A foolish Satanist or at the very least supporter of Vicar of pedopjiles on Earth Bergoglio foolishly stuck his head above the parapet and I noticed. Enjoy.
As usual his words in black and mine in blood-splattered red.
Sedevacantism Is Modern Luciferianism
Michael Massey December 2, 2019
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).
I see, so you admit right from the start that you will avoid the actual reasons that Catholics remain Catholics and instead project your own Satanic leading of others into error directly from the title of this drivel throughout the rest of it. Got it. Let us begin the rhetoric war then, silly Hellish Padawan of Novus Orco and let us see how you fare against Lord Kurgan.
Oftentimes, sedevacantists lived through the turbulent times after Vatican II or are the children of those who did.
Neither applies here and in my experience most remaining actual Catholics are simply people like me: those who still have the almost lost skill of reading comprehension.
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.
Again, none of these things apply. I rejected the Novus Orco impostors out of pure instinct at age 7. My only “error” was believing these “priests” were in fact Catholics. They presented themselves as such, they had usurped the buildings and other worldly trappings of material goods of the Catholics, so I was fooled by their pretending to be Catholics, but certainly not by much of anything else since their theology was so badly flawed as to be obviously evil even to my 7 year old self.
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.
So, just to recap, we are correct on every point and you can’t and won’t argue against them (because you would have your head handed to you in seconds) but you have the one true silver bullet against Catholics coming right up… (cue spectacular rhetoric fail coming up)…
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.
Ahh, yes, that old Canard. Truly, nothing new with you Satanists is there? Once again, your despicable projection is obvious. Catholics to NOT sin of pride in being Catholics, we, in fact, follow the Magisterium of the Church which very clearly tells us that notorious, public heretics are not Catholics, do not speak for the Church, have nothing of relevance to say about Catholicism and that anyone who receives them as Catholics in turn ALSO becomes a heretic. This is all clear and obvious to anyone who, as I previously mentioned has the lost art of basic reading comprehension and reads the Code of Canon Law, particularly code 188 part 4 of the code (of 1917, the only valid code of Catholic Canon Law, the Satanic non-Catholics like this imp here produced a fake one in 1983, but as they are not Catholics of any kind it has no bearing on truth or reality or Catholicism). For the uninitiated, you merely need to read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio on which much of the Canon Law for canon 188 part 4 is based.
As an aside, you don’t NEED to know what any doctor of the Church said in detail by the way, nor try to interpret it, because the Code of 1917 did that. And no, it does not require Canon lawyers to interpret it for you, poor peasant, because it is written on the principles of Roman Law. Not fake, loophole filled Anglo-Saxon Lawyerspeak. And in any case, the commission that was set up to interpret it already did that job and since it was published the code had one minor revision of one code (1099) in over 40 years and for the last decade or so nothing at all was changed and in all likelihood over 14,000 documents were consulted to ensure no part of the Code contradicted any part of Catholic dogma divine or Church law. So, yeah… reading comprehension. We Catholics dote on it. And reason. And logic. Because that is one of the Dogmas by the way, we use reason and logic and our God-given ability to study and know objective truth, not lies like your father teaches you and your kind.
But what about Luciferianism?
Well, you are the expert there, go on…
With the crisis in the Church since Vatican II, many comparisons have been drawn with the Arian crisis of the 4thcentury, 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,
Lefebvre ultimately belonged to the R&R class, so he’s was not Catholic either from that moment on.
Recognise (the antipope as pope) and yet “resist” his underlings is, of course, not logical, objective, reasonable, or, frankly, sane. It is based on nothing more than womanish emotions marinaded in a fake worship of “tradition” and pomp instead of truth and logic and objective reality.
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.
So…wait, you admit there were infiltrators. You admit Vatican II is replete with heresy and heretics, you admit all this and yet, somehow, those who do all this and point it all out backed up by the MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH (which is what Canon Law is), logic, reason and facts, somehow are the Luciferians? Truly your inversion of roles between us is the usual stunning bold-faced lie your kind subsists on.
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.
Ah, so we are heroes who… succumb. You pathetic wormling. You’re not really worthy of a Kurgan inquisition. You have nothing. We are not heroes, just Catholics. And while no doubt some of us will become heroic in their persecution, as martyrs or warriors, as the case may be, it’s not anything a Satanist like you could possibly understand, comment on or know anything about. We are Catholics, you are not. You wouldn’t understand.
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.
Oh let’s see what utter reversal of any shred of truth you come up with now wormling.
The Luciferians were less nefarious than their name implies.
Can’t help throw a little shade to your fellow Satanist names eh? Here is a hint: No actual Catholic would refer to themselves by such a name. Ever. In any age.
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.
Riiiiight…I’m SURE that was his given name at birth by his mommy. What utter nonsense. At most his name MIGHT have been Lucius, which was at least a Latin name, and if it got changed to Luciferus, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why wormling. You really must do better in your efforts. Not that he is more intelligent or anything, but you should perhaps think of apprenticing under John Salza, who is verbose, long-winded, and easily demonstrated to be a Satanic liar and he is a self-admitted Freemason, so no real struggle to expose, but at least he presents more of a fake argument than this drivel. I’m sure for merely a few sexual favours of the Satanic kind he may well take you on as an understudy. At this rate you’ll not even reach the 9th Circle of Hell, you’ll be relegated to one of the outer and upper layers of torment for your pathetic efforts.
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.
And if the above description of things is true (I haven’t bothered to check because my time is limited, but it is irrelevant because my knowledge on matters of what is heresy and who is a heretic is rather exhaustive) then Lucifer (which I assume was really Lucius and thus re-named by your own kind of people) was 100% correct. A former heretic can only be reconciled with the Church insofar as he retires to a monastery with authority over no-one and spends the rest of his days in penance. Again, this is Catholic Dogma that remains unchanged throughout history and is of course spelt out in Cum-Ex Apostolatus Officio.
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.
No, he clearly didn’t if your account is at all correct.
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.
Moderates are what God will spit out, remember. While a possible passage of power may require such “compromises” in the first place they are illegitimate compromises and dogmatically in error and in the second, they rarely ever result in an actual transfer of power from the corrupt to the non-corrupt. In fact, they merely tend to provide deeper cover for the most corrupt of all.
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.
Absolute nonsense. Let me write that in correct English as it actually is:
When you recognise a demonstrable persistent and unrepentant never-was-Catholic as legitimate “Pope” you are in communion with Satan and his henchmen and we like that. When you reject such persons as legitimate “Pope” you are in Communion with the remnant of the Catholic Church.
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.
Consider yourself addressed Mickey the Lesser.
Oh, and don’t bother to respond, since your own attack was pure rhetoric and intentional lies, I have zero interest in anything other than further exposing you. You are a supporter of a known paedophile promoter and protector and associate of child traffickers, the vicar of Paedophiles on Earth, Bergoglio, so you know where you fall in the hierarchy of people I sincerely hope get what’s coming to them in this life and the next.
For those readers who are still figuring things out, my latest book here, covers all the objections to Catholicism (Sedeprivationism) in exhaustive and irrefutable detail and since it is written in my usual brutal style, I am told that as well as informative it is also entertaining.
