This is why I have a hard time taking these markets even half-seriously except for Kalshi and the old IEM. Here the question is a joke in two ways when it should only be one. A low-effort way would have been to base resolution on announcements from the Catholic Pope. The "serious" questions are way too often a joke in this way too. Question ill-defined, resolution unclear.
> Here the question is a joke in two ways when it should only be one. A low-effort way would have been to base resolution on announcements from the Catholic Pope.
Do Protestants believe in the Second Coming of Christ? What about Orthodox?
They all do, but it's most straightforward to get an answer out of the Pope. I think the Orthodox would have to arrange a synod, and no one's even in charge in Protestantism...
To get a little bit more technical on that, while Henry VIII did abrogate to himself supreme spiritual as well as temporal power over the church in England, later monarchs have been more restrained with the Supreme Governorship and left the theology up to the bishops.
However, while the Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual head of the Church of England, the Anglican Communion is not governed by one body or person; the Lambeth Conference, held every ten to twenty years, is a meeting of the representatives of the international constituent churches but is not a governing body. They may pass resolutions to bring about changes in doctrine or discipline, but how binding those are depends on whether particular national churches feel like being bound by them (e.g. on female ordination or ordaining LGBT clergy).
For legally binding decisions, it's up to Parliament (see the Prayer Book Controversy of 1927-28 where the bishops agreed on changes to the wording of the prayer book but, because these were seen to be too 'papist' in sympathy, the hard-line Protestant opposition in Parliament voted no both times) so while the Archbishop might give an opinion about was this the Second Coming, for an official stance by the CoE, Parliament would decide.
G.K. Chesterton on the Prayer Book Controversy:
"The proposal of an amended Prayer-Book, or rather two alternative Prayer-Books, was not decided for the Church by the Churchy or by the communicants; or by the congregation. It was settled by a mob of politicians, atheists, agnostics, dissenters, Parsees; avowed enemies of that Church or of any Church, who happened to have M.P. after their names. If the whole thing had any historic motto, or deserved anything higher than a headline, what was written across all that Anglican story was not Ecclesia Anglicana, or Via Media, or anything of the sort; it was Cujus Regio Ejus Religio; or rendering unto Caesar the things that are God’s.
I add one incident to contrast Style, among men who had been Catholics for fourteen-hundred years, with that among men who have been Protestants for four-hundred years. A Protestant organisation presented all the atheists, etc., who had voted Protestant, with a big black Bible or Prayer-Book, or both, decorated outside with a picture of the Houses of Parliament. In hoc signo vinces. It would be very idolatrous to put a cross or crucifix outside a book; but a picture of Parliament where the Party Funds are kept, and the peerages sold — . That is the temple where dwell the gods of Israel... We know the world progresses, and education is certainly extended, and there are fewer illiterates; and I suppose it is all right. But those four strong centuries of Protestant England begin with a Book of Common-Prayer, in which, even amid the treachery and panic of Cranmer, and in the very moment of men rending themselves from Rome and Christendom, they could lift in such sublime language so authentic a cry of Christian men: “By Thy precious death and burial; by Thy glorious resurrection and ascension; and by the coming of the Holy Ghost.” Those centuries begin with that speech of men still by instinct and habit of mind Catholic; and the Protestant civilization evolves and the education spreads, and widens in wealth and power and towns and colleges; until at last the ripe and final fruit of its culture is produced, in the form of a fat black book of a cushiony sort, with a real photo-view, a view of one of the Sights, nicely tucked in to its neat black padded binding or frame... A Present from Ramsgate... anyhow, four-hundred years march from Rome."
I seriously doubt that. Believing in - or just talking about - the 2nd coming in Europe would be a sign you are part of a sect (J's witnesses, or new-apostolic, or freshly converted Mormons?). If you are a mainstream, you do not want to sound like those. Mennonites (baptists, re-migrated from Russia) do take bible-study serious enough to be aware of a return of Jesus mentioned and so they believe- but even they keep it low-profile. Never heard a Catholic or Protestant sermon taking "the end is (maybe) near" serious. Our mainstreamers - except some crazy grannies - shall vote NO on any on those bets.
