We've made it our mission to offer the unfiltered truth about the crisis in the Church and the beauty of the Faith. Your financial support makes our work possible. WE CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT YOU! (Emphasis in original). You can click to make a donation, and he's making six figures from people gullible enough to donate (P.T. Barnum's old aphorism immediately comes to mind). The site is hard to define. It's not simply R&R like the SSPX. In $kojec's wacky world of theology-free "Catholicism," heretics can be pope, the Church can (and did) defect, and the teachings of the approved theologians must (of course) be eschewed. How that version of the "Church" can be passed off as "the unfiltered truth about the crisis" and the "beauty of the Faith (sic)" is beyond me.
1P5 has different members of the Vatican II sect writing articles. One such contributor, Michael Massey, authored a December 2, 2019 piece entitled, "Sedevacantism is Modern Luciferianism." The title had its intended shock value, as I thought $kojec had allowed someone completely off their rocker (as opposed to only "partially") to write for him. Mr. Massey is a young man (he appears to be in his 20s) from Australia, and we are informed that, "He writes history pieces for the Remnant newspaper in his spare time and struggles through law school the rest of the time." His writing made evident to me why he struggles through law school, and how the quality of lawyers in Australia must be abysmal if he was accepted to study.
Massey's tripe does not (as you would be led to believe from the title) claim that sedevacantists worship Satan. It actually is a reference to a Catholic bishop named Lucifer who fought the Arian heretics in the fourth century. You can read it in full at https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantism-luciferianism/. The article is a masterpiece of shoddy "scholarship." To wit:
- It makes claims assumed to be proven ("facts not in evidence")
- Has no relevant citations to any approved theologians (pre-Vatican II or otherwise)
- It makes a passing reference to a work of Ecclesiastical History, with no page number or context in which it could be read
- Makes false and/or unproven claims about Pope Liberius
- Has false analogies
The Devil's Advocate-In-Training
Massey begins his anti-sedevacantist drivel thus:
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).
He won't "bore you" with the Catholic theology regarding sedevacantism because Massey doesn't know or understand it well enough to write about it. "They" (i.e., sedevacantists) do not hold a heretic can't be pope, the Church so teaches.
Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes 9:232.
Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."
(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium , pg. 371).
Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina , pgs. 160, 165).
Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian , 2:453).
There are "Vacancy Pushers" as I call them, those pseudo-Traditionalists like Mike Bizzaro (his real name) who posits Pope St. Pius X as the last pope through twisted citations and wrong application of theological principles. Then there is cult leader and Feeneyite Richard Ibranyi (a former follower of the Dimond brothers--no surprise there) who pushes the time back to Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD. I haven't heard of any who push it to Pope St. Pius V, although it could be so. More likely than not, the person probably mispoke. In any case, it is completely beside the point. Massey throws out a red herring to obfuscate the issue. Just because there are some disturbed people who claim to be sedevacantists, does not mean there are not legitimate theological principles for determining that the pope has lost his office through the profession of heresy as a private person. This is a false "guilt by association."
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.
False. The maxim "The First See is Judged by no one" is a procedural norm, asserted by the Church against the Gallican heretics who claimed that an Ecumenical Council was superior to a pope and could judge him and his decisions. According to canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19) Pope Innocent III informs us the sin of heresy is the one sin we are permitted to judge when it comes to the pope.
shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy."
(Sermo 4: In Consecratione,Ibid, 218:670). No council needed. A manifest heretic cannot be pope.
Please note that Massey is writing for $kojec, a man who thinks he knows better than the approved theologians and pompously tells others not to "think with the Church" but "think for yourself," as if once you have thought for yourself and are convinced that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, you must not submit to Her authoritative decisions and approved theologians. Yet sedevacantists are prideful according to Massey.
I will now piece together the pertinent points Massey makes throughout the remainder of the article:
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....
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...Seeing the Arians and semi-Arians he had fought against at Milan and elsewhere rehabilitated was too much for his [Bp. Lucifer] 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 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. (Emphasis mine).
