The Pope Denies John 14:6.

[JesusFollowerForever]

This is the best example ever of SDA anti-Catholic propaganda. It's really rich that you quote something from a language you don't understand, trusting so well your religious peers who don't understand it either. What you have linked to is the blessing of the Easter candle, which has nothing at all to do with Lucifer and everything to do with ... lighting a candle. You have labored to come up with something convincingly anti-Catholic but you have instead produced (maybe layed like a chicken) an Exsultet.

Note that I 'loved' your comment as it is the best ever anti-Catholic post I have seen this year.

The Exsultet: Christ Our Light

Parishioners gather around the Easter Vigil fire at the at Shrine of the Sacred Heart in Washington on April 3, 2010. CNS photo/Nancy Wiechec The first major...

www.usccb.org

Exsultet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can double down on your claim that Catholics worship Lucifer and this video is proof of it ...
OR
You can retract your embarrassing post and save yourself the humiliation.

I expect you to double down. And if you do, considering I have shown you to have totally misunderstood what you posted, maybe more thoughtful people will dismiss you as what you appear to be, a red hot flaming anti-Catholic that will stoop as low as he or she needs to so as to provide grist for your mill. Please prove me wrong.

1 i am not sda, 2 i know a catholic prists who knows latin he confirmed that the english translation below the latin text was correct. Did you find this in a fact check....

lucifer is clearly spoken the same in all languages of latin root like french my main language and i do understand latin from classes i had when younger in the Cathilic scool i went to as a child.

Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version):
"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!"

 

[Offline4Better.]

Do not forget the blessing that is promised if you read the book of revelation, it will all become clearer as we are close to the end. It is worth reading and trying to understand what we can.

blessings.

I have tried, and it is a confusing book. Maybe one of these days. But I first have to understand the other parts of the Bible to make the connections.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I have tried, and it is a confusing book. Maybe one of these days. But I first have to understand the other parts of the Bible to make the connections.

It is not an easy book but the Holy Spirit will make things known to you at the proper time, trying to make these links is the way to go.

blessings.

 

[Offline4Better.]

It is not an easy book but the Holy Spirit will make things known to you at the proper time, trying to make these links is the way to go.

blessings.

Thank you. It might take a few years or maybe a few months before I make the dive into Revelation, cos I have mild anxiety, and that book makes me anxious.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

It's obvious the person who made that video knows little to no Latin, not only because of their incorrect "Catholic Church praising Lucifer" claim but also because the translations they offer of the applicable Latin phrases aren't very good and were probably done by some kind of low quality automated translation.

This is not "praising Lucifer". This is praising Jesus. While in modern English parlance "lucifer" is largely used only in reference to Satan, it had more meanings in Latin. The important one in this case is that "lucifer" in Latin is a term that refers to the morning star--that is, the planet Venus. Any Latin dictionary will confirm this, that lucifer means morning star. Now, the Bible explicitly refers to Jesus as the morning star in Revelation 22:16, and this is drawing upon that.

Now, lucifer in Latin does have some other meanings. Pertinent for our purposes is its usage to refer to the devil, which developed later on through an interpretation that Isaiah 14:12 was referring to the devil (the Latin translated its mention of the morning star as lucifer). While some have disputed the idea this referred in any way to the devil, at any rate it eventually gave rise to a new meaning of lucifer as a term for the devil, and that is the one that is dominant in English. However, in Latin, the term lucifer continued to also be used as a term for morning star, just as it was before.

That is what is being used here; the usage of lucifer in this Latin prayer is not in reference to the devil, but the morning star (Jesus). What the video shows is from the Exsultet/Exultet, a prayer used in Easter vigil masses. Here is the Latin of the applicable portion:

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

The version of this used in English masses is this:

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.

Probably due to trying to make it sound good in English the translation is a little loose, but the general meaning of the lines is retained. One notices the obvious fact that lucifer is rendered as morning star... because that's what it means.

