Jump to content

Talk:Lucifer of Cagliari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Banished... to Thebes

[edit]

Thebes, Greece, or Thebes, Egypt? –Hajor 02:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thebes, Egypt. Sorry for not having made that clear. My source, and this should answer the "disputed" as well, was The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1961 ed.) for details of the theological controversy, and a French (I will write more here when I go to where the book is to get its precise authors and date of imprimatur) Lives of the Saints. However, the status as saint was from a work with both a nihil obstat and imprimatur, so it's safe to assume that his status as saint was granted, at least to VCII. Whether he has been reexamined since then or not, I do not know, but I do know that he is little talked about, at least because of the sort of man he was as his name. I'm not generally one to make things up. Essentially, his beatification came from being a voice of orthodoxy. Opposing Julian the Apostate alone put him in a favorable position in church history. Geogre 19:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies necessary, thanks for the clarification. One of the regular tasks I've adopted here is going through the what-links-here list for Thebes every so often -- great way of getting a load of classical-world related articles onto your watchlist. What was the "other article under a different name" referred to in your edit summary? –Hajor 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found and specified the source for the "saint" title for the figure. There is still, though, a really active question of whether this fellow has been reviewed and demoted post VC2. It's possible, although usually the demotions have taken place for the legendary saints (Christopher, e.g.) and not the polemicists. I wrote this article long ago, when I was on a "saint a day" campaign. During that, I found quite a few saints who were really no more than controversialists, and some of them quite...well, political...so there's no accounting for when and whether the canonization takes place. The other article is Lucifer Calaritanus. I need to look into which should merge where. No biggie if "my" article is totally obliterated by that one, if it's better. Geogre 15:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not the last word on the canonization

[edit]

The two articles have been merged, as the Lucifer Calitanus article had less in it than Saint Lucifer. However, that article, which did not specify its sources, had an interesting line about 19th century misunderstandings of "Luciferians" and a subsequent scandal about the saint. That has been incorporated into a new final paragraph in Saint Lucifer. Despite finding few sources for a specific canonization of Lucifer, there are fewer yet for the re-evaluation or demotion of him. Consequently, the 1951 Omer Englebert's Lives must be taken as documentary evidence, as it was submitted, reviewed, and accepted by censors. It's the best we can do for now. Any evidence of reevaluation or demotion would be welcome, however. Geogre 17:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the inherent oddity of combining Saint and Lucifer, this individual seems an unlikely person to be a saint. Not that there aren't many with even worse qualifications, but this guy caused a (minor) schism and was on the losing and minority end of it, something even the church could hardly endorse. According to John Henry Blunt's Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought [1] (page 263): "The Church of Cagliari celebrated the feast of a Saint Lucifer on the 20th of May. Two Archbishops of Sardinia wrote for and against the sanctity of Lucifer. The Congregation of the Inquisition imposed silence on both parties, and decreed that the veneration of Lucifer should stand as it was. The Bollandists defend this decree of the Congregation ... contending that the Lucifer in question is not the author of the schism, but another Lucifer who suffered martyrdom in the persecution of the Vandals." Written in 1874, but it still sounds reasonable to me. Lets move the article back to the uncontroversial Lucifer Calitanus (for which we need an administrator's help). Other language wikipedia articles have him under that title and I don't think anyone could be insulted by it. Afasmit (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved to Lucifer of Cagliari. @harej 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Saint Lucifer → Lucifer Calaritanus — This article should never have been moved/created under that controversial title, because the status as a saint or the identity of the saint with the schismatic is controversial. However, Lucifer Calaritanus is an uncontroversial title, which also is better in disambiguating the bishop from the satanic creature. See also what Afasmit wrote above. Str1977 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with that lemma too. Adding that request too. Str1977 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you oppose? Str1977 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this article, I presume, since that's what the proposal is. Jafeluv (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per what I wrote above. There are other Saints with at first sight bigger problems, like being completely fictional, but according to the Acta Sanctorum, written by above Bollandists, "Saint Lucifer" was someone else then Lucifer of Cagliari. We may want to have two (linked) entries. Afasmit (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there is too little substance for a separate article. However, the other Saint Lucifer may be covered in a section here and in a disambig page. Str1977 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After following the life / history of Saint Athanasius and viewing the main page here, I see the person in question was / had opposition to Arian position and was exiled for it by the Emperor Constantine II. I have never come across this person before, even though I'v studied Saint Athanasius. I would have to study further. I would want to know was he present at The Council of Sardica? So, at this stage I would have to decline comment until I had the chance to study. I also see that he said to Constantine II that he was willing to die for his faith. (An important step even today for Canonization). But then the Church imposed silence on opposite opinions. Then, too, there is confusion over mis-identity. Therefore, at this stage, I would have to decline a vote.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Saint/s" was used in the early Church to refer to The People of God, The Church themselves. Later it became to be used more specifically for indaviduals, and as a previous person has just said, it was'nt used more qualified than that. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lucifer's Name

[edit]

It is telling that this bishop had this name. The only logical conclusion would be that "Lucifer" - which stands for "the morning star" - was not related to the devil. What father would name his son after the devil? The Lucifer entry in the Wikipedia is clear enough on this topic. --CalaClii (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2 Peter 1:19 in The Latin Vulgate Version, the word "Lucifer" was used to refer to Christ. In English versions, the word "Lucifer" was taken out and was replaced with "Day Star" (KJV) and "Morning Star" (NIV). Many people do not know that Lucifer is use to reference Christ, even in the Latin Easter Prayer ("The Exsultet"), the word "Lucifer" is used to reference Christ. Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Butler's account 1860

[edit]

Lucifer of Cagliari, is mentioned as a one of the Bishops that refused permission for the repentant Arian Bishops to return to their Sees..... Saint Athanasius of Alexandria recommended that they should be admitted back, those of severe penitents. 359 - 362. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Advent, Saint Jerome

[edit]

In the account here below quoted....... we see a very resistance to the repentant Bishops wishing to return to the Orthodox Faith.....

"His "Dialogue" against the Luciferians deals with a schismatic sect whose founder was Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. The Luciferians refused to approve of the measure of clemency by which the Church, since the Council of Alexandria, in 362, had allowed bishops, who had adhered to Arianism, to continue to discharge their duties on condition of professing the Nicene Creed. This rigorist sect had adherents almost everywhere, and even in Rome it was very troublesome. Against it Jerome wrote his "Dialogue", scathing in sarcasm, but not always accurate in doctrine, particularly as to the Sacrament of Confirmation."

This would confirm what Alban Butler was saying above.... MacOfJesus (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The external link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm


MacOfJesus (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new section in the Article Page citing these reports would be a must....... MacOfJesus (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to condemn "the Luciferians", as the Arians proved to be capable of anything.... see the words of Pope Liberius to Emperor Canstantius in Milan in Article Page "Athanasius of Alexandria".... MacOfJesus (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lucifer of Cagliari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucifer_of_Cagliari&oldid=1207834690"