Featured The Christ of RCC is the Son of Lucifer

I agree. It's a waste of time and effort. :thumbsup:

 

I'm not sure I would agree that people who look to the ECF's believe they all agreed with each other and that they were never wrong. I know they were not in agreement on everything and some held heretical views on certain things. The Early Church Fathers give us a unique hermeneutical and traditional milieu that we lack today. They were so close to Christ and the Apostles (especially some, like Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus) that what they have to say about the faith is very likely more on the mark than anything we can say in the 21st century. I read too often on this board of those who say that the Early Church Fathers, who wrote quite frankly about the Real Presence, Church authority, and so on, were wrong whereas we - separated by hundreds, if not a couple of thousand, years are more likely correct. Some on this board also point to a heretical view of one of the ECF's and conclude that none of their writings should be considered. Throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Sometimes, while some parts of a Church Father's works may be very orthodox and beautiful many others may be dangerously heretical. Thus, the works of the Early Church Fathers must be viewed in light of Tradition as a whole.

The Church Fathers are like our magnifying glass on Scripture and Tradition. To lose or disregard them is to lose or disregard the intricacy of the faith. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are all true. There is not a verse in Scripture that we can say, 'don't believe that because it is heretical'. All of Scripture can be trusted to be true and divinely inspired. The scriptures are revelation. That ceased with the death of the Apostle John. What came after is not revelation, but rather, the application of revelation to the development of doctrine.


I'm going to spend some time today taking a closer look at what the ECF's said about baptism. I'll try not to look at them through a Catholic lens.

 

Hard to believe, isn't it? If the Bible didn't teach it (that baptism produces rebirth), I wouldn't believe it either.

You're right that all church fathers did not teach baptismal regeneration, but you will not find any that taught against it. The idea that baptism is symbolic did not come from the Bible. It did not come from the church fathers. It came from the Anabaptists who, frankly, concocted the idea out of their own imagination.

 

Had to wade through a lot of "you are lying you are lying" on this thread.

So here it is on wikipedia.

Latin.

English

Indeed - in the OT - Lucifer is specified as the "Morning Star".

Isaiah 14:12 KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 - NASB

“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!

So yes the same name is being used - no question.

But do they know what they are doing?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Nice to see you back, Bob!

Here is an interesting piece I found about Christ being the True 'lucifer'.

http://sanctusvesania.hubpages.com/hub/Jesus-Christ-IS-the-TRUE-Lucifer

 

Walter -

Good to be back.

Interesting link. But I think that the devil, Satan, Lucifer was around since the garden of Eden - and before - so that means that Moses would have had a name for him of some sort and probably also Adam and Eve.

If we say God is "Sovereign" then possibly He had a plan/purpose to let the world know the name of the devil that is tormenting mankind.

Now whether the Hebrew name/pronounciation for the Isaiah 14:12 name of the devil is the same as the english "Lucifer" is a good question. But all of the Latin based languages seem to end up near that pronunciation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

It is important to know what the 'lucifer' in the Exultet is referring to. Let's look:


The last two stanzas of the Exultet:
Orámus ergo te, Dómine,
ut céreus iste in honórem tui nóminis consecrátus,
ad noctis huius calíginem destruéndam,
indefíciens persevéret.
Et in odórem suavitátis accéptus,
supérnis lumináribus misceátur.

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, Lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.

Translation:
Therefore, O Lord, we pray you that this candle, hallowed to the honor of your name, may persevere undimmed, to overcome the darkness of this night.Receive it as a pleasing fragrance, and let it mingle with the lights of heaven.

May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son, who, coming back from death’s domain, has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns for ever and ever.

If you look closely, the previous stanza clear states: "Oramus ergo te, Domine...(Therefore, O Lord, we pray you)" The hymn is addressing God directly, therefore, "Christus Fílius tuus" (Christ Your Son).

Now on to this nonsense:
"Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, Lúcifer, qui nescit occásum."
The Latin word lucifer literally means morning star, which is a title for Christ. Here's a Protestant page detailing the use of that title in the Scriptures:
http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_morningstar.html

1 Peter 1:19 in Vulgate: "et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."

 

Come on fellow Catholics, we obviously worship satan, the jig is up! if only they hadn't played that very incriminating song in public! Darn

Lucifer generally is not a proper name, but in the Latin Vulgate it is a name of Jesus. Lucifer was also the name of some early Christians. Lucifer as a proper name is a sort of midrash of Isaiah 14:12 which in the plain reading is the King of Babylon, and "Lucifer" there refers to the pagan god "Dawn," it was sarcasm. Regardless, the KJV footnotes for this verse state "day starre" which it uses of Jesus in Revelation.

 

I have argued with Walter and Thinkingstuff repeatedly over Catholic doctrine, but this thread is way out of bounds. What is the the purpose of it? Catholics do not believe Jesus Christ is the Son of Lucifer. The closest thing the Bible talks about as being a son of Lucifer would be the Anti-Christ. I believe we should stand firm against false doctrine, but threads like this are unfair to the Catholic faith and make Baptists look like fools.

 

Well said! :thumbsup:

 

I had already explained without the use of wiki that not only is your translation wrong but the wrong word was associated in that prayer as both Bob and you have shown by going to wikilinks for more information on that prayer. Your only recourse then was to say it may be translated as such and make a nonsense comment about "original Latin". The fact is that prayer is in ecclesiastical Latin. And the meaning hasn't changed. You are therefore forcing meaning that was never there. Proving once again that rather than having an actual "evidence" you choose to buy into manufactured false information provided by someone who falsified data about the prayer and purposely gave a mistranslation. Ending what I have said from the beginning, you are spreading false information. And though you have looked at another source you stubbornly hold to the mistranslation and the false information given showing that you are not an honest broker but a biased person.

Also, I'm still praying for you as you seem to also buy into fantastical conspiracy theories with that Babylon army corps stuff. Just want to you to be clear. The Illuminati doesn't secretly rule the world, there aren't space aliens, and there aren't black helicopters that listen in to everyone's conversations. So, hopefully that frees you up from looking over your shoulder constantly. That is if you do that. Jesus does indeed saves us and he heals people too.

 

I value the writings of the fathers, especially the Greek fathers, but I don't look to them for establishment of doctrine. Where they agree with scripture, I agree with them.

 

Point one, you might want to consider what the Bible says about baptism, and communion, in its spiritual sense rather than seeing it as something physical.

Point two, you might want to study the Anabaptists more comprehensively, as their views were quite diverse. Further, the reason for the Anabaptists' existence was to shed man-made tradition and get back to what the Bible, and especially Jesus, actually taught.

 

You are quite correct.

It's difficult to have a debate over real issues when this kind of foolishness is interjected.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: