At some time, we have all encountered a sedevacantist — if not in person, at least online. I won’t bore you with the theology of the sedevacantism except to say they hold that a heretic cannot be pope, with the most common strain affirming that Pius XII was the last legitimate pope (although I did once come across one who believed that Pius V was the last legitimate pope).
Oftentimes, sedevacantists lived through the turbulent times after Vatican II or are the children of those who did. They know either first- or second-hand of the terrible persecution of orthodoxy and suppression of the Tridentine Mass. They often fought valiantly against the heresies constantly flowing from the Vatican and were maltreated by many local bishops and priests. Many know their faith very well and can easily explain the errors of liberalism, modernism, and countless other heresies. In all respects but one, they are orthodox Catholics.
The one error of sedevacantism is essentially pride. They raise their opinion over that of the Church when judging that the pope is a formal and manifest heretic, while we know that the Church teaches that the First See is judged by no man.
But what about Luciferianism?
With the crisis in the Church since Vatican II, many comparisons have been drawn with the Arian crisis of the 4th century, when the majority of the Church’s bishops fell into the heresy of Arianism. There are four parallels that can be drawn between the Arian crisis and the crisis in the Church today. There are, as Michael Davies noted, the heroic Athanasius, Hilary, and Eusebius of Vercelli (not to be confused with the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea or the leading Arian heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius seemingly being a popular name among 4th-century mothers) who are types of the heroic clerics such as Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and other orthodox priests who suffered persecution for their defense of the Faith. There are also the diabolical prelates such as Arius, Saturninus, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who resemble those infiltrators who infected the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council and sowed the seeds of doctrinal and liturgical destruction (think de Lubac, Congar, Rahner etc.). Then there are the orthodox princes of the Church who, knowing the truth, succumb to outside pressures and outwardly join the ranks of the victorious heretics, much like Pope Liberius. Finally, there are those who can see the errors of heretics for what they are and take a heroic stand against them; however, they succumb to their own pride and employ schism to fight heresy.
It is this final parallel in which we can see the Luciferianism within the sedevacantist movement. There is the remarkable similarity between today’s sedevacantists and a group of schismatics who were spawned during the Arian crisis: the Luciferians.
The Luciferians were less nefarious than their name implies. Rather than being devil-worshipers, they were simply followers of the schismatic Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari. (The interesting naming trends of 4th-century mothers continues — what mother looks at her newborn son and thinks, “He looks like a Lucifer”?) Nothing much is known about Lucifer’s origin, save that he was born at some time in the early 4th century. Those familiar with Church history will know that during the Arian crisis, the greater number of bishops had fallen into the Arian and semi-Arian heresies.
Most Catholics know of St. Athanasius’s heroic defence of orthodoxy during the crisis, but few will know of his good friend and stalwart defender of the faith, Lucifer of Cagliari. At the egregious Council of Tyre, Athanasius was condemned and exiled, and Pope Liberius wished to defend him by calling a new Council at Milan to resolve the Arian Crisis. Liberius chose Lucifer as his representative at this council, which was convened in 355 A.D. At the council, Lucifer spoke strongly in favor of St. Athanasius and the Homoousion doctrine (which holds Christ is consubstantial with the Father) and convinced many bishops, including Dionysius of Milan, to support the orthodox cause. Sadly, however, the Arian bishops retained their majority, and with the support of the Arian Emperor Constantius, they confirmed their heretical Homoiousion positions (which holds that Christ is only of a similar substance to the Father); flogged the orthodox prelates; and exiled many, including Lucifer.
Another great blow to orthodoxy was dealt in 357 A.D., when Pope Liberius succumbed to the great pressure of Emperor Constantius; signed the formula of Hosius, which denied the Homoousion doctrine; and excommunicated Athanasius.
In his wonderful work History of the Catholic Church, Fr. Mourett described Lucifer as “an impetuous orthodox bishop.” In 360, Lucifer advocated shunning dealings with Arian heretics in De non consentiendo cum haereticis and compared Emperor Constantius with the idolatrous kings of Israel in De regibus apostaticis. At no stage throughout the crisis did Lucifer succumb to heresy; however, he certainly gave in to imprudence. Finally, after many more trials and tribulations too long to expound upon, Athanasius, Lucifer, and the orthodox prelates were restored, and a council was convened in Alexandria to finally resolve the Arian crisis.
