Yuck. Taylor Marshall ham-handed discussion on Malachi Martin

[TheReturnofLive]

TROL - The DRB was before the KJV, which largely copied the DRB despite the admonitions to the translators not to do so.

So... the light bearer of the heavens fell? That's still a point of singularity and raises the question as to who or what fell. Christ seems to answer this in Luke 10. And why do you feel the need to act like we don't know all this about the etymology of the name, anyway?

The whole point of my argument is the fact that the term "light bearer" doesn't refer to the identity of a specific angel or entity, rather it's a title of mockery used by Isaiah to mock King Nebuchadnezzar - and typology wise, Satan.


It's a title which Saint Peter uses to refer to Christ.

Go much further with this and you end up like the moronic Protestants saying Catholics worship Satan in the Holy Saturday liturgy...

Ezechiel 28:12-19: http://drbo.org/chapter/31028.htm
Isaiah 14:12-19: http://drbo.org/chapter/27014.htm
Luke 10:17-20: http://drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm

On the contrary, going by your own argument If that the term "Lucifer" only strictly refers to the name of a demon, and can't possibly refer to something more broad, you'll have to accept that the Vulgate Bible and Paschal Exsultet when it calls Christ "lucifer" in Latin as calling Christ "the devil," validating what the Protestants' claims that Catholics are devil worshipers.

[TheReturnofLive]

Saint Peter himself refers to Jesus Christ as the "Morning Star", and yes, in the Latin Vulgate, Jesus is called "Lucifer."

2 Peter 1:19

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

Douay Rheims:
"And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:"


And in fact, the Paschal Exsultet in Latin refers to Christ yet again as "Lucifer." If you've heard this in Latin, you probably never noticed it because of the way "lu-chi-fare" is pronounced in Church 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."

"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."

[Kreuzritter]

The Folger manuscript that contains a derivative of the lost work which forms the basis of the famous Ars Goetia explicitly references "Lucipher" as the head of that spiritual hierarchy.

A scan ofthe relevant page is here,

https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~368233~131369:Book-of-magic,-with-instructions-fo?qvq=q:V.b.26&mi=100&trs=290

though for the sake of scandal I do not suggest to anyone to follow it unless he doesn't have a problem looking a grimoire.

This "derivative" comes from 1577, according to the source you provided, well after the King James Bible was published.

But let's assume you're correct with the dates.

There's nothing to assume. Lucifer certainly appeared as such in the Liber Officium Spirituum as he appears in every text in its immediate lineage, from Weyer's Pseudomonarchia, to the Ars Goetia to the French Livre des esperitz , and that text not only predates the KJV but its tradition goes back much further. And he appears in the Hygromanteia manuscripts which are centuries older than the KJV, and the use of the "unholy trinity" of Lucifer, Beekzebub and Astaroth goes back to Byzantium. These are historical facts, and they will be familiar with anyone who actually knows somethign about the field of demonology and Western occult studies.

1. How is a Grimoire a legitimate part of Church Tradition? How can you trust it as a source for the "hierarchy of demons?"

Hey, you. Yes, you. You're just full of crap. I've not claimed it as a trusted source for any hierarchy. I've used it to demonstrate conclusively that the name "Lucifer" was in fact in use before the KJV even existed to refer to an angel who fell from Heaven and ruled over the demons of Hell. DEAL WITH IT.

2. Your own argument is contradictory, because this source claims that Beezelbub and Lucifer are the same entity, whereas your next source claims they aren't.

No it doesn't. The Folger manuscript, like all Medieval texts in the tradition of "Solomonic magic", place Beelzebub as Lucifer's second in command. But your point is irrelevant anyhow, having nothing to do with the fact that the name "Lucifer" was in fact in use before the KJV even existed to refer to an angel who fell from Heaven and ruled over the demons of Hell

The point of my argument is against the idea that "Lucifer" refers to the name of the one fallen demon "Satan," as the angel which tempted Adam and Eve or tempted Job, which it clearly didn't in the Bible, as can be seen from Isaiah, and which your argument doesn't prove.

And here you go AGAIN. My argument was to prove your claim that Lucifer can't be found in such a context in any text before the KJV is FALSE. It's FALSE. You were WRONG. GET OVER IT.

[Gardener]

TROL - The DRB was before the KJV, which largely copied the DRB despite the admonitions to the translators not to do so.

So... the light bearer of the heavens fell? That's still a point of singularity and raises the question as to who or what fell. Christ seems to answer this in Luke 10. And why do you feel the need to act like we don't know all this about the etymology of the name, anyway?