Where to begin? Three points need to be refuted for this steaming pile of jabberwocky to completely collapse; the first of which was already done, namely, a heretic can be pope. The Church teaches such is not the case, and Massey assumes that a heretic can be pope without even attempting to prove his gratuitous assertion. The other two false points will now be tackled:
1. Pope Liberius was a heretic and
2. Sedevacantists are "schismatics" like Bp. Lucifer
Pope Liberius Vindicated by St. Robert Bellarmine
Here is a brief background from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Liberius, (born, Rome [Italy]—died September 24, 366, Rome), pope from 352 to 366. He was elected on May 17, 352, to succeed Pope St. Julius I.
Liberius was pope during the turbulence caused by the rise of Arianism—a heresy teaching that Christ was not truly divine but was rather a created being. Liberius was pope under the Arian Roman emperor Constantius II, who opposed both the Council of Nicaea (which had condemned Arianism) and Bishop St. Athanasius of Alexandria (who was Arianism’s most virulent opponent). Liberius’s first act as pope was to write Constantius requesting a council at Aquileia, Italy, to discuss Athanasius, but the emperor independently effected Athanasius’s condemnation. In 355 Liberius was one of the few bishops who refused to sign the condemnation, which had been imposed at Milan by imperial command upon all the Western bishops. Consequently, Constantius exiled Liberius to Beroea (modern Véroia, Greece), and the Arian archdeacon Felix (II) appropriated the papacy.
In late 357 Liberius went to Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia). Supposedly dejected, he agreed to sign certain unorthodox formulas that served to emasculate the Nicene Creed (the Creed had implicitly disavowed Arianism). Liberius also agreed to sever relations with Athanasius and submitted to the authority of the emperor. But Constantius recalled him to Rome, where he returned in 358, joyfully received by the Roman Christians. (See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Liberius).
Davies (and other R&R) claim that Liberius was a heretic for (a) signing the heretical Arian formulas (b) consorting with heretics, and (c) excommunicating St. Athanasius. Are these allegations accurate?
First, here is a list of the main facts by noted Traditionalist author John Daly:
1. Pope Liberius was in reality a staunch opponent, not only of the Arians, but also of the Semi-Arians.
2. He was sent into exile by the Semi-Arian Emperor Constantius precisely because of the failure of the attempts of that emperor and his toady bishops to influence him to excommunicate St. Athanasius and accept as orthodox a compromised Semi-Arian statement of Catholic doctrine concerning Our Lord’s Divinity.
3. Constantius appointed Felix to replace the absent Liberius in the See of Rome, but Felix was not at that time accepted as pope by the Romans.
4. Felix himself did not in fact subscribe to Arianism, but he did acknowledge ecclesiastical communion with arianisers, for which reason, the fifth century historian-bishop Theodoret informs us, "none of the citizens of Rome entered into the church while he was inside." (History of the Latin Church, Bk. II, c. 17)
5. The people of Rome remained loyal to Liberius and protested to the emperor at his detention.
6. Eventually their peaceable protests gave way to rioting, and as a result Liberius was permitted by Constantius to return to Rome.
7. On his return he was received as a victor there by the populace.
8. His reign in Rome then continued for a few years more, during which time he remained entirely orthodox, refused to compromise in the slightest degree on the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Nicea, and was in full communion and friendship with St. Athanasius.
9. Some extant historical texts apparently of that period assert that the immediate reason for his return to Rome was that he had subscribed to a Semi-Arian formula. But many others favour the contrary view.
10. The weight of subsequent scholarship is strongly in favour of Liberius’s orthodoxy, and orthodox Catholic scholars in particular – and it is they who have studied the subject in greatest depth and are most reliable – are overwhelmingly of the view that Liberius never fell, remained orthodox throughout his exile, and always remained in full communion with St. Athanasius.
(See Michael Davies: An Evaluation, Tradibooks, , pgs. 434-435).
I will now summarize St. Robert Bellarmine's defense of Pope Liberius in Chapter Two of his work Papal Error?, pgs. 17-30.
