Featured The Christ of RCC is the Son of Lucifer

What I find curious is that taking the bible as a whole we find a consistency in theme when it comes to a connection between the physical and the spiritual. For instance God asked Moses to build a box. Now boxes of themselves are of no special significance but the ark of the Covenant was the place of God's real presence to Israel. So much so that if anyone touched it they would die. Also as the Israelites were poisoned by snakes if they looked up to the object God told Moses to make they would be healed. And so it goes through out scriptures. Therefore I believe it is reasonable from scriptures that the physical sign of a spiritual effect is itself the means which God uses to make that spiritual effect. It would seem to me to separate the two and hold to a "spiritual event" not related to its physical sign would be contradictory to this theme we find throughout scripture.

I agree that the initial intent of the Anabaptist were to attempt to shed what they held as "traditions of men" and stick to what they believed the scriptures taught solely on its own statements. Though even at the very beginning of the movement we see a pretty wide understanding of what that actually entailed. Such as some held to single wives other allowed for multiple wives. The only unity really was in believers baptism, relying solely on scriptures as their guide, and disdain for anything Catholic. I find it curious that the inheritors of their views have fallen into extremely divergent groups from Amish to several different "levels"/groups of Mennonites to more varieties of Baptists than Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors all holding to their personal views of how to "get back to what the bible actually taught." Almost as if as a whole this people seem rudderless. Which makes me question if they all hold to the same authority is that authority flawed?. If not then maybe their supposition is? I have to admit that these were some of the question I struggled with before returning to the Catholic church. That is not to say it is all I struggled with but one of the obvious questions that occurred to me.

 

You are proving my point for me. I said Earlier

Which, you just verified on this post. I also said

FYI, I made the big bolded letters to note particular points following your example.

And so you may call me stiff necked but I don't insist on believing conspiracy theories or holding an opinion when evidence suggest otherwise. Oh and your Latin Translation is still off.

Lets look at what its actually saying:

Therefore we pray to you

Lord, that this wax candle hallowed to the honor of your Name, to dispel the darkness of this night, may continue unfailing.

and an acceptable fragrance be united with the heavenly lights.

Which the direct translation would be Morning star may find its flame alight. He who is back from the dead (which leads us to believe because of the syntax that Morning Star refers to he who is back from the dead) may shed his light on mankind.

Later after addressing the Father as Lord and no longer speaking about the Morning star it says

Through Christ your son

Who lives and reigns in unity with the Holy Spirit.

 

You will want to read my post again as I ammended it to include the direct latin translation of those same passages.

 

Really?

Obviously you do "go that far". You just expressed a conspiracy theory here.

in the prayer this phrase "Christus Filius Tuus is two paragraphs after the morning star section. Look

Also note you left out an important word in your "text translation source" which is the Latin word "Per" indicating "through' Your son which two paragraphs later "your" isn't refering to morning star as morning star refers to Jesus himself in the context of the prayer.

Obviously, the discriptor morning star in this prayer isn't refering to the devil. And since its a highly published prayer the RCC as you put it isn't "trying to hide lucifer". In this context lucifer is a discriptor or an adjective describing Jesus as the light of the world.

 

You were saying that the Catholic Church was conspiring to worship the Fallen Angel referred to as Lucifer or more properly the Devil. Moreover that Catholics were being clandestine doing it. That is a conspiracy theory. However, I agree with you that Satan is not incontrol of the world.

Thank you for admitting it. And don't you think that the errors were purposeful intended to decieve about the real nature of the Prayer? Or the Catholic intention?

Well parts of it. It is evident you left out at least on word and taken another passage out of context.

Because when you write Lucifer capitalizing the letter "L" it is in english a proper noun. However, in Latin lucifer is the morning star which is venus that shines brightest in the sky before dawn. It is not the name of a demonic entity in Latin. It can be used as an adjective describing something or as a noun specifying that star that shines brightest before the dawn. To have the proper translation is to translate it in the context of the passage with is either being used as an adjective or as the actual star seen in the morning.

This is not true. Catholics do chant in English look up some masses on Youtube to verify this. Latin is the eccesiastical language for the RCC all its documents are in Latin which is why there still is a Latin mass. And we praise Jesus as we discribe him as that bright light of the morning which heralds the dawn of a new age under his authority. This is the sense that the term lucifer is used therefore shouldn't be capitalized.

