Humanities desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 5

Songs about Lucifer in Latin during Mass

There are a lot of videos circulating about the Catholic Church allegedly singing songs worshipping Lucifer during various ceremonies such as canonization and Easter Vigil. What is the correct translation of these songs, and what is implied? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a not native speaker of English, years long when my radio set fixed to AFN instead of the Norddeutscher Rundfunk, all I mostly got between any pair of two country-music songs was always "Marijuanaschreeweekschreeescree, marijuana shrriiii and so on. German is almost easier to understand. Listening to the BBC hat you get is "whaps woe, whaps woe, woap?". --Askedonty (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? I've never encountered them. I general, I would suspect the interpretation to be a hoax, or a form of uninformed Anti-catholicism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: I'm not sure if they are hoaxes, but they are easy to find using search engines and typing a few key words like "Lucifer worship in Vatican" and there are YouTube videos in which such songs are apparently sung loud and clear. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "moon landing faked" you find a bunch of stuff too. People claim all kinds of things. But as Nanonic notes, 'lucifer' means 'morning star', and is used in that sense in the Exsultet. I speak decent Latin and own a Latin missal; I hope I don't need to tell you this, but for the avoidance of doubt: there is no Satan-worship whatever in the Latin Mass. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Exsultet and the article Lucifer which comments on 'morning star'. Nanonic (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Catholic myself I wonder why the Latin word sometimes means both things and yet sometimes is completely irrelevant to the devil. When should the distinction be made, and how should I distinguish between the two meanings depending on context? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in the article Lucifer. Go ahead. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's when they start invoking Beelzebub that there might be a problem. Nothing wrong with exalting the light. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't think somebody already linked Paschal candle, I'd have put that where I put the matches. Much clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In protestant churches, if they are of a high church and liturgical sort,(Anglican or some Lutheran) the Latin term "crucifer" is used for the person who carries a cross, from the Latin words for cross and bearer, "thurifer" is the person who carries the thurible with incense, and the "lucifer" carries the candle or taper to light the candles. The latter is sometimes bowdlerized to "torchbearer" or the Greek "acolyte" to avoid frightening the dimwits who might hear "lucifer" and think the kid with the candle is the Devil. One pastor joked that the person carrying the communion wine should be called the "jucifer."Edison (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember having heard the remark about the flame bearer. There was no question of a joke however, just a short whisper about the fact. --Askedonty (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the usage of being smart back then, neither of holding postures. Backward in the country, everything unsure deserved being observed with its amount superstitious candor, if the incense perceptible or enough of yellow moss on the battered and greyish stone. --Askedonty (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of "Lucifer" may prove illuminating.[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lucifer&searchmode=none ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sardinian Archbishops were weighing the pros and cons of an official Saint Lucifer when the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition "imposed silence" on them. Apparently, that was that. For the night is dark and full of censers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satan has been raging 'gainst the dying of the light for a lot longer than that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And long before him, Azor Ahai stood against the darkness. Or maybe it was Atar. Whatever it was, it was always burning since the world's been turning. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there would never be a case of two persons and/or places and/or concepts from the bible with the same name. Like, there has only ever been one Mary in the bible, and one Joseph, and one Salome and one Place called Antioch and so on ever mentioned in Religion or the Bible, and therefor all uses of those names refer to just a single person, place, or concept. Or maybe, they don't, because names are repeated and used by different people. --Jayron 32 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's like "Mick" says in "Sympathy for the Devil". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that Lucifer goes into detail about the term, which is basically a metaphor applied to a king of Babylon, and thence extracted to create a sort of metaphor about Satan. Given that it was simply a name for the morning star (not even 'Lucifer', except in translation) I doubt those present at the first reading would have been surprised to see it applied to various things. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

d. aft

What does d. aft. mean? As in this page: Philibert de Chandée, 1st Earl of Bath

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:FA00:6:10:F838:34A8:DBB7:B549 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means "died after". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the silly abbreviation to its own demise. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "d.aft abbreviation"? Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really hate you for coming up with that. In my declining years, I'm not as sharp as I used to be. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the second reference on that page is completely worthless as a source, and the claim (which seems quite bogus) that is referenced to it ("He is an ancestor of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, through her father Bruce Shand') isn't even mentioned on the page. In fact, he isn't mentioned on that page!! - Nunh-huh 10:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at the Complete Peerage, and it states that nothing further is known of him. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone can trace a valid descent from him. (As the surname would seemingly have to pass in male line, and no male inherited his peerage, the claim seems additionally dubious.) I'll make the appropriate adjustments to the page. - Nunh-huh 10:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

41st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops

Can anybody help me find some detailed information about the 41st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops during the American Civil War? Were there any famous soldiers in this regiments? Who was the commander? What state was it from (Pennsylvania???)? What action besides the surrender at Appomattox Court House did this regiment see during the war?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start. The page says the data is from this book, which isn't available online but might be from a library. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pennsylvania volunteers, 1861-5 pp. 1066-1081.—eric 02:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. I think that is one of the more detailed sources about this regiment that I've seen.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short bio of Lewis L. Weld, the commanding officer, at Yale library[1]. Connecting places and dates, he might have been tried by the Kansas District Court for ("...with force and arms, towit, with a club, knife, pistol, and other hurtful weapons...") violating the Fugitive Slave Law.—eric

Wikipedia has an article for him apparently as well Lewis Ledyard Weld.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]