Going back to the OP's question concerning infallibility... most theologians believe that universal canonizations (that is, saints "canonized" by the Pope and added to the public cult of the entire Church) are infallible. We know those saints are in heaven. It doesn't work the other way. Just because a particular cult hasn't been universally canonized doesn't mean that individual isn't in heaven... there are many ancient saints venerated universally or locally who never went through the modern formal canonization process.
I suppose that makes sense. It's just weird that in the Latin Church, we're pretty much told to NOT venerate Uriel, but in the Eastern Churches due to their own traditions (which for the most part, I love btw), that ban isn't in effect.
It makes it feel like the Holy See is saying, "It's bad to venerate this being, but you guys over there can go ahead and do it, Have fun!"
One thing to keep in mind, no one is saying that all 7 of the Archangels are NOT Saints, so any reference to infalliblity has no bearing her. The Catholic Church, include ALL the sui juris Churches, recognize that all angels, by definition, are saints. They, along with the Holy men and women of God, reside in Heaven and experience the Beautific Vision. Ergo, they are saints. This is a matter beyond doubt, and no Catholic rightfully denies it.
What the Roman Church has done is to suppress the public cultus ( veneration) of the Archangels who are not specifically named in the Books of Scripture used by the Roman Church.
It means that they would not reside, by name, on the Liturgical Calendar, and no public liturgical acts would reference them by name. Nothing more.
Thus it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.
It means that they would not reside, by name, on the Roman Liturgical Calendar…
There, fixed it for you.
I am very glad I stumbled across this. I've read this entire thread, but I'm going to ask this explicitly just to be sure I've gotten an explicitly correct answer. (Also, because I'm a bit tired of trying to sift through loads of conflicting Uriel information on the internet.)
I recently started a page on Facebook displaying my artwork which showcases different aspects of Catholic faith and tradition. On Fridays I do a scene from the upcoming Mass readings, I do saints' feasts, I do little bits and pieces of liturgy or Catholic practices that offer an opportunity to include a little lesson for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I like to think of it as a bit of an education tool.
Because of that, I'm being very careful to say things only in accordance with Catholic teaching (going so far as to footnote the Catechism in the series I did on the sacrament of confession).
Now, I haven't done anything related to the Eastern Rite Catholics (yet). It seems like a good opportunity to make a figure for Uriel with a bit of an explanation. I'd really only want to do this if Uriel is definitely accepted by one or more Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome, and that acceptance-of-their-acceptance is something that holds for the entire Church, even if Western Catholics are told not to venerate him.
From what I've read here, it seems that he is venerated by some Eastern Catholics, but I'm just trying to make sure I'm on solid ground in my understanding.
Yes, St. Uriel is definitely venerated by Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition. I don’t know about the Copts, Armenians, Syriacs, Maronites, Chaldeans, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankara. However, I am Ruthenian Catholic, and I am certain that St. Uriel is venerated among the Catholic Churches of the Byzantine tradition.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.