The whole point of my argument is the fact that the term "light bearer" doesn't refer to the identity of a specific angel or entity, rather it's a title of mockery used by Isaiah to mock King Nebuchadnezzar - and typology wise, Satan.


It's a title which Saint Peter uses to refer to Christ.

Go much further with this and you end up like the moronic Protestants saying Catholics worship Satan in the Holy Saturday liturgy...

Ezechiel 28:12-19: http://drbo.org/chapter/31028.htm
Isaiah 14:12-19: http://drbo.org/chapter/27014.htm
Luke 10:17-20: http://drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm

On the contrary, going by your own argument If that the term "Lucifer" only strictly refers to the name of a demon, and can't possibly refer to something more broad, you'll have to accept that the Vulgate Bible and Paschal Exsultet when it calls Christ "lucifer" in Latin as calling Christ "the devil," validating what the Protestants' claims that Catholics are devil worshipers.

I didn't claim what you are inferring as far as "only" referring to the devil. You seem to have missed I made the argument that it can be both since I specifically brought up the Holy Saturday liturgy where Christ is referred to as lucifer.

However, I'm at a loss as to what I could do to simplify such a simple reality that Lucifer, in context, seems to be Satan when one looks at the 3 scriptures I linked.

[King Wenceslas]

Spiritual Radical - Abraham Joshua Heschel in America by Edward K. Kaplan

page 243.

Less overtly, Shuster found other ways to obtain restricted information, and even copies of secret documents. He developed a clandestine source of information, a "mole" within Cardinal Bea's Secretariat. This secret agent was an Irish Jesuit, Malichi Martin, a voluble, larger-than-life figure variously referred to as "Forest," "Pushkin," and Heschel's "young friend" in Shuster's confidential reports and transcripts of transatlantic phone conversations. Martin, a highly educated Old Testament scholar at the Pontifical Institute in Rome, was sympathetic to the Jewish position.
....

With a mixture of motives, lofty and ignoble, Martin became close to Heschel and Shuster. He enjoyed their company immensely, especially when they vied with each other in telling jokes in Yiddish. Heschel felt close to Martin as well, confiding details of his childhood in Polant, the privations of his student years in Berlin, and his immigration to the United States. Martin primarily advised the AJC on theological issues, but he also provided logistical intelligence and copies of restricted documents.

So what sort of man was this Heschel whom Malachi enjoyed telling Yiddish jokes with?

From the same above book (written by a Jew) on pages 271 and 272:

Heschel then explained the strategy behind his reference to Auschwitz:  "[Christians] correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying 'you are Nazis,' it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths." This was the way Heschel confronted his adversaries. "There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today, there is occasion for conversation and discussion.

This is the type of people Martin hung out with and enjoyed Yiddish jokes with. Most condemn JPII but few allow any criticism of Martin. There is a lot of confirmation bias (accept that which supports your bias, reject anything that contradicts your bias) in the trad community today.

[TheReturnofLive]

The Folger manuscript that contains a derivative of the lost work which forms the basis of the famous Ars Goetia explicitly references "Lucipher" as the head of that spiritual hierarchy.

A scan ofthe relevant page is here,

https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~368233~131369:Book-of-magic,-with-instructions-fo?qvq=q:V.b.26&mi=100&trs=290

though for the sake of scandal I do not suggest to anyone to follow it unless he doesn't have a problem looking a grimoire.

This "derivative" comes from 1577, according to the source you provided, well after the King James Bible was published.

But let's assume you're correct with the dates.

There's nothing to assume. Lucifer certainly appeared as such in the Liber Officium Spirituum as he appears in every text in its immediate lineage, from Weyer's Pseudomonarchia, to the Ars Goetia to the French Livre des esperitz , and that text not only predates the KJV but its tradition goes back much further. And he appears in the Hygromanteia manuscripts which are centuries older than the KJV, and the use of the "unholy trinity" of Lucifer, Beekzebub and Astaroth goes back to Byzantium. These are historical facts, and they will be familiar with anyone who actually knows somethign about the field of demonology and Western occult studies.

1. How is a Grimoire a legitimate part of Church Tradition? How can you trust it as a source for the "hierarchy of demons?"

Hey, you. Yes, you. You're just full of crap. I've not claimed it as a trusted source for any hierarchy. I've used it to demonstrate conclusively that the name "Lucifer" was in fact in use before the KJV even existed to refer to an angel who fell from Heaven and ruled over the demons of Hell. DEAL WITH IT.

