at what DID survive. It could have all been lost.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    Moroni... most likely is a major demonic power.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,982
    Moroni... most likely is a major demonic power.


    Moroni, of angel pants fame, was a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination. So was most else associated with him. It amazes me the number of people who will blindly follow someone who was obviously off his rocker.

  • francis
    Posts: 10,828
    I would not be so fast to dismiss the reality of maroni... again... the fallen angels and their comrades DO exist and they DO have names... as Pope Zachary was aware... so, the concern about WHO we are calling on and who APPEARS (as angels of light) IS a very valid concern. By the way, I usually do not capitalize the names of lucifer or satan or maroni... they are substandard entities. (anti-entities so to speak)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    I would not be so fast to tell other people they should not be so fast.

    Sinking this thread.
Add a Comment