- There are two things certain about Liberius, and one in doubt. It is certain that from the beginning of his pontificate even to exile, he suffered for the Catholic faith, and was a keen defender of the Catholic religion. All writers who spoke on those times witness this fact
- It is certain that Liberius, after he returned from exile, was also truly orthodox and pious
- It appears he did wrong when in exile
- St. Athanasius teaches teaches that Liberius was not truly a heretic, because he was compelled against his will by the force of the rack to do what he did. Nor must it be thought to be truly his opinion, which had been twisted from him by threats and terrors
- As is gathered from the words of St. Athanasius as well as by the epistles of Liberius himself, Liberius committed two faults: First, that he subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, the Second, that he had communicated with heretics--but in neither did he expressly violate the Faith
- Although heretics persecuted Athanasius for the faith, nevertheless they pretended it was not due to the faith but morals and Liberius consented to the condemnation on that basis, not on account of the faith
- For equal reason, Liberius communicated with heretics because they feigned that they were Catholics. In his epistles, Liberius says that he communicated with Oriental Bishops because he discovered that their faith agreed with the Catholic faith, and was foreign to Arian treachery
- The confessions Liberius signed did not have the word Homoousion, but still were entirely Catholic. It happens that Liberius not only did not subscribe to the Arian confession, but even published a Confession before he left Sirmium wherein he excommunicated those who denied that the Son is the same as the Father in substance, as well as in all other matters. This he did because the Arians spread a false rumor that Liberius began to teach the Son is not consubstantial with the Father
- If this is so, why does Jerome say Liberius bent and subscribed to heresy? Although Liberius did not expressly consent to heresy, still he was interpreted as having done so because he permitted Athanasius to be condemned, and communicated with heretics who feigned being Catholics
"Another fact which Davies does not mention, even if only to try to explain it away, is that Pope Liberius is honored as a saint in the ancient Latin Martyrology. Although Davies says repeatedly that Athanasius was canonized and Liberius was not, this is in fact quite false. Neither was formally canonized, as the formal procedure of canonization did not exist at the period that the Church began to revere them (which was immediately after their deaths); but both benefited from the Church’s official recognition as saints in the form which did then exist, by their inclusion in the martyrologies of West and East." (Emphasis in original).
The Luciferian Analogy
Other than a brief quote from an ecclesiastical history text, there are no citations to Bishop Lucifer given by Massey. According to ecclesiastical historian Fr. Charles Poulet, "...certain writers representing an unorthodox reaction against Arianism, who held firmly to the view that penitent Arians should not be directly reconciled with the Church, but made to do penance and merit that favor...Lucifer's writing were purely invective in character and their titles betray his intransigence. He held that orthodox Christians should have no social intercourse with heretics and no mercy should be shown the enemies of God. The principal followers of Lucifer of Cagliari were Gregory of Eliberus, and the Roman deacon Hilary, who even demanded that all repentant Arians be rebaptized." (See A History of the Catholic Church: for the Use of Colleges Seminaries and Universities, , 1:170; Emphasis mine).
Let's now compare to the last paragraph of Massey:
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.
- The Church cannot promote, even once, that which is heretical or immoral through the popes and bishops because the Church is Indefectible; a dogma.
According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258; Emphasis mine)
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:
"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66
"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."
- Pope Liberius was not a heretic, therefore there was nothing for Bishop Lucifer to "resist." When he resisted his decision on reception of repentant Arians, that is when he became schismatic and outside the Church
- A pope cannot be a heretic without loss of ecclesiastical office, so there would be no pope to resist. Massey's statements to the contrary are not supported, nor does he even attempt to prove them with relevant citations to Church decrees or the teachings of the approved theologians
- Bishop Lucifer did, after his break with the Church, consort with heretical rebaptizers. He was not as "theologically orthodox" as Massey would like us to believe
Sedevacantism is the only theologically coherent explanation for Vatican II, and the sect it spawned, which gives its members new morals, new faith, and new sacraments antithetical to all that is true and good. The Church cannot defect from the faith--as that very same faith proclaims---but individual members of the hierarchy can so defect, as the faith likewise teaches.
$teve $kojec of 1P5 wants you to "think for yourself" and reject the teachings on the ordinary papal Magisterium as "ultramontanist," and disregard the teachings of the approved theologians. Instead, $kojec will do your thinking for you, as he will read over what claptrap the Modernist Vatican II sect decrees and let you know, by his own "authority," whether or not it conforms to tradition and should be accepted or "resisted." His "reason-challenged" writers, whom he publishes, will do the same, so read 1P5 and check both your brain and faith at the door.
By so doing, $kojec is keeping numerous people in Bergoglio's sect and endangering their eternal salvation. It doesn't seem to bother him at all that these theology-free opinion pieces don't even make sense, as long as he's making lots of cents (and dollars). "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" (St. Mark 8:36).