Almost as if to make absolutely sure there wouldn't be misunderstanding, the first line even applied the adjective matutinus (morning) to lucifer. This is somewhat redundant because lucifer by itself means "morning star", but it makes it even more clear that's the meaning. And then the third line, Christus Filius tuus/Christ your Son (the prayer is addressed to God and therefore it is simply saying Jesus is God's son), even more clearly identifies that the morning star being referred to is Jesus, again because this is invoking Revelation's reference to Jesus being the morning star. Even if someone missed the fact it's referencing Revelation 22:16, any knowledge of Latin makes it clear that this is not in any way a reference to Lucifer as a devil.

it should be noted that this prayer is also found in some Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist churches (Wikipedia offers some examples here). They also use morning star in English:

Anglican:
Holy Father, accept our evening sacrifice, the offering of this candle in your honor. May it shine continually to drive away all darkness. May Christ, the Morning Star who knows no setting, find it ever burning—he who gives his light to all creation, and who lives and reigns for ever and ever."

Lutheran:
Holy Father, Accept now the evening sacrifices of our thanksgiving and praise. Let Christ, the true light and morning star, shine in our hearts, He who gives light to all creation, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God, now and forever.

Methodist:
May the Morning Star, which never sets, find this flame still burning. Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all creation, your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever."

So the claim made by your video that they were praising Lucifer (the devil) is simply wrong. It was praising Jesus and referring to Jesus as the morning star, which the Bible itself does.

The term "Lucifer" appears in the Bible in Isaiah 14:12, where it is used to describe a fallen figure:


"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!"


In this context, "Lucifer" is translated from the Hebrew word "helel," which means "morning star" or "shining one."

LUCIFER is clearly used one time in the bible to describe a fallen angel there are no other proper meaning for it in this context, Morning star can be translated differently such as stella matutina. they did not use this did they? they Used Lucifer and the intent was clear.

 

[chevyontheriver]

1 i am not sda,

Ya coulda fooled me/ If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....

2 i know a catholic prists who knows latin he confirmed that the english translation below the latin text was correct.

You know a 'prists' who knows Latin?

I provided a Latin and English side by side translation of the Exsultet for you.

Did you find this in a fact check....

I happen to know enough Latin to figure out the source of your video link and I have participated in enough Easter Vigils to know the Exsultet in both languages. And I presented the Latin and English side by side. Not enough of a fact check for you?

lucifer is clearly spoken the same in all languages of latin root like french my main language and i do understand latin from classes i had when younger in the Cathilic scool i went to as a child.

Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version):
"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!"

I think you are doubling down on your error, sadly as I have expected. But you are free to do that in CF, and you may find people that eat up your propaganda.

Roman Catholic English and Latin text​

[edit]

