Blavatsky H.P. - Star-Angel Worship in the Roman Catholic Church: Difference between revisions

Such whitewashing of the archangel’s character was of course necessary in view of the special worship paid to {{Page aside|17}}him. St. Ambrosius had chosen Uriel as a patron and paid him almost divine reverence.<ref>''De Fide'', etc., lib. II, cap. iii, § 20, footnote.</ref> Again the famous Father Gastaldi,<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Known also as Thomas Castaldus. See the Bio-Bibliogr. Index. —''Compiler''.]}}</ref> the Dominican monk, writer and Inquisitor, had proven in his curious work “On the Angels” (''De Angelis'') that the worship of the “Seven Spirits” by the Church had been and was ''legal'' in all the ages; and that it was necessary for the moral support and faith of the children of the (Roman) Church. In short that he who should neglect these gods was as bad as any “heathen” who did not.

To show the great latitude offered to such subterfuges, the occult tenets about the celestial Hosts have only to be remembered. The world of Being begins with the Spiritual Fire (or Sun) and its seven “Flames” or Rays. These “Sons of Light,” called the “multiple” because, allegorically speaking, they belong to, and lead a simultaneous existence in heaven and on earth, easily furnished a handle to the Church to hang her ''dual'' Uriel upon. Moreover, Devas, Dhyan-Chohans, Gods and Archangels are all identical and are made to change their Protean forms, names and positions, ''ad libitum''. As the sidereal gods of the Sabians became the kabalistic and talmudistic angels of the Jews with their esoteric names unaltered, so they passed bag and baggage into the Christian Church as the archangels, exalted only in their office.

{{Style P-Quote|To speak with precision and certainty” is we might like to, about everything in connection with their [the angels’] names and attributes is not an easy task. For when one has said that these Spirits are the ''seven assistants'' that surround the throne of the Lamb and form its seven ''horns''; that the famous seven-branched candlestick of the Temple was their type and symbol. . . .when we have shown them figured in ''Revelation'' by the ''seven stars'' in the Saviour’s hand, or by the angels letting loose the ''seven plagues''—we shall but have stated once more one of those incomplete truths which the commentators, developing these ideas, approach ordinarily with utmost caution.<ref>De Mirville, ''Des Esprits'', etc., Vol. II, pp. 351-52, chapter on “The Spirits before their Fall.”</ref>}}

Here the author utters a great truth. He would have uttered one still greater, though, had he added that ''no truth'', upon ''any subject'' whatever, has been ever made complete by the Church. Otherwise, where would be the mystery so absolutely necessary to the authority of the ever incomprehensible dogmas of the Holy “Bride”?

These “Spirits” are called ''primarios principes''. But what these first Principles are in reality is not explained. In the first centuries of Christianity the Church would not do so; and in this one she knows of them no more than her faithful lay sons do. She has lost the secret.

The question concerning the definite adoption of names for these angels, de Mirville tells us—“has given rise to controversies that have lasted for centuries. To this day ''these seven names are a mystery''.”

Yet they are found in certain missals and in the secret documents at the Vatican, along with the astrological names known to many. But as the Kabalists, and among others Bishop Adalbert, have used some of them, the Church will not accept these titles, though she worships {{Page aside|19}}the creatures. The usual names accepted are {{Style S-Small capitals|Mikael}}, the “''quis ut Deus'',” the “like unto God”; {{Style S-Small capitals|Gabriel}}, the strength (or power) of God”; {{Style S-Small capitals|Raphael}}, or “divine virtue”; {{Style S-Small capitals|Uriel}}, “God’s light and fire”; {{Style S-Small capitals|Saaltiel}}, the “speech of God”; {{Style S-Small capitals|Jehudiel}}, the “praise of God” and {{Style S-Small capitals|Barachiel}}, the “blessing of God.” These “seven” are ''absolutely canonical'', but they are not the true mystery names—the magical {{Style S-Small capitals|potoncies}}. And even among the “substitutes,” as just shown, Uriel has been greatly compromised and the three last enumerated are pronounced “suspicious.” Nevertheless, though nameless, they are still worshipped. Nor is it true to say that no trace of these three names—so “suspicious”—is anywhere found in the Bible, for they are mentioned in certain of the old Hebrew scrolls. One of them is named in Chapter xvi of ''Genesis''—the angel who appears to Hagar; and all the three appear as “the Lord” (the Elohim) to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, as the “three men” who announced to Sarai the birth of Isaac (''Genesis'', xviii). “Jehudiel,” moreover, is distinctly named in Chapter xxiii of ''Exodus'', as the angel in whom was “the name” (''praise'' in the original) of God (''Vide'' verse 21). It is through their “divine attributes,” which have led to the formation of the names, that these archangels may be identified by an easy esoteric method of transmutation with the Chaldean great gods and even with the Seven Manus and the Seven Rishis of India.<ref>He who knows anything of the ''Purânas'' and their allegories, knows that the Rishis therein as well as the Manus are Sons of God, of Brahmâ, and themselves gods; that they become men and then, as Saptarishi, they turn into stars and constellations. Finally that they are first 7, then 10, then 14, and finally 21. The occult meaning is evident.</ref> They are the ''Seven'' Sabian Gods, and the ''Seven'' Seats (Thrones) and Virtues of the Kabalists; and now they have become with the Catholics, their “Seven Eyes of the Lord,” and the “Seven ''Thrones'',” instead of “Seats.”