2. Your own argument is contradictory, because this source claims that Beezelbub and Lucifer are the same entity, whereas your next source claims they aren't.

No it doesn't. The Folger manuscript, like all Medieval texts in the tradition of "Solomonic magic", place Beelzebub as Lucifer's second in command. But your point is irrelevant anyhow, having nothing to do with the fact that the name "Lucifer" was in fact in use before the KJV even existed to refer to an angel who fell from Heaven and ruled over the demons of Hell

The point of my argument is against the idea that "Lucifer" refers to the name of the one fallen demon "Satan," as the angel which tempted Adam and Eve or tempted Job, which it clearly didn't in the Bible, as can be seen from Isaiah, and which your argument doesn't prove.

And here you go AGAIN. My argument was to prove your claim that Lucifer can't be found in such a context in any text before the KJV is FALSE. It's FALSE. You were WRONG. GET OVER IT.

Okay, whatever, you win.

[TheReturnofLive]

TROL - The DRB was before the KJV, which largely copied the DRB despite the admonitions to the translators not to do so.

So... the light bearer of the heavens fell? That's still a point of singularity and raises the question as to who or what fell. Christ seems to answer this in Luke 10. And why do you feel the need to act like we don't know all this about the etymology of the name, anyway?

The whole point of my argument is the fact that the term "light bearer" doesn't refer to the identity of a specific angel or entity, rather it's a title of mockery used by Isaiah to mock King Nebuchadnezzar - and typology wise, Satan.


It's a title which Saint Peter uses to refer to Christ.

Go much further with this and you end up like the moronic Protestants saying Catholics worship Satan in the Holy Saturday liturgy...

Ezechiel 28:12-19: http://drbo.org/chapter/31028.htm
Isaiah 14:12-19: http://drbo.org/chapter/27014.htm
Luke 10:17-20: http://drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm

On the contrary, going by your own argument If that the term "Lucifer" only strictly refers to the name of a demon, and can't possibly refer to something more broad, you'll have to accept that the Vulgate Bible and Paschal Exsultet when it calls Christ "lucifer" in Latin as calling Christ "the devil," validating what the Protestants' claims that Catholics are devil worshipers.

I didn't claim what you are inferring as far as "only" referring to the devil. You seem to have missed I made the argument that it can be both since I specifically brought up the Holy Saturday liturgy where Christ is referred to as lucifer.

However, I'm at a loss as to what I could do to simplify such a simple reality that Lucifer, in context, seems to be Satan when one looks at the 3 scriptures I linked.

Is Satan also called "The King of Tyre?"

[Geremia]

Is this the same guy who destroyed the traditional Catholic college and home school program in Texas?

I thought that was the local Novus Ordo bishop.

[Maximilian]

Is this the same guy who destroyed the traditional Catholic college and home school program in Texas?

I thought that was the local Novus Ordo bishop.

At the instigation of Taylor Marshall.

[Lynne]

Is this the same guy who destroyed the traditional Catholic college and home school program in Texas?

I thought that was the local Novus Ordo bishop.

At the instigation of Taylor Marshall.

who was the Chancellor of the school...

[Daniel]

I'm not up to date on the old news... why did Taylor Marshall destroy the traditional College and homeschool program in Texas?

[Geremia]

I'm not up to date on the old news... why did Taylor Marshall destroy the traditional College and homeschool program in Texas?

I don't know if he did, but there was a dispute regarding finances. The president (who had a degree in finance) ran a very tight ship and did not want students to get into debt, and some of the faculty thought they were not being paid enough.

[Kaesekopf]

He once kvetched that they brought in an SSPX priest to say Mass once, right?

He was woefully uneducated on the basics of tradition (even going so far as to not understand the basics between the NO/TLM).

[mikemac]

I'm not up to date on the old news... why did Taylor Marshall destroy the traditional College and homeschool program in Texas?

There is a Sept. 2014 SD thread that explains it here.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8606.0

There's also this article at akaCatholic.
https://akacatholic.com/taylor-marshall-weighs-in-on-fmc/

Whether Marshal's institute was suppose to be equivalent to Fisher More College or not it was still a very sleazy trick for him to start an institute after going out of his way to do damage to FMC.

I must have missed all of this back in 2014.  This definitely gives me a different opinion of Marshal now.

[mikemac]

He once kvetched that they brought in an SSPX priest to say Mass once, right?

He was woefully uneducated on the basics of tradition (even going so far as to not understand the basics between the NO/TLM).

I think it was Father Gruner that said the TLM at FMC, rather than an SSPX priest.  It shouldn't have mattered either way.