At the Council of Alexandria, which did largely resolve the Arian crisis, the holy fathers deemed that all of those priests and bishops who had worked with the Arians and sided with them in various councils, but who had not publicly professed the heresy of Arianism, could retain their offices and sees within the Church. It further declared that those who publicly renounced their heresy could return to communion with the Holy Catholic Church. This was too much for the “impetuous” Lucifer. He had fought the good fight since the very beginning, was ridiculed, and suffered terrible persecution for the Faith. He had been a loyal servant to his pontiff, Liberius, but even his friend Liberius had abandoned the orthodox Homoousion proposition under pressure. Along with Saints Hillary, Athanasius, and Eusebius, and a handful of others, he was at one time one of the last orthodox prelates in the entire Church.
Seeing the Arians and semi-Arians he had fought against at Milan and elsewhere rehabilitated was too much for his pride to swallow. How could they, who had been at enmity with Christ and His Church, be returned to their sees and positions of power above him, when he, a valiant defender of orthodoxy and veteran of the underground Church, still fought the good fight?
Lucifer turned against his former friend Athanasius and decried the measures taken to restore the repentant Arians. Pope Liberius ratified the decisions of the council, but he was a heretic. He had signed the heretical formula of Hosius, which had rejected the Homoousion doctrine. He had not been condemned as a heretic, but he was a heretic nonetheless, and heretics are to be shunned. Lucifer declared that heretics — even repentant heretics — could not hold ecclesiastical offices, and he proceeded to condemn Liberius, Athanasius, and all the bishops of the Church who would not support him. He abandoned the Church and retired to Sardinia with his followers, who took up the name “Luciferians.” There Lucifer would live out the remainder of his life separated from communion with the pope, Athanasius, and the Church. The once great defender of orthodoxy died in schism.
When one is tempted to reject the pope and all the bishops of the Church due to the heresy and scandal they constantly promote, remember the example of St. Athanasius, who always fought to remain in communion even with the heretic Pope Liberius. When you recognize and resist the pope, you are in communion with St. Athanasius, but when you reject and resist him, you are in communion with Lucifer.
Writer’s note: I have an uncle whose misfortune it is that I bear his name (we’ll call him “Michael Massey the Greater”). Consequently, when I have written on sedevacantism in the past, a concerned sedevacantist wishing to send me his…ahem…constructive feedback thoroughly confused my dear uncle by sending him a voluminous tract in “refutation” of “his” essay. Suffice it to say, to avoid any confusion, please address any criticisms to Michael Massey the Lesser, and leave poor Uncle Mick alone.
Yes, it is wonderful to have our Pope of the present time. His profound thoughts on climate change, his support for homosexuals and those of the transgender persuasion. His backing given to the official Catholic Church in China and the marvellous Chinese government against those dastardly underground Catholics. His support for his friend Cardinal Pell when he was in prison. His frequent condemnations of baby killing or maybe I’m mixing that up with his respect for women and their right to choose (to kill). I think it’s possible he could become the first Pope to be canonised before he dies. They canonised John XXIII so anything is possible.
I know a few sedevacantists, and none of them are proud. They are sad about the state of affairs. They would all be glad to have the church again in unity, and the hierarchy restored in orthodoxy. And it sounds like pride was less Lucifer’s problem than a frustrated sense of justice. Maybe there’s a little pride in a desire for recognition, but he did deserve some recognition. Did he get that?
I don’t think this story compares at all with the current crisis in the Church.
I attend a diocesan TLM, but since I came across sedevacantism by chance two months ago, it makes more sense than any other Catholic source I’ve read. Their concerns are not only legitimate, but their points, videos, records, writing, etc., present a picture like never seen before.
In your story, Lucifer did not want communion after the heretics repented. How can that be a comparison when none of the heretics have repented at all since 1958? Not only that, they are being canonized within years of their death without ever repenting from their heresies. Maybe you can judge sedevacants after the popes and bishops repent, but that hasn’t happen.
