"When myths on sacred subjects are incongruous in thought, by that very fact they cry aloud, as it were, and summon us to not believe them literally, but to study and track down there hidden meaning." -Julius Evola Lucifer. Beelzebub. Satan. Devil. The name "Lucifer" calls to mind thoughts of malevolent intentions, prideful usurpation of heavenly rule, and rebellion against order. According to the modern Christian mythology relating to Lucifer, Lucifer was once the most beautiful of all the angelic, but rose in pride to rebel against God and take aim at destroying his divine rule. One third of the angels joined Lucifer in his rebellion, and a war in the heavens ensued. Being unable to achieve victory against God, Lucifer was struck down and cast out of the heavens, and fell to Earth where he still rages against the divine will of God. Today, we will examine the roots of this myth, and explore the ramifications of it in modern western society. The Latin name, "Lucifer" originates from the word "Lux" (meaning "light") and "ferre" (which means "to carry"), thus the word "Lucifer" means "light bringer". Interestingly enough, "Lucifer" shares the same root as the word "Lucid", meaning "bright", "clear". In the times of Greco-Roman civilizations, when man was still living in an era of the formation of myth, planets, stars, and all forces of nature were attributed to deities or deified heroes. "Lucifer" being the name of the planet Venus, was no different. Indeed, this form of thought can be rather useful, as to say a planet's name or the name of a force, carries through myth, an awareness of it's attributes and can provide a rudimentary scientific understanding to those who would otherwise be ignorant. Though attributes and understandings can be passed down this way, it can lead to a deification of nearly anything, such as it is with the concept of the three hundred thirty million Hindu gods. Cicero himself expressed skepticism of this trend when he wrote the following: "You say that Sol and Luna are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars as well." This sentiment Cicero so finely expressed, echoes down through the ages to now, where the ignorant still prescribe superstition to all things, as we will continue to see where Lucifer is concerned. In Greek mythology, Phosphorus (which is the Greek name for the wandering star Venus) is the son of Astraeus (a god associated with the winds) and Eos (Goddess of the Dawn); who is the sister of Sol and Luna (the sun and the moon). During the Venusian cycle around the sun, Venus shines brightly as the herald of the dawn for a time, which is where it derives the name, "The Morning Star". In other times during it's cycle around the sun, Venus is the first and brightest star seen in the evening, but is lost to sight as the night goes on, lending it the name, "the Evening Star". It was not until the sixth century BCE, that Pythagoras suggested that these stars were one and the same. In it's form as the evening star, as seen from the northern hemisphere, Venus (Phosphorus) outshines even Saturn (Cronus, leader of the primordial titans) and Jupiter (Zeus, the supreme god), and though it's rise may appear full of splendor and power, Phosphorus does not continue it's ascent into the night sky, but falls out of view. Perhaps this is the cosmological source of the myth of the most beautiful among the heavenly hosts, being cast down from the heavens for its rebellious nature, daring to outshine even the supreme god. Indeed, in Canaanite mythology, Venus is named Helel ben Shachar (meaning, "Shining one" and "Son of the Morning"). Canaanite myth tells of the mighty warrior Helel, who sets his sights on dethroning the Canaanite high god, El. Another Canaanite myth tells of the god Attar (also known as Ishtar in it's female form, or Astar in it's masculine form) attempting to take the throne of Ba'al, only to be cast down to rule the underworld. It is truly from these semitic myths that our modern Judeo-Christian mythology derives its current understanding of Lucifer; And as these myths were re-written to appeal to wider European audiences of the day, we come to the truth at the heart of the myth, in which a rebellious and evil people usurped and replaced the myths of the strong and just, thus reforming the very fabric of western culture through the forced injection of Canaanite mythology. Yet by the time of early European Christianity in the three hundreds AD, Lucifer, Phosphorus, Venus, was not yet associated with the Devil, and even Jesus Christ refers to himself as both, the morning star and the evening star. Each on separate occasions. Further still, in the writings of Augustine of Hippo (who lived from 354 to 430ad), we find no association between Lucifer and Evil. We will continue to not find this association until around 405ad. As Christianity was adopted across Europe (and in many cases forced on Europe under threat of torture and death), it became more clear by the day that the European political power structure would forever change as a result of the rise of this religion. Naturally, all those with a mind for power and control, plied their will to have a hand in the formation of a religion that would shape the minds and actions of these new Christians. Many sects were formed, giving rise to the establishment of an Orthodoxy who could identify heresies that would co-opt and subvert this religion to its own ends. One such heresy was known, as Arianism. Arianism (named for its originator, Arius of Alexandria, Egypt) taught that Jesus Christ was not indeed the divine co-eternal with God the Father, but is merely a creation of God. It taught that Christ was not Logos, as Logos is the inner attribute of God, but Christ merely resembled Logos and did not embody it. In creating this separation between God the Father and Christ (where Christ is birthed by God, rather than being the same essence of God) Arianism denied the Holy Trinity itself. As the Arianism heresy swept across Europe, many in the early clergy adopted these ideas and began to teach them to their parishioners. Being unable to access the written text of the Bible, those under the teachings of the heretical priests unknowingly internalized a uniquely rabbinical blasphemy.Something had to be done. In 325ad, The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine. This ecumenical council was the first of its kind, having the purpose of forming an Orthodoxy through the consensus of representatives from all of Christendom. Among the myriad of topics discussed, the teachings of Arianism were officially declared heretical. Out of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance, only two refused to sign the Nicene Creed. In an effort to destroy the heresy of Arianism, Constantine issued an edict ordering the execution of any who were found with the writings of Arius, which reads as follows: In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. The schism in the Church that the Nicene Creed sought to rectify was only driven further to the fore, as following councils continued to argue their stances. As time brings new leadership, new leadership brings new chances for the change of the establishment. The effects of this schism within the church cannot be overstated. Like a wild fire, Arianism had taken hold of the minds of many within the leadership of the Church, and even though it was decried as heresy, many within the church would continue to fight for this semitism of early church doctrine. Decades after the First Council of Nicaea, the question of the fate of the clergy who had taught this heresy to their parishioners remained an open and constant source of strife. Should they be allowed to continue on in leading Christians after having recanted, or should they be stripped of their holy duties? If they are to be stripped, should they be allowed to continue in the service of the Church without being allowed to minister, or should they be barred from all duties pertaining to the salvation of their parishioners? Among the fiercest defenders of the Nicene Orthodoxy who battled against the influence of Arianism, we find Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari. Beginning around 355ad, Bishop Lucifer (also known as Lucifer Calaritanus) and his sect of strict Orthodoxy defenders (Lucifarians, as they were called by their detractors) fought tirelessly to uphold the Orthodoxy passed down by the Nicene Creed. Bishop Lucifer and his sect found it an affront to Christ himself to allow priests who had participated in arianism to be readmitted to ministry. Bishop Lucifer can be quoted saying such things as: “To tolerate heretics within the Church is to invite the wrath of God. Shall we allow the wolves to feast among the sheep? No, let them be cast out and burned by the fire of truth.” and further: “To claim that the Son is not of the same essence as the Father is to divide God Himself. Such madness belongs not to men of faith but to the children of the devil.” and further still: “The hands of an Arian priest are unclean, unworthy to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ. To receive the sacraments from them is to partake in their blasphemy.” Though Bishop Lucifer fought for the purity of church doctrine, the more moderate church leaders of the time were ea