English text Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven, exult, let Angel ministers of God exult, let the trumpet of salvation sound aloud our mighty King's triumph! Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her, ablaze with light from her eternal King, let all corners of the earth be glad, knowing an end to gloom and darkness. Rejoice, let Mother Church also rejoice, arrayed with the lightning of his glory, let this holy building shake with joy, filled with the mighty voices of the peoples. (Therefore, dearest friends, standing in the awesome glory of this holy light, invoke with me, I ask you, the mercy of God almighty, that he, who has been pleased to number me, though unworthy, among the Levites, may pour into me his light unshadowed, that I may sing this candle's perfect praises). (Deacon: The Lord be with you. People: And with your spirit.) Deacon: Lift up your hearts. People: We lift them up to the Lord. Deacon: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. People: It is right and just. It is truly right and just, with ardent love of mind and heart and with devoted service of our voice, to acclaim our God invisible, the almighty Father, and Jesus Christ, our Lord, his Son, his Only Begotten. Who for our sake paid Adam's debt to the eternal Father, and, pouring out his own dear Blood, wiped clean the record of our ancient sinfulness. These, then, are the feasts of Passover, in which is slain the Lamb, the one true Lamb, whose Blood anoints the doorposts of believers. This is the night, when once you led our forebears, Israel's children, from slavery in Egypt and made them pass dry-shod through the Red Sea. This is the night that with a pillar of fire banished the darkness of sin. This is the night that even now throughout the world, sets Christian believers apart from worldly vices and from the gloom of sin, leading them to grace and joining them to his holy ones. This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld. Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us! O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son! O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ! O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer! O truly blessed night, worthy alone to know the time and hour when Christ rose from the underworld! This is the night of which it is written: The night shall be as bright as day, dazzling is the night for me, and full of gladness. The sanctifying power of this night dispels wickedness, washes faults away, restores innocence to the fallen, and joy to mourners, drives out hatred, fosters concord, and brings down the mighty. On this, your night of grace, O holy Father, accept this candle, a solemn offering, the work of bees and of your servants' hands, an evening sacrifice of praise, this gift from your most holy Church. But now we know the praises of this pillar, which glowing fire ignites for God's honour, a fire into many flames divided, yet never dimmed by sharing of its light, for it is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious. O truly blessed night, when things of heaven are wed to those of earth, and divine to the human. Therefore, O Lord, we pray you that this candle, hallowed to the honour 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. Amen. Latin text Exsúltet iam angélica turba cælórum: exsúltent divína mystéria: et pro tanti Regis victória tuba ínsonet salutáris. Gáudeat et tellus, tantis irradiáta fulgóribus: et ætérni Regis splendóre illustráta, totíus orbis se séntiat amisísse calíginem. Lætétur et mater Ecclésia, tanti lúminis adornáta fulgóribus: et magnis populórum vócibus hæc aula resúltet. [Quaprópter astántes vos, fratres caríssimi, ad tam miram huius sancti lúminis claritátem, una mecum, quæso, Dei omnipoténtis misericórdiam invocáte. Ut, qui me non meis méritis intra Levitárum númerum dignátus est aggregáre, lúminis sui claritátem infúndens, cérei huius laudem implére perfíciat.] [℣. Dóminus vobíscum. ℟. Et cum spíritu tuo.] ℣. Sursum corda. ℟. Habémus ad Dóminum. ℣. Grátias agámus Dómino Deo nostro. ℟. ℟. Dignum et iustum est. Vere dignum et iustum est, invisíbilem Deum Patrem omnipoténtem Filiúmque eius unigénitum, Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, toto cordis ac mentis afféctu et vocis ministério personáre. Qui pro nobis ætérno Patri Adæ débitum solvit, et véteris piáculi cautiónem pio cruóre detérsit. Hæc sunt enim festa paschália, in quibus verus ille Agnus occíditur, cuius sánguine postes fidélium consecrántur. Hæc nox est, in qua primum patres nostros, fílios Israel edúctos de Ægypto, Mare Rubrum sicco vestígio transíre fecísti. Hæc ígitur nox est, quæ peccatórum ténebras colúmnæ illuminatióne purgávit. Hæc nox est, quæ hódie per univérsum mundum in Christo credéntes, a vítiis sæculi et calígine peccatórum segregátos, reddit grátiæ, sóciat sanctitáti. Hæc nox est, in qua, destrúctis vínculis mortis, Christus ab ínferis victor ascéndit. Nihil enim nobis nasci prófuit, nisi rédimi profuísset. O mira circa nos tuæ pietátis dignátio! O inæstimábilis diléctio caritátis: ut servum redímeres, Fílium tradidísti! O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum, quod Christi morte delétum est! O felix culpa, quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem! O vere beáta nox, quæ sola méruit scire tempus et horam, in qua Christus ab ínferis resurréxit! Hæc nox est, de qua scriptum est: Et nox sicut dies illuminábitur: et nox illuminátio mea in delíciis meis. Huius ígitur sanctificátio noctis fugat scélera, culpas lavat: et reddit innocéntiam lapsis et mæstis lætítiam. Fugat ódia, concórdiam parat et curvat impéria. In huius ígitur noctis grátia, súscipe, sancte Pater, laudis huius sacrifícium vespertínum, quod tibi in hac cérei oblatióne solémni, per ministrórum manus de opéribus apum, sacrosáncta reddit Ecclésia. Sed iam colúmnæ huius præcónia nóvimus, quam in honórem Dei rútilans ignis accéndit. Qui, lícet sit divísus in partes, mutuáti tamen lúminis detrimenta non novit. Alitur enim liquántibus ceris, quas in substántiam pretiósæ huius lámpadis apis mater edúxit. O vere beáta nox, in qua terrénis cæléstia, humánis divína iungúntur! 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 tecum vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum. ℟. Amen. Is the word 'lucifer' in there in the Latin? Yup. Does it refer to 'Lucifer'? Nope. It is literally a 'bearer of light, a candle, of the same light that Jesus Christ brought into the world that is being mentioned in the blessing of the Easter Candle. You making it about the demonic is seriously and offensively twisted. But then that's what you want to do. I'll leave you alone now and I'll pray God clues you in while you have the time. Others may laugh at your crudity. I tried to clue you in. But you prefer the lie.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This is the best example ever of SDA anti-Catholic propaganda. It's really rich that you quote something from a language you don't understand, trusting so well your religious peers who don't understand it either. What you have linked to is the blessing of the Easter candle, which has nothing at all to do with Lucifer and everything to do with ... lighting a candle. You have labored to come up with something convincingly anti-Catholic but you have instead produced (maybe layed like a chicken) an Exsultet.