I meant that it is part of all mainstream Christian theologies. The second coming is in the Apostle’s Creed, so it is often mentioned in Church services.
”I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
As dogma: sure. 'Von dort wird er kommen zu richten die Lebenden und die Toten' (German version without "again" - 'wieder' as in 'Wieder-gänger' - also no "again" in Latin in the Apostolic version you quote: "inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos" - though the Nicänum version has it (iterum): "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria"), so yeah, second coming is ok, though it shall look very different from the first. ;)
As for 'mainstream Christians': not on my side of the Atlantic. :D
" A low-effort way would have been to base resolution on announcements from the Catholic Pope."
I don't know if I trust someone who's pre-selected for being maximally willing to believe miraculous stories involving Jesus. I'd pick Richard Dawkins.
"I don't know if I trust someone who's pre-selected for being maximally willing to believe miraculous stories involving Jesus."
On the other hand, we also have systems set up to investigate and winnow out false reporting. Very few will take an alleged miracle, vision or apparition on face value. There's a whole checklist of "is the person alleging this trustworthy but mistaken, deliberately lying, mentally disturbed, over-enthusiastic votary, etc.":
EDIT: My view on Dawkins is that when he comes before the throne of God for the particular judgement, he will indicate to the occupier of same that He should get out of Dawkins' seat now that he's here to take it.
>> "On the other hand, we also have systems set up to investigate and winnow out false reporting. Very few will take an alleged miracle, vision or apparition on face value."
Can't remember if I've already talked about this before, but when I worked in a hospital in Ireland, one of the doctors told me a story about this. He got a letter from the Vatican saying they were trying to saint (beatify? I can't remember the details) somebody and needed a miracle. One of his patients had apparently prayed to this person and gotten better, and the Vatican wanted the doctor to certify that the recovery was truly miraculous and she couldn't have gotten better by normal means.
The doctor wrote back saying it was a perfectly normal recovery and people got better from her particular disease all the time.
The Vatican kept pestering him and saying they *really* wanted to beatify this person, and could he perhaps very kindly wrack his brain and think up *some* aspect of the recovery which seemed at least a *little* miraculous? (he refused)
I wasn't personally involved in any of this and can't confirm it, but it's left me more skeptical of the Vatican's miracle-verifying department.
There are three steps generally to a canonisation, and they start with declaration of Heroic Virtue, which means you can call the person Venerable (e.g. the Venerable Bede); then beatification, which is Blessed, and finally canonisation, which is Saint. At any step of the process it may stop.
So yeah, for beatification, you would need one miracle. Depending on who the person was, and how intense the lobbying campaign and who the backers were, there may well be pressure to get it done.
But as you can see, at least there *is* a process in place, and the doctor did refuse to be swayed. It wasn't simply "Okay, you paid for it so we'll issue the declaration that So-and-So is now the Blessed So-and-So".
Then Rome stopped all the fun and said "No, we're going to do this properly and there will be Rules" 🙁
Bede is now in fact a saint (declared a Doctor of the Church in 1899, only took 1,164 years since his death but hey, that's Vatican time for you) but he's been known as the Venerable Bede for so long, that's still the name in common usage:
"His scholarship and importance to Catholicism were recognised in 1899 when the Vatican declared him a Doctor of the Church. He is the only Englishman named a Doctor of the Church. He is also the only Englishman in Dante's Paradise (Paradiso X.130), mentioned among theologians and doctors of the church in the same canto as Isidore of Seville and the Scot Richard of St Victor.
...Bede became known as Venerable Bede (Latin: Beda Venerabilis) by the 9th century because of his holiness, but this was not linked to consideration for sainthood by the Catholic Church. According to a legend, the epithet was miraculously supplied by angels, thus completing his unfinished epitaph. It is first utilised in connection with Bede in the 9th century, where Bede was grouped with others who were called "venerable" at two ecclesiastical councils held at Aachen in 816 and 836. Paul the Deacon then referred to him as venerable consistently. By the 11th and 12th century, it had become commonplace."
