The Pope Denies John 14:6.

[SabbathBlessings]

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

Not if we let scripture interpret itself.

Revelation is meant to be understood. Rev 1:3

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

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.


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

Mu Uncle was a senior, revered in his congregation, he explained to me that there is only one usage for Lucifer as it appears in the bible;

Ezekiel 28:12-17 speaks about the king of Tyre and describes a figure with a high and exalted status who falls due to pride. The passage reads:

“Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle: and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.”

Here, Ezekiel describes a figure with an exalted position who falls from grace due to pride and corruption. The description of being “in Eden the garden of God” and “the anointed cherub that covereth” is metaphorical and directed towards the king of Tyre, emphasizing his original perfection and subsequent downfall. I do see here a description of the fall of satan!

This passage, alongside the description in 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!" strengthen the notion of a high and fallen being, which is not applicable to Christ. Christ’s role is consistently portrayed in a positive light, emphasizing His divine authority and purity rather than a fall from grace.

While "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 and the figure described in Ezekiel 28:12-17 are associated with a fall from a high state, Christ is consistently depicted as the divine light and the "bright and morning star" in the New Testament. These descriptions align with His role as the Savior and the source of spiritual light, distinctly contrasting the fallen nature implied by the term "Lucifer."

the usage of Lucifer always means a fallen, disgraced being or great power and is NOT applicable to Christ in any way, those who do so blaspheme Jesus's name.

This is too much for some people so I will no longer discuss the usage of the word lucifer.

 

[RileyG]

The problem with this is that even if the Pope did deny John 14:6, then because so much is at stake for Catholics and their Pope--the one who is supposed to represent Christ on earth--that of course they will twist it even in the case that the Pope was wrong.

Some of it was apparently lost in translation.

 

[jas3]

Mu Uncle was a senior, revered in his congregation, he explained to me that there is only one usage for Lucifer as it appears in the bible;

Your uncle was wrong, the word appears in 2 Peter 1:19 in reference to the morning star:

"et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"

In the KJV:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:"

the usage of Lucifer always means a fallen, disgraced being or great power

I am not going to accuse you of lying about knowing Latin, but I don't see how you can be this badly mistaken if you do.

This is too much for some people so I will no longer discuss the usage of the word lucifer.

Thank you.

 

[Clare73]

Some of it was apparently lost in translation.

There is no cleaning up of "All religions are paths to reach God."

Some of it was apparently lost in translation.

I'll help you out here. . .

Maybe he meant "All religions are the seeking of a path to God." . .which has a whole other meaning than what he actually said.

 

[jas3]

I think it is and has always been possible for a pope to err in his personal beliefs.

Maybe so, but Bellarmine in On the Roman Pontiff lists the opinion of Albert Pighius first in his discussion of prevailing theories on whether a pope can be deposed, who says that a pope can't be a heretic, so he couldn't be deposed. Bellarmine calls this opinion "probable" and says it "can easily be defended."
Now, in all fairness, the position he seems to hold (he calls it "true") is that the Pope can be a secret or manifest heretic, but if he's a manifest heretic then he places himself outside the Church and is thus automatically deposed. But my point was that Pighius' opinion is no longer easily defended.

So far, so far pope Francis hasn't actually officially taught anything horrible.

Doctrinally, I'd say Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes and its clarification, Fiducia Supplicans, and even Dignitas Infinita have some deeply problematic statements in them, although this probably isn't the thread to go into those.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Maybe so, but Bellarmine in On the Roman Pontiff lists the opinion of Albert Pighius first in his discussion of prevailing theories on whether a pope can be deposed, who says that a pope can't be a heretic, so he couldn't be deposed. Bellarmine calls this opinion "probable" and says it "can easily be defended."
Now, in all fairness, the position he seems to hold (he calls it "true") is that the Pope can be a secret or manifest heretic, but if he's a manifest heretic then he places himself outside the Church and is thus automatically deposed. But my point was that Pighius' opinion is no longer easily defended.

None of those positions are in themselves 'de fide'. We are kind of in new territory. My tentative opinion is that personal heresy endangers the pope's soul but that he can still act as pope with the authority of the office. We have had highly immoral popes who have probably died in mortal sin. Is there any analogy there?