Note that I 'loved' your comment as it is the best ever anti-Catholic post I have seen this year.

The Exsultet: Christ Our Light

Parishioners gather around the Easter Vigil fire at the at Shrine of the Sacred Heart in Washington on April 3, 2010. CNS photo/Nancy Wiechec The first major...

www.usccb.org

Exsultet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can double down on your claim that Catholics worship Lucifer and this video is proof of it ...
OR
You can retract your embarrassing post and save yourself the humiliation.

I expect you to double down. And if you do, considering I have shown you to have totally misunderstood what you posted, maybe more thoughtful people will dismiss you as what you appear to be, a red hot flaming anti-Catholic that will stoop as low as he or she needs to so as to provide grist for your mill. Please prove me wrong.

There is nothing to indicate the youtube video is by SDA. The video appears to be directly from a Catholic service.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There is nothing to indicate the youtube video is by SDA. The video appears to be directly from a Catholic service.

So you can't claim it as one of your own then. And the guy who posted it may have actually doubled down on it. It's one of the problems people get when they don't understand the language well enough to know it's not saying what they think it's saying.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Sorry that you can't claim it as one of your own then. It's of the sort that I would have expected though, short on fact and long on misunderstanding. And the guy who posted it may have actually doubled down on it. It's one of the problems you get when you don't understand the language well enough to know it's not saying what you think it's saying.

We usually quote directly from the source. There was a whole movement about the teachings of the Catholic church so not just SDA, yes things have healed, where many have forgotten or no longer care, but not all.

You are critical of fact checking, but might consider that yourself.

 

[Freth]

This is the best example ever of SDA anti-Catholic propaganda.

• The video was posted 5 years ago.
• The last video was posted 3 years ago.
• The channel in question is full of old conspiracy theory videos from various other sources.
• There is nothing about SDA that I can find.

We usually quote directly from the source. There was a whole movement about the teachings of the Catholic church so not just SDA, yes things have healed, where many have forgotten.

You are critical of fact checking, but might consider that yourself.

This.

 

[Clare73]

If you read the article on Catholic sources, that’s not completely what he said.

Agreed. . .nevertheless, nothing mitigates nor negates that statement unless he contradicts himself.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We usually quote directly from the source. There was a whole movement about the teachings of the Catholic church so not just SDA, yes things have healed, where many have forgotten or no longer care, but not all.

You are critical of fact checking, but might consider that yourself.

The fact checking I missed was, sorry, that I presumed it was SDA because it's what I have come to expect. I didn't go any deeper, which of course I should have to actually find out the actual nefarious people who produced that fib. So in that I am wrong. Somebody else produced it. Not SDA.

