In the Catholic Church, during Easter Vigil Masses, a Deacon chants the "Exsultet" hymn before the pascal candle, and it goes below:

=========Latin===============
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.


=======English==========

Flames of the morning star;
O Man, I say, that daystar who does not know the going down thereof.
CHRIST IS YOUR SON,
who, went back from the grave, his peaceful light on all mankind,
it liveth and reigneth for ever and ever.

------------------------------------------------------------

I later learnt that "lúcifer" in latin means "Morning Star", it also means Venus when it is rising just before dawn. But wait, 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.


In Rev 22:16 (NIV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." .

Moreso, in Isa 14:12-15 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O 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 heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

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 i.e. is Jesus and Satan both the morning star?


That brought me to a juncture of these extremes:

1. If Jesus is the morning star, does the hymn refer to Christ as Jesus' son? (.....CHRIST IS YOUR SON) i.e. Jesus is his own father or Jesus is his own son.

or

2. If the lucifer is Satan, are the Catholics saying that SATAN is Jesus' father? (....CHRIST IS YOUR SON)

or

3. If the lucifer is the rising planet Venus (...who does not know the going down, thereof), does that mean that Jesus is Venus' son (...CHRIST IS YOUR SON)



Here are youtube videos about what am talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUN-XEU6HUc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jc61xBfcGI




Please, am not in anyway prejudiced towards Catholics, because I am also a catholic. I'm really confused here, and I need clarifications. Awaiting matured replies.

my bro if u ask me who i go ask..
i am a roman catholic(an alter boy)
but i never for think of the meaning.


BUT ESTHER IS MY BEST SEASON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Mologi:
my bro if u ask me who i go ask..
i am a roman catholic(an alter boy)
but i never for think of the meaning.


BUT ESTHER IS MY BEST SEASON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

infact am d president of altar boys of my parish

Can sum1 pls tel me hw to post on nairaland.. pls n pls..

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bros, i dey your back, i dey come

If I understood your question very well, my answer is a resounding NO.
It is neither saying Jesus is the son of Jesus nor is it saying Jesus is the son of Lucifer, it is rather say Jesus is the son of man.

If you noticed, the second line starts with "O Man" and don't forget that severally in the scriptures, even Jesus Christ referred to himself as "The Son of man"

Having this in mind, you may want to read again from "O man" to "Christ is you son"

I believe that line was saying "Man doesn't know his fate or the way to go, more like he doesn't know/is incapable of saving himself" yet Christ became the son of man in order to die and redeem man.

And about "Morning Star" being lucifer or Christ, it is interesting and funny enough can be interpreted to mean a handful of things, but the truth is, it is just a title and can be taken up by anyone, to me I doesn't really mean much, but if you insist on laying much emphasis on it, then take it as...this is a title lucifer bore but he failed and lost it, Christ took it up when he sacrificed himself to right the wrongs of lucifer by redeeming with his blood, the man Lucifer led astray.

SalC:
If I understood your question very well, my answer is a resounding NO.
It is neither saying Jesus is the son of Jesus nor is it saying Jesus is the son of Lucifer, it is rather say Jesus is the son of man.

If you noticed, the second line starts with "O Man" and don't forget that severally in the scriptures, even Jesus Christ referred to himself as "The Son of man"

Having this in mind, you may want to read again from "O man" to "Christ is you son"

I believe that line was saying "Man doesn't know his fate or the way to go, more like he doesn't know/is incapable of saving himself" yet Christ became the son of man in order to die and redeem man.

And about "Morning Star" being lucifer or Christ, it is interesting and funny enough can be interpreted to mean a handful of things, but the truth is, it is just a title and can be taken up by anyone, to me I doesn't really mean much, but if you insist on laying much emphasis on it, then take it as...this is a title lucifer bore but he failed and lost it, Christ took it up when he sacrificed himself to right the wrongs of lucifer by redeeming with his blood, the man Lucifer led astray.

it reads:
o man, i say, lucifer who knows no setting, Christ is your son.

so i dont tink its referring to Christ as d son of man

This is the closing part of the Exsultet as found on Wikipedia (Latin and English). Read it and tell me what is wrong with that.

Altar Boy, pay little attention to the enemies of the Church who are prowling day and night looking for a way to entrap the Church with its statements and practises....just as Jesus' enemies did.

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.

R/ Amen.

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

italo:
This is the closing part of the Exsultet as found on Wikipedia (Latin and English). Read it and tell me what is wrong with that.

Altar Boy, pay little attention to the enemies of the Church who are prowling day and night looking for a way to entrap the Church with its statements and practises....just as Jesus' enemies did.

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.

R/ Amen.

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

Okay then, which Lucifer (a.k.a Morning Star) are they referring to precisely; and who is whose son?

ekoson95:


Okay then, which Lucifer (a.k.a Morning Star) are they referring to precisely; and who is whose son?