> One of his patients had apparently prayed to this person and gotten better
Minor nitpick: Catholicism (being a notionally monotheistic religion) does not allow prayer to anyone except the trinity. You may ask a third party (living or dead) to pray for you, though, which is how the veneration of saints works. I am unsure why going through a third party is thought to be more effective than praying directly to god, though.
Regarding the scrutiny with which the Vatican examines their miracles, it should be noted that they found more instances of miracles than the Randi foundation (which would probably require a double-blind RCT with a significance of five sigma for a miracle cure). This might be because they have more false positives, or fewer false negatives, or because some other confounder. Also, few intercessions with saints seem to have found their way into evidence-based medicine, which they probably would if a particular saint lead to better outcomes over a placebo saint (unless one believes that science is so firmly anti-miracle that they would never be convinced or that while god changes the rules of the universe locally to benefit petitioners, he always does so in deniable ways).
Catholics do pray to saints, they don’t worship them.
’The Baltimore Catechism, question 223, confirms this by teaching: “We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of the saints, but to the persons they represent.”’
How would picking someone with the opposite bias solve that problem? Dawkins would be maximally willing to deny miraculous stories. Presumably you'd pick someone who is neutral on the question (but good luck finding someone!).
I'm with Deiseach on this one: the Pope knows that if he announces the Second Coming when it hasn't happened, the Catholic Church is dead, and that's an incentive to only *announce* it when he's sure.
I'm Jewish; our experience is that announcing the Messiah has come when he hasn't is a ticket to long-term religious fame and fortune, and you never get in trouble and nobody ever calls you on it.
Cult leaders and established-religion leaders have different incentives; cult leaders only care about getting a small amount of people very invested, whereas established-religion leaders need a large amount of people a little invested.
This kind of "apocalypse is RTFN" thing is good for getting a cult, not so good for maintaining an established religion.
I'd estimate that doing this would lose 70-80% of Catholics.
Either way the need is to remove discretion from the resolution mechanism. I can have some trust in the resolution mechanism figuring out whether or not the Pope or Dawkins have announced the Second Coming, but little in the resolution mechanism figuring out whether or not the Second Coming has happened based on some vague credible consensus.
Let's say one of these months a new sect arises amongst the Protestants (once again). The leader claims to be the Second Coming and swiftly gathers a billion followers who believe. The poorly defined question gets harder - the leader has some claim to filling the role. Does the question require proof of the supernatural? The Pope/Dawkins question is still an easy decision.
Oh, from the time of the early Church onwards, there has been no lack of people claiming to be Christ come again, or the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, or what have you.
Gosh, I got sidetracked because I was trying to look up the name of the particular heresy which declared the guy (or one of his female companions) to be the incarnated Holy Spirit, and instead I found out about Saint Lucifer 😁
"Lucifer of Cagliari (Latin: Lucifer Calaritanus, Italian: Lucifero da Cagliari; died 20 May 370 or 371) was a bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia known for his passionate opposition to Arianism. He is venerated as a Saint in Sardinia, though his status remains controversial.
...He may have been excommunicated as is hinted in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, as well as Jerome, who refers to his followers as Luciferians. There is extant a work known as Libellus precum ad Imperatores, written by two Luciferian clergy called Faustinus and Marcellinus. Jerome discusses Lucifer and his supporters in his polemic Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi ("Altercation of a Luciferian and an Orthodox"), as well as describing the bishop's career in De Viris Illustribus (chapter 95)."
I do feel that if you are a bishop named "Lucifer", you will indeed end up in controversy.