That does nothing to address the epic fail of the video that it has nothing to do with another nefarious being called Lucifer. The intent of posting an actually beautiful and ancient prayer was to attack the Catholic Church by very low insinuation that we are devil worshipers at heart. Wow! Video proof! I would offer you the opportunity to not only disavow making the video, which you have happily done, but to also disavow the lie at it's core.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Priest signing at vatican mass;

What do you know about the producer of this video? He's apparently from Texas. His facebook is restricted. He has made some other outlandish videos. He's making the SDA look really quite good.

 

[jas3]

i know a catholic prists who knows latin he confirmed that the english translation below the latin text was correct. Did you find this in a fact check....

Did this prists happen to be a first-year Latin student who was looking up the words one by one in Google Translate? Because that's about the only way someone could translate "flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat" as "flames of Lucifer finds dawn," which doesn't even make sense in English, and even Google Translate gives the correct translation if you put the whole phrase in.

Lucifer: literally "bearer of light" (subject)
Inveniat: may he/she/it find
Matutinus: in the early morning
Eius: his/her/its
Flammas: flames (direct object)

All together: may [lucifer] find its flames in the morning. (Leaving "lucifer" untranslated)

Regardless of your mistaken notion about the meaning of "lucifer" in Latin, the fact that the translation of this one part is this bad should tell you something about the quality of the rest of it.

lucifer is clearly spoken the same in all languages of latin root like french my main language and i do understand latin from classes i had when younger in the Cathilic scool i went to as a child.

Sounds like you may need to dust off those textbooks and refresh your skills.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is not an easy book but the Holy Spirit will make things known to you at the proper time, trying to make these links is the way to go.

blessings.

When you get to the book of Revelations then do what I do and call it the Apocalypse instead.

The first seven books are prophecy about some cities with Christian communities. They make sense all by themselves. Try some day to just read those seven chapters. They’re good. They’re not crazy mystical.

And the rest? There is an almost secret key to understanding it. It’s liturgical. The key is to understand the liturgical terms in it. Few people do that so the symbolism of lamp stands and incense and liturgical clothing and the like. Go to a Latin mass or an Othodox liturgy and then start reading the rest of the Apocalypse. Don’t get caught up in the sillies.

 

[JSRG]

1 i am not sda, 2 i know a catholic prists who knows latin he confirmed that the english translation below the latin text was correct. Did you find this in a fact check....

This was directed towards chevyontheriver, but I wish to respond to your post anyway. I do think (and he has since admitted) that it was improper to refer to it as "SDA anti-Catholic propaganda".

But that is about as much as I can find to agree with in your post. As to your next point, if a priest told you the English translation was correct, then the priest is flatly wrong. To discuss the first line, it requires only very basic Latin knowledge to know that "Flammas eius Lucifer matutinus inveniat" does not translate out to (as your video claims) "flames of Lucifer finds dawn".

To explain why this "correct" translation is completely wrong, let's go through this bit by bit. Now, English is fairly rigid with its subject-verb-object sentence structure. If you change the order, you get a different meaning. Latin, however, can put the subject, verb, and object in any order at all, as you identify the subject and object not by their order, but by their cases. There are six cases for nouns in Latin (nominative, vocative, genitive, accusative, dative, ablative) and the case you use is decided by the grammatical context of the noun. Without getting too much into the specifics, normally the nominative is the subject while the object is accusative or dative. This allows you to put them in any order and have the same meaning. One recognizes the case of nouns because nouns change their spelling based on the case they are in as well as whether they are plural or singular; for example, dog in the nominative is canis, but but in the accusative is canem.

To get at what it says, we'll start with "Lucifer matutinus". I know that comes later in the sentence, but it's easier for the purpose of analysis if I approach this in the order one would say it in English of subject verb object. The word lucifer is the only noun in the nominative, so it is clearly the subject of this. As has been noted, lucifer has several possible meanings, including morning star. What makes it very clear the morning star is in reference here, even disregarding the larger context, is the fact it is accompanied by the word matutinus, an adjective in Latin that means morning. Now, in Latin, adjectives change their spelling based on the gender, plurality, and case of the noun they are modifying. Matutinus is singular, masculine, and nominative. The only noun it fits is lucifer. This adjective seems redundant because lucifer in Latin by itself already means morning star, but perhaps it was done to clarify that this was the meaning they were using for the word. So we have confirmation here that what is in reference is the morning star, not Lucifer chief of devils.