Until about the XVth century after the misadventure of Bishop Adalbert, the names of only the first three Archangels out of the seven stood in the Church in their full odour of sanctity. The other four remained ostracised—''as names.''

In 1460, there appeared in Rome a great “Saint,” named Amadaeus. He was a nobleman from Lusitania, who already in Portugal had become famous for his prophecies and beatific visions.<ref>He died at Rome in 1482.</ref> During one of such he had a revelation. The seven Archangels appeared to the holy man, so beloved by the Pope that Sixtus IV had actually permitted him to build on the site of St. Peter in ''Montorio'' a Franciscan monastery. And having appeared they revealed to him their genuine ''bona fide'' mystery names. The names used by the Church were substitutes, they said. So they were, and the “angels” spoke truthfully. Their business with Amadaeus was a modest request. They demanded to be legally recognised under their legitimate patronymics, to receive public worship and have a temple of their own. Now the Church in her great wisdom had declined these names from the first, as being those of Chaldean gods, and had substituted for them astrological aliases. This then could not be done, as “they ''were names of demons'',” explains Baronius. But so were the “substitutes” in Chaldea before they were altered for a purpose in the Hebrew Angelology. And if they are ''names of demons'', asks pertinently de Mirville, “why are they yet given to Christians and Roman Catholics at baptism?” The truth is that if the last four {{Page aside|21}}enumerated are demon-names, so must be those of Michael, Gabriel and Raphael.

But the “holy” visitors were a match for the Church in obstinacy. At the same hour that Amadaeus had his vision at Rome, in Sicily, at Palermo, another wonder was taking place. A miraculously-painted picture of the Seven Spirits, was as miraculously exhumed from under the ruins of an old chapel. On the painting ''the same seven mystery names'' that were being revealed at that hour to Amadaeus were also found ''inscribed'' “under the portrait of each angel,”<ref>De Mirville, ''op. cit''., p. 355.</ref> says the chronicler.

Whatever might be in this our age of unbelief the feelings of the great and learned leaders of various psychic and telepathic societies on this subject, Pope Sixtus IV<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Sixtus IV (Francesco della Rovere), b. near Abisola, July 21, 1414; d. Aug. 12, 1484. Elected Pope Aug. 9, 1471, succeeding Paul II.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> was greatly impressed by the ''coincidence''. He believed in Amadaeus as implicitly as Mr. Brudenel believed in the Abyssinian prophet, “Herr Paulus.”<ref>“Herr Paulus”—the no less miraculous production of Mr. Walter Besant’s rather muddled and very one-sided fancy.</ref> But this was by no means the only “coincidence” of the day. The Holy Roman and Apostolic Church was built on such miracles, and continues to stand on them now as on the rock of Truth; for God has ever sent to her ''timely miracles.''<ref>''En passant''—a remark may be made and a query propounded:<br>