Doctrinally, I'd say Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes and its clarification, Fiducia Supplicans, and even Dignitas Infinita have some deeply problematic statements in them, although this probably isn't the thread to go into those.

I think they have been in some sense errors but not infallible statements of the Church. I think a future pope will have to reverse those statements. I am deeply troubled by each of those.

 

[jas3]

We have had highly immoral popes who have probably died in mortal sin. Is there any analogy there?

What would the analogy be?

I think they have been in some sense errors but not infallible statements of the Church. I think a future pope will have to reverse those statements.

Catholics are still bound to give religious submission of will to them, even if they aren't infallible. From Lumen Gentium:

"...the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

 

[chevyontheriver]

What would the analogy be?

Catholics are still bound to give religious submission of will to them, even if they aren't infallible. From Lumen Gentium:

"...the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

So far this bad pope has not made any of his personal opinions things that I have to assent to. I am keenly aware that he could try that and expect my assent but we will cross that bridge when it comes. For now it seems that the Holy Spirit is restraining him.

 

[The Liturgist]

the usage of Lucifer always means a fallen, disgraced being or great power and is NOT applicable to Christ in any way, those who do so blaspheme Jesus's name.

That’s historically inaccurate, because the New Testament was written in Greek, our Lord spoke Aramaic, and the ancient prophecies you refer to were written in Aramaic in the case of Daniel and primarily Hebrew in the case of Ezekiel and Isaiah,, and refer if read literally to the Morning Star. They clearly do apply to the devil, but the word Lucifer specifically is a Latin name meaning “bringer of light”, and several early Christian martyrs, as well as the 4th century Bishop of Cagliari, had that name.

So while it is true that the verses in question refer to the devil, typologically,,it would be anachronistic to say that the word Lucifer only means that, because the words in those verses as originally written in Hebrew, and what Jesus Christ said in Aramaic, and the Greek original text of the New Testament and the Greek translation of the New Testament known as the Septuagint refer to the Morning Star, and it would make no sense for them to say “Lucifer” since that word is simply a Latin translation of the above, but the first Latin bible, the Vetus Latina, was not translated until the mid 2nd century, and in that same century Christians with the name Lucifer who hated the devil were put to death by the diabolical Pagan regime that ruled over the Roman Empire at the time, and won a crown of martyrdom in the process.

That being said, since the word Lucifer has developed a strong association with the devil, we should obviously no longer use it as a name for Christians.

But for that matter, many Christians are into fantasy that depicts dragons in a positive light, unaware of the fact that the word Dragon usually meant devil in various ancient languages. Indeed the name of Vlad the Impaler, the Romanian nobleman who went way over the top in his war with the Turks, and committed terrible attrocities no Christian should ever engage in, Vlad Dracul, while commonly translated in the West as “Vlad the Dragon” actually means, according to the Romanian Orthodox Christians I know, “Vlad the Devil.” And dragons were historically associated with the devil and the demons, and fantasy which glamorizes them such as Game of Thrones should not be embraced in a manner which has any positive regard for the demons.

Rather, ancient legends where a dragon is slayed by the hero, symbolizing overcoming the temptations and deceptions of the devil, are much better; I particularly like the legend of St. George slaying the dragon, as it symbolizes his real world struggle, for he was in reality an officer in the Roman Empire who embraced our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and was martyred, but in so doing overcame the devil.

The main reason why I object to the anachronistic over-use of Lucifer is likewise because of those early Christian martyrs who had that name. I did once even post a thread about this issue.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

That’s historically inaccurate, because the New Testament was written in Greek, our Lord spoke Aramaic, and the ancient prophecies you refer to were written in Aramaic in the case of Daniel and primarily Hebrew in the case of Ezekiel and Isaiah,, and refer if read literally to the Morning Star. They clearly do apply to the devil, but the word Lucifer specifically is a Latin name meaning “bringer of light”, and several early Christian martyrs, as well as the 4th century Bishop of Cagliari, had that name.