Next we come to the verb, inveniat. Inveniat is the third person subjunctive present tense of the verb invenio, which means to find. The subjunctive can be used in a number of ways in Latin, but in a case like this as far as I understand it can only be understood as expressing a desire; that is, to hope that the subject accomplishes the verb. A good way to think about it in English is phrases that begin with the word "may" like "may it come true!" or "may it be done!" where the speaker is expressing a desire or hope for something to happen.

Lastly we come to the subject, flammas. This is the word flamma (flame) in the plural accusative form. It being accusative shows that it is the subject. Next to is is "eius" means of of him/of her/of it, usually translated into English as the more natural sounding his, her, or its. This would be his flames/her flames/its flames.

So if we put all of those together, we end up with:

"May the morning star find his flames"

Even setting aside the contested question of lucifer and morning star, how in the world does someone end up with "flames of Lucifer finds dawn"? What "dawn" is there to be found? The word for dawn (aurora or diluculum) isn't even there! The closest is "matutinus" which means morning, but that's not the same thing. Furthermore, it's an adjective in the nominative so obviously it's not the thing being found. For that matter, the translation claims that it's the "flames" that are doing the finding, but again the flames are in the accusative, showing it's an object, not a subject (things can get more confusing on subject and object when using the passive tense or a deponent verb, but that is not applicable here). It also misses how the usage of the subjunctive change it so it isn't a simple straightforward statement of "finding" something (you need the "may" at the start). All of this is fairly basic Latin knowledge. It also says "Lucifer" even though the usage of matutinus makes it more clear that it is referring to the morning star.

So if a Catholic priest told you that "flames of Lucifer finds dawn" is a correct translation of "Flammas eius Lucifer matutinus inveniat" then they're completely wrong. I know knowledge of Latin has been declining among Catholic priests but even so the errors are too basic for anyone with even limited Latin knowledge to miss. Perhaps the priest misunderstood what was being asked, or perhaps (given you say French is your main language) the priest was a French speaker didn't know English very well.

lucifer is clearly spoken the same in all languages of latin root like french my main language and i do understand latin from classes i had when younger in the Cathilic scool i went to as a child.

The fact you held up as accurate a translation that mixed up the object and subject--an error that is obvious to anyone who has learned about the nominative and accusative (which are among the first things someone learns in Latin)--indicates that, even if you learned Latin when you were younger, you've forgotten enough of it that you don't understand Latin very well anymore.

 

[JSRG]

The term "Lucifer" appears in the Bible in Isaiah 14:12, where it is used to describe a fallen figure:


"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!"


In this context, "Lucifer" is translated from the Hebrew word "helel," which means "morning star" or "shining one."

And translating helel as Lucifer in English nowadays is a very dubious translation. It worked in Latin because lucifer means morning star (the planet Venus) in Latin, but it lacks that meaning in English... at least, modern English. The Oxford English Dictionary informs me that in the past it was used in English to refer to the morning star, though such a meaning has clearly fallen out of use. Thus, it is possible that the King James Version--which is what you are quoting from--had that meaning in mind.

Regardless of that, it clearly lacks that meaning now, so "Lucifer" is not a great translation for it in modern English, which is why modern translations use "morning star" instead. In fact, you admit it means morning star in Hebrew, so doesn't that solve the controversy there?

LUCIFER is clearly used one time in the bible

The fact that the word "lucifer" shows up only once in some English translations means nothing in regards to its meaning in this Latin prayer. And as just noted, in various English translations, the word "Lucifer" is not used at all, instead using "morning star." Or perhaps you refer to the fact that the original Hebrew says helel, which is used only here in the Bible. But again this is of little use in determining the meaning of a word in a Latin prayer.