Also, the Arian crisis is nothing compared to what we are seeing these days. The Arians were disputing quite a theological point, an undefined dogma at the time, and a truth that might not have been clearly understood from the Bible, but later many recognized their error and changed. The Pope changed his mind within his lifetime, corrected his error, and again, this was an undefined dogma at the time. Today we have popes who are open heretics against established dogmas (where there is no debate or doubt), worshiping other gods, other cults, removing Crucifixes from the Vatican (or covering them) so that non-Christian religious leaders can comfortably pray there. They are condenming evangelization calling it a sin against “ecumenism”. They are participating in animist rituals (Pope John Paul II), shamanic rituals (Pope Francis), etc. They talk more about “mother earth”, nature, and climate change, than about God Father, the supernatural, and conversion. They spew heresies not about undefined dogmas, but about already defined dogmas and the Bible.
There is no comparison, and it is sad you didn’t seriously research on what grounds they consider these popes invalid. It is either a sign of laziness, biases, not caring about the Truth, or simply, ignorance. Their points are based on Magisterial teachings about when someone becomes anathema, and becomes a non-Catholic outside the Church. They use logical arguments to show that these “popes” were anathema before being elected to their office, and a non-Catholic can’t become pope. A non-Catholic can’t validly become the visible head of the Catholic Church. Pope Liberius was not a “heretic”, but a true Catholic who fell into error for a moment and then retracted. The invalid popes were not true Catholics to begin with, but non-Catholic heretics who invalidly and ilegimately took the office. Therefore, the sit of the office is vacant (Latin: sede vacante).
And I wish that was the most concerning point, but no, one of the invalid popes (Pope Paul VI), not only illicitly and invalidly changed the entire Mass in the Roman rite (something unprecedented, not apostolic) and fabricated a completely new rite with the help of Protestants. He also imposed a new rite of ordination for Bishops and Priests, which changes the form used in the sacrament and therefore could have tampered with apostolic succession (like Anglicans did), at least in the Roman tradition which is the largest one (Eastern Rite ordinations are still valid, and even the Orthodox schismatics have apostolic succession and yet most Catholics don’t attack them for not complying with heretic popes). Do you know the consequences of lack of apostolic succession? Basically, if a Priest is not validly ordained or is not conferred certain powers millions of confessions, marriages, and other important sacraments could have been invalid!
And how about Sor Lucia, one of the visionaries of Fatima. Only Sedevacants seem to discuss the “Truth for Lucy” crime. I hope everyone looks into that. Not to mention the rapes, pedophilia, and horrible crimes and scandals plaguing the Church since these “popes” have been in power. But sure, whatever is happening now is just like what happened with Pope Liberius (rolling my eyes).
All of these are very serious points, very well documented, and I don’t see any seriousness or good will from most mainstream Catholics (even traditional ones) to seriously refute these points besides using bad analogies or ad hominens. Only Sedevacants seem to point at all of these truths and then get ridiculed for pointing at the Truth. When I start seeing good, smart arguments, that tackle all of these points with logical points based on Catholic dogmas, the Magisterium, then I will believe there is goodwill, a sincere effort to solve issues and maintain unity and most importantly, honor God and His Church. I have been researching for this, and have only found ridicule towards Sedevacants for no reason. And again, I attend a diocesan mass! I help at my parish and I’m involved with the community. I have no reason to defend Sedevacants or to want their points to be true to complicate my entire existence, but convenience is not an excuse when souls are at stake, when God is who we want to honor.
Catholics are killing the Church! Like the Jews killed the Lord. Their own are killing their God and their Church. Even non-Catholic Orthodox schismatics have peace of mind not having to doubt the validity of their sacraments!
Very sad that Catholics will ridicule other Catholics, especially those who are zealous about the Church, but then exalt the Caiphas or Anas, or Summo Pontifex (the Pope) of today above God and His Church, specially, when the legitimacy of the current popes is even questionable.
I guess seeing a lesbian speak proudfully and boastful from the pulpit doesn’t compare to what Latin Mass Catholics are doing.
Or loud music with dancing gyrations during Mass is as bad as Latin Mass Catholics.
Or wearing “Pride” colors at the pulpit is as bad either.
Or Zelensky giving the Pope a painting of the Madonna with baby Jesus blacked out is as bad as Latin Catholics.
Yeah I guess the Latin Mass Catholics got it wrong.