Does The Catholic church worship Lucifer

[TheMatrixHasU71]

This may sound like a ridiculously redundant question but I bring this up because of a notorious video that came up a couple of years ago, I am sure everyone has seen it by now, of a Catholic Mass in the Vatican where the cantor is singing a Latin hymn which invokes the name of Lucifer. 

 

Now I have heard Catholics try to explain this away by saying that "Lucifer" here is merely the Latin translation of certain attributes that belong to God alone. 

Now Granted God and Jesus are the only true Light, Lightbearers and Christ is the only real Morning Star while Lucifer is but an usurper. And yes, those words will naturally translate in Latin as Lucifer or some variant thereof.

But that merely underscores why Latin is absolutely the WORST language to use in church ceremonies.

That hymn should have been sung in English and for the Vatican to allow it to be sung in Latin, and for it to be so rubbed in our faces like it was, that means only one thing. The Vatican is showing, not directly but still very bluntly, that it worships Lucifer, not Jesus.

 

Comments

[Guest]

Well, since Catholics are practicing Islamic Replacement Theology and Allah is Satan, than I would have to say yes.

[bryan]

Latin is a great language that's the root of many others.  Could you post the hymn in Latin so we can see how it references Satan?

[missmuffet]

10 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

This may sound like a ridiculously redundant question but I bring this up because of a notorious video that came up a couple of years ago, I am sure everyone has seen it by now, of a Catholic Mass in the Vatican where the cantor is singing a Latin hymn which invokes the name of Lucifer. 

 

Now I have heard Catholics try to explain this away by saying that "Lucifer" here is merely the Latin translation of certain attributes that belong to God alone. 

Now Granted God and Jesus are the only true Light, Lightbearers and Christ is the only real Morning Star while Lucifer is but an usurper. And yes, those words will naturally translate in Latin as Lucifer or some variant thereof.

But that merely underscores why Latin is absolutely the WORST language to use in church ceremonies.

That hymn should have been sung in English and for the Vatican to allow it to be sung in Latin, and for it to be so rubbed in our faces like it was, that means only one thing. The Vatican is showing, not directly but still very bluntly, that it worships Lucifer, not Jesus.

 

Comments

Only God knows a person's heart. I am sure that there are some Catholics out there that are saved and love Jesus Christ. You can not put them all in the same basket.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On 7/29/2017 at 6:40 PM, bryan said:

Latin is a great language that's the root of many others.  Could you post the hymn in Latin so we can see how it references Satan?

Its easy enough to look up on youtube. Just put in Catholic Mass invokes Lucifer or some such thing

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On 7/29/2017 at 10:14 PM, missmuffet said:

You can not put them all in the same basket

I never said I did. I do believe there are many truly saved Catholics out there but the church as a whole is not a Christian church. Its also well known that in any cults, or churches that display cult like behaviour, the rank and file typically have no clue whatever what the higher ups really believe in.

For the hymn to be sung in Latin, for the song to use words that, though they may apply to God first, but are typically associated more often than not with Lucifer that can really have only one meaning; and I already said it.

[bryan]

Looks like the answer to the OP is no.  The Catholics aren't suddenly worshiping Lucifer.   Most of the following is from other discussions of this topic based on five minutes with Google.

Here are the clips from that video attributed to the Easter Vigils in 2012 & 2013 at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, along with someone's translation into English:

Flammas eius

Flaming Lucifer

Lucifer matutínus invéniat:

Lucifer finds Mankind

ille, inquam, Lúcifer, qui nescit occásum Christus Fílius tuus, (!!!!)

Point: The Easter Vigil is called in Latin "Lucernarium" because "Christ is our light"

From the Exsultet:

Flammas ejus lucifer matutinus inveniat. Ille, inquam, lucifer, quinescit occasum.

May the Morning Star find it yet alight, the Morning Star that knows no setting.

Now, consider this:  the latin "lúcifer" is translated "morning star". It can also be the planet Venus which is visible just before dawn. The name Lucifer would be spelled the same, but I don't think with the accent on the u. We have lost the use of accent marks on vowels in English.  That is the problem with languages; the translation is only as good as the person doing the translation. Since there are no native Latin speaking people any more, we have no one who understands all of the vagaries of the language. We deal with people every day who interpret the Bible to suit their own purposes. It is a tool used by some who wish to attack the Church. It's no different than those who attack opposing differing viewpoints by twisting the words of their opponent. Politicians have their own sanitized word for such prevarications, they call it "spin".