Since it's Latin that is actually important here, let's turn to the Latin translation of the Bible. The Latin word lucifer isn't only used here. There there are multiple uses of this word. In addition to Isaiah 14:12, it's in Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Psalm 110:3 (numbered Psalm 109:3 in Latin) and 2 Peter 1:19. In none of these examples can anyone say any kind of fallen angel--or fallen figure in general--is in mind.

to describe a fallen angel there are no other proper meaning for it in this context,

No other proper meaning? Isaiah 14:12, as is explicitly stated by the preceding Isaiah 14:4, is a taunt against the King of Babylon. It never mentions Satan.

Yes, various Christian writers have applied the passage against Satan either directly (saying it, in addition to the reference to the King of Babylon, was meant to apply to Satan) or indirectly (that while meant against the King of Babylon, contains things that can be applied to Satan), but to claim there can be no other proper meaning other than referring to a fallen angel makes no sense. The passage works perfectly fine if read as it simply saying that the king of Babylon's fall is so great it is like the morning star falling from heaven. There is no requirement to read any reference, direct or indirect, to Satan in the passage.

But accepting that Isaiah 14:4-21 meant to apply to both king of Babylon and Satan (again, Christian writers later applying it to Satan was how "lucifer" gained the meaning as a term for the chief of devils in addition to its "morning star" meaning), such does not preclude the lucifer in the Latin translation here still meaning morning star, and even if we were to go so far as to say it literally means Satan in this passage, it is clear that the word lucifer does not normally have that meaning, as shown by the multiple other cases in the Latin translation of the Bible (to say nothing of various non-biblical texts) that cannot be in any way interpreted as a reference to the devil.

Morning star can be translated differently such as stella matutina. they did not use this did they?

Both "lucifer" and "stella matutina" mean morning star in Latin. The usage of one synonym in a translation instead of another doesn't mean anything more than the usage of "pick" instead of "choose".

they Used Lucifer and the intent was clear.

Well, yes, it was quite clear; it meant morning star.

But even if you were right about all of this in your post, it doesn't actually address my post. You claimed that a prayer in Latin was a case of the Catholic Church "praising Lucifer". I pointed out how "lucifer" in Latin (the prayer was in Latin) had morning star as one of its meanings, and that this was how it was being used. Even if you were right and the specific usage of lucifer in the Latin verison of Isaiah 14:12 wasn't referring to the morning star at all and was entirely in reference to a fallen angel, that doesn't mean that the prayer was using it in that way. The Latin term "lucifer" can be shown, both in the Bible and out of it, to refer to the morning star with no fallen angel connection at all, and the Latin prayer you appealed to makes it very obvious from its context that is the meaning being used, morning star. So even if everything you said in this post is true... it doesn't actually address my points.

 

[All Becomes New]

And the rest? There is an almost secret key to understanding it. It’s liturgical. The key is to understand the liturgical terms in it. Few people do that so the symbolism of lamp stands and incense and liturgical clothing and the like. Go to a Latin mass or an Othodox liturgy and then start reading the rest of the Apocalypse. Don’t get caught up in the sillies.

People always read their own church tradition into Revelation. It's easy to do since it is so mysterious.

 

[All Becomes New]

Sure looks like it. And I'm not going to waste any effort trying to explain that one away. It's his personal opinion and happily I don't have to share it or endorse it or defend it or anything. A poorly catechized old man comes up with some alien ideas. Facepalm.

To be fair, this is not just a problem for Catholics and the Pope. We seem to see this sort of idea throughout the Christian world. It is a kind of theological liberalism. The "Religious right" sees this and overcompensates leading to things like kinism and such even going as far as being anti-semitic and supporting Hitler. Meanwhile, the left goes further and further to the left, celebrating the trans insanity, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

 

[chevyontheriver]

People always read their own church tradition into Revelation. It's easy to do since it is so mysterious.

It’s less mysterious when understood as written with liturgical symbolism. My post was intended for Alex but sent to you by mistake. The intention was to lower his anxiety about reading the Apocalypse, which is often a sort of Rorschach test for different Protestant eschatologies where they see what they want to see. It is also permissible to read it and not have every detail of when the second coming happens figured out.