So After All Those Things Italo Posted U Are Stil Nt Satified.
Ok Oh!

Mornin Star=jesus Is The Son Of
The LORD(God The Father)

OR Betta Stil Let Him Cum Nd Xplain By Him Self(bt I Dnt C Any Tin Dat Nid Any Futher Xplanation)

ekoson95:


Okay then, which Lucifer (a.k.a Morning Star) are they referring to precisely; and who is whose son?

Jesus is THE morning star (rev 22:16), he is the morning star that will never set, he is the one who brought us life, the son of the father.

That part of the exultet is addressed to the father, it says

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


do you get it now?

ekoson95:


it reads:
o man, i say, lucifer who knows no setting, Christ is your son.

so i dont tink its referring to Christ as d son of man

your translation is incorrect, the phrase "o man" isn't even there, in latin, "o man" is "o homo". As you can see that isn't in the latin.

Somebody mistranslated it to cause confusion.



As italo wrote, this is more correct.
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

Matthew 6:7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I'm always skeptic about this repetitive prayers.
Especial when they are not in English.
I don't want to end up worshipping Lucifer ignorantly and thereby losing my soul at the end.
I prefer to rely on the spirit of truth whom Jesus promised to teach me all things "The Holy Spirit"

Trailblazer1:
Matthew 6:7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I'm always skeptic about this repetitive prayers.
Especial when they are not in English.
I don't want to end up worshipping Lucifer ignorantly and thereby losing my soul at the end.
I prefer to rely on the spirit of truth whom Jesus promised to teach me all things "The Holy Spirit"

if you know nothing about the topic in question then keep quiet and read siliently. It isn't funny when you post off point.

I maintain my position on this issue.
Those recitations are not the Lords prayer taught by Jesus, neither are they biblical.

In the words of Jesus.
John 5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Please help yourself with the scripture and not a Pamphlet.

Your faith should be in consonance with the word of God and not based on church dogmas and doctrines.
If what is being practiced in my church is no where to be found in the scriptures, then, it is a man-made doctrine.

Acts 17:10-11  And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Please, be more noble and search the scriptures to see if your Exsultet and other practices are scriptural.

Trailblazer1:
Your faith should be in consonance with the word of God and not based on church dogmas and doctrines.
If what is being practiced in my church is no where to be found in the scriptures, then, it is a man-made doctrine.

Acts 17:10-11  And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Please, be more noble and search the scriptures to see if your Exsultet and other practices are scriptural.

Do you know that "salvation belongs to the Gentiles as well" is a teaching by St. Peter? In fact it is one of the first dogmas of the church. Do you know it does not exist in the Gospels?
Without that dogma you would not even be a Christian.
If you were one of the early Christians (all Jews),will you have opposed peter for teaching that the gentiles have access to salvation since Christ did not teach that explicitly?
Or in reference to the woman did Christ not call gentiles dogs? Matt: 15,26.
And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

This is the problem with sola scriptura, it elevates the independent human interpretation of scripture above the Church, leading to division.

I don't know how you got your knowledge about the first dogma of the church? Maybe from your bulletins. The Gospels and the Epistle of St. Peter are part of the scriptures.

My point is that you should search the scriptures. Genesis to Revelation and allow God to speak to you through His Word.

You usually undermine the efficacy of the Word of God and instead substitute it for your bulletins.
Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

Trailblazer1:
I don't know how you got your knowledge about the first dogma of the church? Maybe from your bulletins. The Gospels and the Epistle of St. Peter are part of the scriptures.

My point is that you should search the scriptures. Genesis to Revelation and allow God to speak to you through His Word.

You usually undermine the efficacy of the Word of Go The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”d and instead substitute it for your bulletins.
Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

I am guessing you are talking about the acts of the apostles. Well,they were not part of scripture for those early Christians that LIVED it.So the question.Should they,the early Christians (all jews) have accepted a radical,ground shifting teaching that came from St.peter which was not in THEIR scripture nor taught by the Christ but rather a proclamation of Peter?
Do not forget,peter was condemned for baptising cornelius the centurion(Gentile).

Acts 11
The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

What you consider as scriptural and true today,was considered as anathema and unscriptural in peters' time.

Note that Peters' response was not based on scripture,but on a vision and experience as head of Gods' church.

Acts 11:4
Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7 Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

8 “I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’

9 “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10 This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

11 “Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. 12 The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’

15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with[a] water, but you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”.......

The church accepted what we now call scripture based not on scripture but Peters' authority as Head of the Church.

...."18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

The ignoramus doesn't realize that even Peter never saw the book of Revelations. It was not part of his scriptures.

Ubenedictus:


Jesus is THE morning star (rev 22:16), he is the morning star that will never set, he is the one who brought us life, the son of the father.

That part of the exultet is addressed to the father, it says

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


do you get it now?

Ah! Thank you, the picture is getting clearer