> Polymarket Second Coming of Jesus Question
This is why I have a hard time taking these markets even half-seriously except for Kalshi and the old IEM. Here the question is a joke in two ways when it should only be one. A low-effort way would have been to base resolution on announcements from the Catholic Pope. The "serious" questions are way too often a joke in this way too. Question ill-defined, resolution unclear.
<mild snark>
Could a joke market for a RealDoll application of AGI be:
Returns YES if, prior to 2100, there is at least one month where google hits for
"Don't put your dick in crazy." are outnumbered by hits for
"Don't put your dick in buggy." with a one month search window for both searches
</mild snark>
> Here the question is a joke in two ways when it should only be one. A low-effort way would have been to base resolution on announcements from the Catholic Pope.
Do Protestants believe in the Second Coming of Christ? What about Orthodox?
They all do, but it's most straightforward to get an answer out of the Pope. I think the Orthodox would have to arrange a synod, and no one's even in charge in Protestantism...
Depends on the variety of Protestantism. If you're Anglican, it's the King of England.
To get a little bit more technical on that, while Henry VIII did abrogate to himself supreme spiritual as well as temporal power over the church in England, later monarchs have been more restrained with the Supreme Governorship and left the theology up to the bishops.
However, while the Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual head of the Church of England, the Anglican Communion is not governed by one body or person; the Lambeth Conference, held every ten to twenty years, is a meeting of the representatives of the international constituent churches but is not a governing body. They may pass resolutions to bring about changes in doctrine or discipline, but how binding those are depends on whether particular national churches feel like being bound by them (e.g. on female ordination or ordaining LGBT clergy).
For legally binding decisions, it's up to Parliament (see the Prayer Book Controversy of 1927-28 where the bishops agreed on changes to the wording of the prayer book but, because these were seen to be too 'papist' in sympathy, the hard-line Protestant opposition in Parliament voted no both times) so while the Archbishop might give an opinion about was this the Second Coming, for an official stance by the CoE, Parliament would decide.
G.K. Chesterton on the Prayer Book Controversy:
"The proposal of an amended Prayer-Book, or rather two alternative Prayer-Books, was not decided for the Church by the Churchy or by the communicants; or by the congregation. It was settled by a mob of politicians, atheists, agnostics, dissenters, Parsees; avowed enemies of that Church or of any Church, who happened to have M.P. after their names. If the whole thing had any historic motto, or deserved anything higher than a headline, what was written across all that Anglican story was not Ecclesia Anglicana, or Via Media, or anything of the sort; it was Cujus Regio Ejus Religio; or rendering unto Caesar the things that are God’s.
I add one incident to contrast Style, among men who had been Catholics for fourteen-hundred years, with that among men who have been Protestants for four-hundred years. A Protestant organisation presented all the atheists, etc., who had voted Protestant, with a big black Bible or Prayer-Book, or both, decorated outside with a picture of the Houses of Parliament. In hoc signo vinces. It would be very idolatrous to put a cross or crucifix outside a book; but a picture of Parliament where the Party Funds are kept, and the peerages sold — . That is the temple where dwell the gods of Israel... We know the world progresses, and education is certainly extended, and there are fewer illiterates; and I suppose it is all right. But those four strong centuries of Protestant England begin with a Book of Common-Prayer, in which, even amid the treachery and panic of Cranmer, and in the very moment of men rending themselves from Rome and Christendom, they could lift in such sublime language so authentic a cry of Christian men: “By Thy precious death and burial; by Thy glorious resurrection and ascension; and by the coming of the Holy Ghost.” Those centuries begin with that speech of men still by instinct and habit of mind Catholic; and the Protestant civilization evolves and the education spreads, and widens in wealth and power and towns and colleges; until at last the ripe and final fruit of its culture is produced, in the form of a fat black book of a cushiony sort, with a real photo-view, a view of one of the Sights, nicely tucked in to its neat black padded binding or frame... A Present from Ramsgate... anyhow, four-hundred years march from Rome."
I think all mainstream Christians believe in the second coming, but also that no one knows when it will happen.