"In the New American Bible, it states "How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn" but the Vulgate and other translations have replaced morning star with Lucifer. In Revelation Jesus is referred to as morning star. My question, is why did the Vulgate have Lucifer and the double inference to morning star that in Revelation is Jesus but does it refer to Lucifer as well?" 

Another point:

the entire closing passage reads (Latin, then English):

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.

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.

Regarding the reference in the Vulgate to Lucifer as the morning star, tradition holds that Lucifer was the angel of light, but fell from heaven over Adam's stewardship of the entire earth. Isaiah uses the metaphor about Babylon, drawing (scholars tend to believe) from a Canaanite myth to make his point to the king who held Israel in captivity.

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High'..."

Metaphorically, the fallen angel has "power" over the world until Christ, our true Light, enters time. Christ is the true Morning Star.

 

[TheMatrixHasU71]

19 hours ago, bryan said:

Looks like the answer to the OP is no.  The Catholics aren't suddenly worshiping Lucifer.   Most of the following is from other discussions of this topic based on five minutes with Google.

Here are the clips from that video attributed to the Easter Vigils in 2012 & 2013 at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, along with someone's translation into English:

Flammas eius

Flaming Lucifer

Lucifer matutínus invéniat:

Lucifer finds Mankind

ille, inquam, Lúcifer, qui nescit occásum Christus Fílius tuus, (!!!!)

Point: The Easter Vigil is called in Latin "Lucernarium" because "Christ is our light"

From the Exsultet:

Flammas ejus lucifer matutinus inveniat. Ille, inquam, lucifer, quinescit occasum.

May the Morning Star find it yet alight, the Morning Star that knows no setting.

Now, consider this:  the latin "lúcifer" is translated "morning star". It can also be the planet Venus which is visible just before dawn. The name Lucifer would be spelled the same, but I don't think with the accent on the u. We have lost the use of accent marks on vowels in English.  That is the problem with languages; the translation is only as good as the person doing the translation. Since there are no native Latin speaking people any more, we have no one who understands all of the vagaries of the language. We deal with people every day who interpret the Bible to suit their own purposes. It is a tool used by some who wish to attack the Church. It's no different than those who attack opposing differing viewpoints by twisting the words of their opponent. Politicians have their own sanitized word for such prevarications, they call it "spin".

"In the New American Bible, it states "How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn" but the Vulgate and other translations have replaced morning star with Lucifer. In Revelation Jesus is referred to as morning star. My question, is why did the Vulgate have Lucifer and the double inference to morning star that in Revelation is Jesus but does it refer to Lucifer as well?" 

Another point:

the entire closing passage reads (Latin, then English):

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.

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.

Regarding the reference in the Vulgate to Lucifer as the morning star, tradition holds that Lucifer was the angel of light, but fell from heaven over Adam's stewardship of the entire earth. Isaiah uses the metaphor about Babylon, drawing (scholars tend to believe) from a Canaanite myth to make his point to the king who held Israel in captivity.

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High'..."

Metaphorically, the fallen angel has "power" over the world until Christ, our true Light, enters time. Christ is the true Morning Star.

 

You are only proving my point here how the hymn should have been sung in English as the Latin uses too loaded a word (Lucifer)....and cults are FULL of double entendres, presenting one thing to the laity and lower priest hood while teaching something else to the higher ups. Read Alexander Hyslop's Two Babylons and you will find other examples of such behaviour where the rank and file of the ancient Greek and Roman cults are taught one thing while the higher initiates are lead into the "real" truth.

 

And I dont believe Catholics as a whole truly worship Lucifer, I never said that. I only said that those in their highest positions of office do....and they lie their you-know-whats off to the rest their sheep. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by TheMatrixHasU71

[TheMatrixHasU71]

16 hours ago, Yowm said:

Dunno, God seemed fit to hang it on the Cross of Redemption praising our King...

Luke 23:38 KJVS
[38] And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS .

 

I am talking about the hymns, especially Roman hymns....and I could be wrong here but am not totally sure that sign was meant to praise our King. Signs were usually hung over the heads of the condemned listing their "crimes". 

[fixerupper]

On 7/29/2017 at 5:15 PM, Rick_Parker said:

Well, since Catholics are practicing Islamic Replacement Theology and Allah is Satan, than I would have to say yes.

I think you need to stop listening to the Protestant bashing of Catholics.  There's not one word of truth in your statement.  But hey, Protestant's love to talk bad about everyone, it's like an old lady in a hair salon.