The “miracles” performed in the bosom of Mother Church—from the apostolic down to the ecclesiastical ''miracles'' at Lourdes—if not more remarkable than those attributed to “Herr Paulus,” are at any rate far more wide-reaching, hence more pernicious in their result upon the human mind. Either both kinds are possible, or both are due to fraud and ''dangerous hypnotic and magnetic powers possessed'' by some men. Now Mr. W. Besant evidently tries to impress upon his readers that his novel was written in the interests of that portion of society which is so easily befooled by the other. And if so, why then not have traced all such phenomena ''to their original and primeval source. i.e., belief in the possibility of supernatural occurrences because of the inculcated belief in the'' {{Style S-Small capitals|Miracles}} ''in the Bible, and their continuation by the Church''? No Abyssinian prophet, as no “occult philosopher,” has ever made such large claims to “miracle” and ''divine help''—and no Peter’s pence expected, either—as the “Bride of Christ”—she, of Rome. Why has not then our author, since he was so extremely anxious to save the millions of England from delusion, and so very eager to expose the pernicious means used—why has he not tried to first explode the greater humbug, before he ever touched the ''minor'' tricks—if any? Let him first explain to the British public the turning of water into wine and the resurrection of Lazarus on the half ''hypnotic'' and half ''jugglery'' and ''fraud'' hypothesis. For, if one set of ''wonders'' may be explained by blind belief and mesmerism, why not the other? Or is it because the Bible miracles believed in by every Protestant and Catholic (with the ''divine'' miracles at Lourdes thrown into the bargain by the latter) cannot be as easily handled by an author who desires to remain ''popular'', as those of the “occult philosopher” and the spiritual medium? Indeed, no courage, no fearless defiance of the consequences are required to denounce the helpless and now very much scared ''professional'' medium. But all these qualifications and an ardent ''love of truth into the bargain'', are absolutely necessary if one would beard Mrs. Grundy in her den. For this the traducers of the “Esoteric Buddhists” are too prudent and wily. They only seek cheap popularity with the scoffer and the materialist. Well sure they are, that no ''professional'' medium will ever dare call them wholesale slanderers to their faces, or seek redress from them so long as the law against palmistry is staring him in the face. As to the “Esoteric Buddhist” or “Occult Philosopher,” there is still less danger from this quarter. The contempt of the latter for all the would-be traducers is absolute and it requires more than the clumsy denunciations of a novelist to disturb them. And why should they feel annoyed? As they are neither ''professional'' prophets, nor do they benefit by St. Peter’s pence, the most malicious calumny can only make them laugh. Mr. Walter Besant, however, has said a great truth in his novel, a true pearl of foresight, dropped on a heap of mire: the “occult philosopher” does not propose to “''hide his light under a bushel.''”</ref> {{Page aside|22}}

Therefore, when also, on that very same day, an old prophecy written in very archaic Latin, and referring to both the find and the revelation was ''discovered'' at Pisa— it produced quite a commotion among the faithful. The prophecy foretold, you see, ''the revival of the'' “Planetary-Angel” worship for that period. Also that during the reign of Pope Clement VII,<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Clement VII (Giulio de’ Medici), b. 1478; d. Sept. 25, 1534. Became Pope Nov. 18, 1523, following Adrian VI.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> the convent of St. François {{Page aside|23}}de Paule would be raised on the emplacement of the little ruined chapel. “The event occurred as predicted,” boasts de Mirville, forgetting that the Church had made the prediction true herself, by following the command implied in it. Yet this is called a “prophecy” to this day.

At that time, though there was hardly a church or chapel in Italy without a copy of the ''miraculous'' picture in painting or mosaic, and that actually, in 1516, a splendid “temple to the seven spirits” had been raised and finished near the ruined chapel at Palermo—still the “angels” failed to be satisfied. In the words of their chronicler—“the blessed spirits were not contented with Sicily alone, and secret prayers. They wanted a world-wide worship and the whole Catholic world to recognise them publicly.”

Antonio Duca, another seer (in the annals of the Church of Rome) had been just appointed rector of the Palermo “temple of the seven spirits.”<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[''Vide'' Bio-Bibliogr. Index.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> About that period, he began to have the same beatific visions as Amadaeus had. The Archangels were now urging the Popes through him to recognise them, and to establish a regular and a universal worship in their ''own names'', just as it was before Bishop Adalbert’s scandal. They insisted upon having a special temple built ''for them alone'', and they wanted it upon the ancient site of the famous ''Thermae'' of Diocletian. To the erection of these ''Thermae'', agreeably with tradition, 40,000 Christians and 10,000 martyrs had been condemned, and helped in this task by such famous “Saints” as Marcellus and Thrason. Since then, however, {{Page aside|24}}as stated in Bull LV by the Pope Pius IV,<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Pius IV (Giovanni Angelo Medici), b. at Milan, March 31, 1499; d. in Rome, Dec. 9, 1565. Elected Pope Dec. 26, 1559, succeeding Paul IV. He was first buried in St. Peter’s, but on June 4, 1583, his remains were transferred to Michelangelo’s church of S. Maria degli Angeli, one of the most magnificent structures he had erected.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> “this den had remained set apart for the most profane usages and demon [magic?] rites.”