So while it is true that the verses in question refer to the devil, typologically,,it would be anachronistic to say that the word Lucifer only means that, because the words in those verses as originally written in Hebrew, and what Jesus Christ said in Aramaic, and the Greek original text of the New Testament and the Greek translation of the New Testament known as the Septuagint refer to the Morning Star, and it would make no sense for them to say “Lucifer” since that word is simply a Latin translation of the above, but the first Latin bible, the Vetus Latina, was not translated until the mid 2nd century, and in that same century Christians with the name Lucifer who hated the devil were put to death by the diabolical Pagan regime that ruled over the Roman Empire at the time, and won a crown of martyrdom in the process.

That being said, since the word Lucifer has developed a strong association with the devil, we should obviously no longer use it as a name for Christians.

But for that matter, many Christians are into fantasy that depicts dragons in a positive light, unaware of the fact that the word Dragon usually meant devil in various ancient languages. Indeed the name of Vlad the Impaler, the Romanian nobleman who went way over the top in his war with the Turks, and committed terrible attrocities no Christian should ever engage in, Vlad Dracul, while commonly translated in the West as “Vlad the Dragon” actually means, according to the Romanian Orthodox Christians I know, “Vlad the Devil.” And dragons were historically associated with the devil and the demons, and fantasy which glamorizes them such as Game of Thrones should not be embraced in a manner which has any positive regard for the demons.

Rather, ancient legends where a dragon is slayed by the hero, symbolizing overcoming the temptations and deceptions of the devil, are much better; I particularly like the legend of St. George slaying the dragon, as it symbolizes his real world struggle, for he was in reality an officer in the Roman Empire who embraced our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and was martyred, but in so doing overcame the devil.

The main reason why I object to the anachronistic over-use of Lucifer is likewise because of those early Christian martyrs who had that name. I did once even post a thread about this issue.

there is only one usage of the name lucifer in the bible and it designates a fallen angel.

 

[The Liturgist]

there is only one usage of the name lucifer in the bible and it designates a fallen angel.

My point word is not in the original text, nor would it be, since it is Latin.. that have been translated in part from, or with reference to, the Latin Vulgate, such as the KJV.

If you look at the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew and Aramaic original of Isaiah 14:12, and also newer, more accurate translations, the word you will find is “Morning Star” or “Daystar,” and the passage is literally speaking of the King of Babylon, but prophetically and typologically, since the Bible associates Babylon with the devil, it is clearly referring to Satan.

But the use of the word “Lucifer” in the passage was, in retrospect, an unfortunate choice by St. Jerome in translating the scripture, since it has resulted in it becoming extremely difficult for Christians to venerate the martyrs of the early Church who had that name, and also causes confusion, as pointed out by my pious friend @jas3 in 2 Peter 1:19 - the devil pretends to be an Angel of Light but actually isn’t - he does not bear light, the literal meaning of the Latin word “Lucifer”, but darkness. Tenebrifer or Nocifer would be more apros pos, but the point of that pericope is that it is showing us how the devil tries to pass himself off as being good, virtuous and luminescent.

 

[The Liturgist]

So far this bad pope has not made any of his personal opinions things that I have to assent to. I am keenly aware that he could try that and expect my assent but we will cross that bridge when it comes. For now it seems that the Holy Spirit is restraining him.

Unfortunately it did not stop him from repealing Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum, nor from promulgating the deeply problematic Amoris Laetitia, and also signing the extremely problematic Fiducia Supplicans, which led to a bishop in Kentucky blessing a sodomite couple, before clarifying guidance could be issued.

By the way, this incident is not the first time Pope Francis has made remarks that are uncomfortable for pious Roman Catholics like yourself and allies of the RCC like me. I recall LutheranSatire doing a piece on this tendency not long after his inauguration. @MarkRohfrietsch probably can recall which one.

If I recall, Pope St. John Paul II prohibited this kind of thought with Domine Iesus.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Unfortunately it did not stop him from repealing Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum, nor from promulgating the deeply problematic Amoris Laetitia, and also signing the extremely problematic Fiducia Supplicans, which led to a bishop in Kentucky blessing a sodomite couple, before clarifying guidance could be issued.