I seriously doubt that. Believing in - or just talking about - the 2nd coming in Europe would be a sign you are part of a sect (J's witnesses, or new-apostolic, or freshly converted Mormons?). If you are a mainstream, you do not want to sound like those. Mennonites (baptists, re-migrated from Russia) do take bible-study serious enough to be aware of a return of Jesus mentioned and so they believe- but even they keep it low-profile. Never heard a Catholic or Protestant sermon taking "the end is (maybe) near" serious. Our mainstreamers - except some crazy grannies - shall vote NO on any on those bets.
I meant that it is part of all mainstream Christian theologies. The second coming is in the Apostle’s Creed, so it is often mentioned in Church services.
”I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.”
As dogma: sure. 'Von dort wird er kommen zu richten die Lebenden und die Toten' (German version without "again" - 'wieder' as in 'Wieder-gänger' - also no "again" in Latin in the Apostolic version you quote: "inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos" - though the Nicänum version has it (iterum): "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria"), so yeah, second coming is ok, though it shall look very different from the first. ;)
As for 'mainstream Christians': not on my side of the Atlantic. :D
" A low-effort way would have been to base resolution on announcements from the Catholic Pope."
I don't know if I trust someone who's pre-selected for being maximally willing to believe miraculous stories involving Jesus. I'd pick Richard Dawkins.
"I don't know if I trust someone who's pre-selected for being maximally willing to believe miraculous stories involving Jesus."
On the other hand, we also have systems set up to investigate and winnow out false reporting. Very few will take an alleged miracle, vision or apparition on face value. There's a whole checklist of "is the person alleging this trustworthy but mistaken, deliberately lying, mentally disturbed, over-enthusiastic votary, etc.":
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254370/alleged-marian-apparitions-the-subject-of-new-observatory
Look at the long-running dispute over Medjugorje:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Medjugorje
EDIT: My view on Dawkins is that when he comes before the throne of God for the particular judgement, he will indicate to the occupier of same that He should get out of Dawkins' seat now that he's here to take it.
>> "On the other hand, we also have systems set up to investigate and winnow out false reporting. Very few will take an alleged miracle, vision or apparition on face value."
Can't remember if I've already talked about this before, but when I worked in a hospital in Ireland, one of the doctors told me a story about this. He got a letter from the Vatican saying they were trying to saint (beatify? I can't remember the details) somebody and needed a miracle. One of his patients had apparently prayed to this person and gotten better, and the Vatican wanted the doctor to certify that the recovery was truly miraculous and she couldn't have gotten better by normal means.
The doctor wrote back saying it was a perfectly normal recovery and people got better from her particular disease all the time.
The Vatican kept pestering him and saying they *really* wanted to beatify this person, and could he perhaps very kindly wrack his brain and think up *some* aspect of the recovery which seemed at least a *little* miraculous? (he refused)
I wasn't personally involved in any of this and can't confirm it, but it's left me more skeptical of the Vatican's miracle-verifying department.
There are three steps generally to a canonisation, and they start with declaration of Heroic Virtue, which means you can call the person Venerable (e.g. the Venerable Bede); then beatification, which is Blessed, and finally canonisation, which is Saint. At any step of the process it may stop.
So yeah, for beatification, you would need one miracle. Depending on who the person was, and how intense the lobbying campaign and who the backers were, there may well be pressure to get it done.
But as you can see, at least there *is* a process in place, and the doctor did refuse to be swayed. It wasn't simply "Okay, you paid for it so we'll issue the declaration that So-and-So is now the Blessed So-and-So".
I knew "Blessed" and "Saint", but I didn't realize there was a specific system behind why people say "the Venerable Bede"! Thanks for the explanation!
Oh yeah, used to be you could just set up a local cultus and declare anyone you liked a saint by popular acclaim.