But as it appears from sundry documents, all did not go quite as smoothly as the “blessed spirits” would have liked, and the poor Duca had a hard time of it. Notwithstanding the strong protection of the Colonna families who used all their influence with Pope Paul III,<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Paul III (Alessandro Farnese), b. at Rome or Canino, Feb. 29, 1468; d. at Rome, Nov. 10, 1549. Elected Pope Oct. 12, 1534, succeeding Clement VII. His instincts and ambitions were those of a secular prince of the Renaissance, but circumstances forced him to become the patron of reform. He introduced the Inquisition into Italy, 1542; established the censorship and the Index, 1543, and gave his approval to the Society of Jesus, 1540.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> and the personal request of Marguerite of Austria, the daughter of Charles Vth, “the seven spirits” could not be satisfied, for the same mysterious (and to us very clear) reasons, though propitiated and otherwise honoured in every way. The difficult mission of Duca, in fact, was crowned with success only thirty-four years later. Ten years before, however, namely in 1551, the preparatory purification of the ''Thermae'' had been ordered by Pope Julius III,<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Julius III (Giovanni Maria del Monte), b. Sept. 10, 1487; d. March 23, 1555. Elected Pope Feb. 7, 1550, succeeding Paul III.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> and a first church had been built under the name of “''St. Mary of the Angels.''” But the “Blessed Thrones,” feeling displeased with its name, brought on a war during which this temple was plundered and destroyed, as if instead of glorified Archangels they had been maleficent kabalistic ''Spooks''.

After this, they went on appearing to seers and saints, with greater frequency than before, and clamoured even {{Page aside|25}}more loudly for a special place of worship. They ''demanded'' the re-erection on the same spot (the ''Thermae'') of a temple which should be called the “Church of ''the Seven Angels.''”

But there was the same difficulty as before. The Popes had pronounced the original titles demon-names, ''i.e.'', those of Pagan gods, and to introduce them into the church service would have been fatal. The “mystery names” of the seven angels could not be given. True enough, when the old “miraculous” picture with the seven names on it had been found, these names had been freely used in the church services. But, at the period of the ''Renaissance'', Pope Clement XI<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Clement XI (Giovanni Francesco Albani), b. at Urbino, July 23, 1649; d. at Rome, March 19, 1721. Elected Pope Nov. 23, 1700, succeeding Innocentius XII.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> had ordered a special report to be made on them as they stood on the picture. It was a famous astronomer of that day, a Jesuit, named Joseph Bianchini, who was entrusted with this delicate mission. The result to which the inquest led, was as unexpected as it was fatal to the worshippers of the seven Sabian gods; the Pope, while commanding that the picture should be preserved, ordered the seven angelic names to be ''carefully rubbed out''. And “though these names are traditional,” and “although they have ''naught to do with'',” and are “very different from the names used by Adalbert” (the Bishop-magician of Magdeburg), as the chronicler cunningly adds, yet even their mention was forbidden in the holy churches of Rome.

Thus affairs went on from 1527 till 1561; the Rector trying to satisfy the orders of his ''seven'' “guides,”—the church fearing to adopt even the Chaldean substitutes for the “mystery-names” as they had been so “desecrated by magical practices.” We are not told, however, why the mystery-names, far less known than their substitutes have ever been, should not have been given out if the blessed “Thrones” enjoyed the smallest confidence. But, it must have been “small” indeed, since one finds {{Page aside|26}}the “Seven Archangels” demanding their restitution for 34 years, and refusing positively to be called by any other name, and the church still deaf to their desires. The Occultists do not conceal the reason why they have ceased to use them: they are dangerously magical. But why should the Church fear them? Have not the Apostles, and Peter pre-eminently, been told “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven” [Matt., xviii, 18], and were they not given power over every demon known and unknown? Nevertheless, some of the mystery-names may be still found along with their substitutes in old Roman missals printed in 1563. There is one in the Barberini library with the whole mass-service in it, and the forbidden truly Sabian names of the seven “great gods” flashing out ominously hither and thither.<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Reference is made here to the Missale Romanum, bearing the imprint of: Venetiis apud Iunctas, MDLXIII. It is now deposited in the Vatican Library, and is catalogued under Stamp. Barb. B. IX. 34. The names of the Archangels, as appearing on page 320 of this richly illuminated Latin document, are: Saalthiel, orator; Eudiel, remunerator; Raphael, medicus; Michael, victoriosus; Gabriel, nuntius; Barachiel, adiutor; Uriel, fortis. The text of this document contains masses in honour of the various Archangels. —Compiler.]}}</ref>