Did you not see where in the prayer that phrase is? And did you not leave out the word "per"? So "your son" isn't refering to lucifer but to Lord as it is Domine which is the object of the prayer.

And clearly you hear what you want to hear. Rather than what is.

 

Maybe. But I have my doubts.

How so. Lets take scripture for instance. In Revelation 2 it says

It certainly being discriptive of Jesus connecting him to "flame of fire". And look what else it says

Which the Barnes notes on the bible (commentary) refers to the verse this way

It is a discription of Jesus and his Kingdom in this context. So the scriptures make this referrence. Why wouldn't we sing a praise about it? It seems total congurent that Catholics would sing or chant about it.

No it is not. It is properly translated "morning star".

Why do you refer to Benedict as Benedicto? Is it a type of jab? And you are wrong. Latin Mass never went away and was given emphasis begining with John Paul II. Benedict was responsible for making the modern english translation of the Mass Closer to the Actual Latin than it had been. So the English Masses now are closer to the Latin translation.

The Mass was held in the Vatican. Vatican Masses are normally held in Latin. But Catholics around the world can hear the Mass in their own language

Also in English.

Again you mistranslated the passage. I directly translated the passage and provided it for you. And again lucifer isn't a proper noun referring to the devil therefore it is inappropiate for you to capitalize the "L". Morning star find its flame alight is the correct translation. And two paragraphs later after the prayer calls upon "Domine" or Lord. Therefore Christ is the son of the Lord. And Christ himself is referred to as the morning star.

Thy is "Domine" (Lord) look at the prayer.

It isn't

They don't they correctly translated it "morning star."

 

What part of this sentence: the translation of the Latin word "lucifer" is "morning star" which is in the english translation, don't you understand?

We are referring to Jesus not the Devil. It is you who keeps bring up the Devil. You seem obsessed. That is also evidence of more problems you may have.

Do you know how silly you sound? the word "lucifer" is morning star so to say "Jesus Christ is the only morning star, not the morning star is" just sounds silly.

You are not answering my question. Why are you Calling Pope Benedict, Benedicto? Is it a slur?

 

But I assume you arn't Italian nor probably speak Italian. So why do you call him Benedicto?

They are Italian speaking Italian. However, knowing Italians as I do its a possiblity.

what You explained that the word "lucifer" is in the LATIN PRAYER. But not in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THAT PRAYER. Which would makes sense because "lucifer" is a Latin word and not an English word. The English use of the Latin word is to provide the Devil with a Proper Name. And since the Latin wasn't talking about the Devil it would be inappropriate to use it as a proper name for the devil. Therefore your insistance that the word "Lucifer" be added to the English translation would be erroneous. Your explanation therefore doesn't make any sense.

Yes! Because we are talking about Jesus and not the Devil as you are trying to assert.

Because that is not what they are saying! Again Jesus is being described as the morning star (lucifer) and when they say Per Christus Fillium Tuum it means "THROUGH CHRIST YOUR SON" Where the "you" being referred to is in the preceeding paragraph which says "Domine" which is Translated "LORD".

Capice?

 

When Jesus talked of spiritual things, the Jews were confused and thought he was talking of the physical. People who hold to baptismal regeneration and other such errors do the same thing.

One thing all the Anabaptist descendants hold to is a belief in religious liberty, a rejection of infant baptism, and a reliance on the Bible as final authority. Further, if you want to talk about a denomination with a wide variety of beliefs, the prime example of that is the RCC.

 

Let's see... the generic word for "light bearer" is "lucifer" in Latin. The light of the candle which symbolizes the light of Christ going out into the world has nothing to do with Satan. Here's an idea, go to Google translate and then paste the text of the Easter Proclamation or Exaltet into it. You will find a prayer to Christ who is the light of the world. Or, just believe your conspiracy theories, pump in some Dracula music and take everything out of context.

 

Eliyahu,

I haven't read everything nor have I watched the video.
But isn't the crux of the matter the translation of Isaiah 14:12?

The KJV says:
Isaiah 14:12 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!

The 1899 Douay Rheims Bible, long time official Bible of the Catholic Church says this:

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

Does this really make your case?