By the way, this incident is not the first time Pope Francis has made remarks that are uncomfortable for pious Roman Catholics like yourself and allies of the RCC like me. I recall LutheranSatire doing a piece on this tendency not long after his inauguration. @MarkRohfrietsch probably can recall which one.

If I recall, Pope St. John Paul II prohibited this kind of thought with Domine Iesus.

The video is named, I think, 'Frank the Hippie Pope' and it seemed right on. Still seems right on. He seems to be so poorly catechized in the faith, and should never have been considered for the job he has.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

there is only one usage of the name lucifer in the bible and it designates a fallen angel.

Really?

Best check the passage that uses it and see who it is about.

 

[The Liturgist]

The video is named, I think, 'Frank the Hippie Pope' and it seemed right on. Still seems right on. He seems to be so poorly catechized in the faith, and should never have been considered for the job he has.

Indeed. That being said I am deeply disappointed that someone accused the RCC of devil worship, when they have no understanding of the Paschal Vigil, either in terms of its hymns, prayers and rubrics, or the interesting history going back to Pope St. Gregory I Diologos, who is highly venerated by the Eastern Orthodox and who wrote the Presanctified Liturgy used by both churches until Pope Pius XII modified it in the 1950s. Also, like the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, the Paschal Vigil was celebrated in the morning, with a large number of prophetic Old Testament lessons which were read while catechumens were baptized.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Indeed. That being said I am deeply disappointed that someone accused the RCC of devil worship, when they have no understanding of the Paschal Vigil, either in terms of its hymns, prayers and rubrics, or the interesting history going back to Pope St. Gregory I Diologos, who is highly venerated by the Eastern Orthodox and who wrote the Presanctified Liturgy used by both churches until Pope Pius XII modified it in the 1950s. Also, like the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, the Paschal Vigil was celebrated in the morning, with a large number of prophetic Old Testament lessons which were read while catechumens were baptized.

There was a rather demented priest in Louisiana a few years ago who got himself caught up in some satanic worship in his church late one night. He was discovered, defrocked, and the church had to be reconsecrated after the bishop had that desecrated altar destroyed. If we were all about devil worship that priest would have been put in charge of a basilica somewhere.

 

[The Liturgist]

There was a rather demented priest in Louisiana a few years ago who got himself caught up in some satanic worship in his church late one night.

Odd you should mention that - a few years before I was born, a horror film seeking to capture audiences who had enjoyed The Exorcist or Rosemary’s Baby rented the UMC church in which I was baptized, and when the parishioners found out what had transpired during the filming, they were outraged, and there was some kind of liturgy involving reconsecrating the nave and apse and so forth which had been desecrated.

The canon laws of the Assyrian Church of the East are unusually strict about their altars, in that if the celebrant makes certain liturgical mistakes, like accidentally putting oil in the chalice instead of wine, or if his bare foot touches the floor, for example if his sandal falls off while he is doing maintenance on the ladder, these acts cause the altar to be considered desecrated and require the priest to send for a bishop to reconsecrate it. I don’t know of any other denomination where an altar can be as easily desecrated through a mere accident according to the canons of that church.

 

[JSRG]

there is only one usage of the name lucifer in the bible and it designates a fallen angel.

This is false (or at a minimum highly misleading), and it has been pointed out to you by multiple people this is false (e.g. here and here). It is highly problematic you keep mindlessly repeating this despite people showing the major problems with your claim.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Unfortunately it did not stop him from repealing Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum, nor from promulgating the deeply problematic Amoris Laetitia, and also signing the extremely problematic Fiducia Supplicans, which led to a bishop in Kentucky blessing a sodomite couple, before clarifying guidance could be issued.

By the way, this incident is not the first time Pope Francis has made remarks that are uncomfortable for pious Roman Catholics like yourself and allies of the RCC like me. I recall LutheranSatire doing a piece on this tendency not long after his inauguration. @MarkRohfrietsch probably can recall which one.

If I recall, Pope St. John Paul II prohibited this kind of thought with Domine Iesus.

There were more than one. I got in a bit of hot water for posting them as they offended the sensibilities of those who are sensitive and humorless.