The antiphons sung at Saint-Lazare on the feast of the Presentation/Purification in conjunction with the blessing of the candles emphasize the theme of vision and light, drawing on Simeon’s proclamation that Christ is the “Light to illuminate the Gentiles” to signal the mediation of the purified physical senses in facilitating spiritual seeing and entry into the heavenly Jerusalem:

May the [faithful people] rejoice not only on account of the exterior light, but also the expulsion of blindness from the heart. Just as the light illuminates that which it grasps in the shadows, may it by no means stray from the pathway of truth. . . . May you [God] thus fill us with the light of your brightness so that the shadows of all infidelities may be repelled from us. And just as today, you sent away your servant, thus may you find us worthy to manage in the peace of your holy church, so that we might be worthy to enter the portal of repose. In the day of the judgment of the just, may we be worthy [to enter] in the place where the rays of true light with the hymns of the chorus of angels are poured out, [and] to see the face of the invincible Sun, the same Jesus Christ our Lord.61

Thank you, Trad123, for bringing sanity (and more evidence) to this discussion.

More rash judging…… This is absolutely preposterous! What you are really saying is that we have to accept Vigano’s sincerity without hesitation or question!

Garbage.  I said quite clearly that no one says you have to like him or "trust" him.  What I'm objecting to is the garbage slanderous charges that are being made to support and justify a prior dislike of him for other reasons.

I criticized him for being too soft on Ratzinger after he had died.  He's not beyond criticism.  But he is beyond having to be subjected to slanderous trash such as that which Miser in particular keeps hurling at him.

You don't have to consider him sincere without hesitation, but you also don't have the right to call him a gnostic Masonic pagan sun-worshipping Luciferian Satanist based on total garbage.

So what you present is your typical false dilemma or false dichotomy.  Not having the right to slander him with crap is not the same as having to accept him as sincere "without hesitation".

Finally, charity does require assuming that he's sincere unless there's actual real (not fabricated crap) evidence brought to bear and/or there's potential harm to you or to the Church someone from what he's doing.  No one has provided a shred of actual evidence, just insinuations, implications, and outright slanders ... nor has anyone ever demonstrated the cui bono that's required for any conspiracy theory.

So, if +Vigano is some kind of agent, what's he up to?  What's he trying to do?  Until you can come up with something even remotely plausible, there's no justification for you to attack him and make insinuations about him and even to publicly doubt his sincerity in a public forum.  What you do in your mind is your own business between you and God.  But when you start questioning him in public, you're also doing damage to his reputation, and impeding whatever good may be coming of his activities.

These posts here are no different than if you were to take a priest who was otherwise of good reputation and then begin to publicly insinuate that he's a pedophile because someone found a picture of him and Father Urrutigoity together.  This is precisely what you're doing and it's a form of calumny, which has approached grave matter.

I'll say it again, the devil has no right to that title.

Just as our Lady is the true Morning Star, our Lord is the true Sol Invictus.

I'll say it again, the devil has no right to that title.

Just as our Lady is the true Morning Star, our Lord is the true Sol Invictus.

Correct.  And, if some Satanist decided to falsely appropriate it, the burden of proof is still on the accusers to demonstrate that it's how +Vigano was using it.  I'm pretty sure that Satanists also invoke Satan as "Lord" and "Master" and so anyone now who refers to Christ as Lord and Master should be accused of Satanism, right?

The Chants of the Vatican Gradual

Dom Dominic Johner

Published in 1940



Nihil obstat and Imprimatur is listed after the title page

https://archive.org/details/chantsofvaticang00john/page/n7/mode/2up



Page 54


https://archive.org/details/chantsofvaticang00john/page/54/mode/2up





Sol Invictus

OK, *this* is what I wanted to see.  It appears finding it was like searching for a needle in a haystack.  Because of that fact, I think it was a fair question to ask and worth investigating (even if others took issue with it). Thankyou trad123 for finding it.

I never once called him a Mason nor anything else.

  You repeatedly implied he was a satanist by saying "the Church has never used" the 'sol invictus' term (without any evidence) and then agreeing and supporting Miser's spam.

  You repeatedly implied he was a satanist by saying "the Church has never used" the 'sol invictus' term (without any evidence) and then agreeing and supporting Miser's spam.

This is garbage and you owe Vermont an apology.

This is garbage and you owe Vermont an apology.

Nah, it just shows his true colors.