That's how we got mermaid saints and dog-headed saints:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AD_Ban_(mermaid)
https://historyofmermaids.com/feast-of-li-ban-muirgen-the-irish-mermaid-saint/
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-icon-of-st-christopher/
Then Rome stopped all the fun and said "No, we're going to do this properly and there will be Rules" 🙁
Bede is now in fact a saint (declared a Doctor of the Church in 1899, only took 1,164 years since his death but hey, that's Vatican time for you) but he's been known as the Venerable Bede for so long, that's still the name in common usage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede
"His scholarship and importance to Catholicism were recognised in 1899 when the Vatican declared him a Doctor of the Church. He is the only Englishman named a Doctor of the Church. He is also the only Englishman in Dante's Paradise (Paradiso X.130), mentioned among theologians and doctors of the church in the same canto as Isidore of Seville and the Scot Richard of St Victor.
...Bede became known as Venerable Bede (Latin: Beda Venerabilis) by the 9th century because of his holiness, but this was not linked to consideration for sainthood by the Catholic Church. According to a legend, the epithet was miraculously supplied by angels, thus completing his unfinished epitaph. It is first utilised in connection with Bede in the 9th century, where Bede was grouped with others who were called "venerable" at two ecclesiastical councils held at Aachen in 816 and 836. Paul the Deacon then referred to him as venerable consistently. By the 11th and 12th century, it had become commonplace."
> One of his patients had apparently prayed to this person and gotten better
Minor nitpick: Catholicism (being a notionally monotheistic religion) does not allow prayer to anyone except the trinity. You may ask a third party (living or dead) to pray for you, though, which is how the veneration of saints works. I am unsure why going through a third party is thought to be more effective than praying directly to god, though.
Regarding the scrutiny with which the Vatican examines their miracles, it should be noted that they found more instances of miracles than the Randi foundation (which would probably require a double-blind RCT with a significance of five sigma for a miracle cure). This might be because they have more false positives, or fewer false negatives, or because some other confounder. Also, few intercessions with saints seem to have found their way into evidence-based medicine, which they probably would if a particular saint lead to better outcomes over a placebo saint (unless one believes that science is so firmly anti-miracle that they would never be convinced or that while god changes the rules of the universe locally to benefit petitioners, he always does so in deniable ways).
Catholics do pray to saints, they don’t worship them.
’The Baltimore Catechism, question 223, confirms this by teaching: “We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of the saints, but to the persons they represent.”’
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-supports-praying-to-the-saints
How would picking someone with the opposite bias solve that problem? Dawkins would be maximally willing to deny miraculous stories. Presumably you'd pick someone who is neutral on the question (but good luck finding someone!).
To be fair to the Pope, the exclusion of many gospels from the Bible (the Gospel of Thomas, etc.) demonstrates otherwise.
I'm with Deiseach on this one: the Pope knows that if he announces the Second Coming when it hasn't happened, the Catholic Church is dead, and that's an incentive to only *announce* it when he's sure.
I'm Jewish; our experience is that announcing the Messiah has come when he hasn't is a ticket to long-term religious fame and fortune, and you never get in trouble and nobody ever calls you on it.
(except Sabbatai Zevi, I guess, he got robbed)
See also: the Millerites.
Cult leaders and established-religion leaders have different incentives; cult leaders only care about getting a small amount of people very invested, whereas established-religion leaders need a large amount of people a little invested.
This kind of "apocalypse is RTFN" thing is good for getting a cult, not so good for maintaining an established religion.
I'd estimate that doing this would lose 70-80% of Catholics.
Either way the need is to remove discretion from the resolution mechanism. I can have some trust in the resolution mechanism figuring out whether or not the Pope or Dawkins have announced the Second Coming, but little in the resolution mechanism figuring out whether or not the Second Coming has happened based on some vague credible consensus.
Let's say one of these months a new sect arises amongst the Protestants (once again). The leader claims to be the Second Coming and swiftly gathers a billion followers who believe. The poorly defined question gets harder - the leader has some claim to filling the role. Does the question require proof of the supernatural? The Pope/Dawkins question is still an easy decision.
Oh, from the time of the early Church onwards, there has been no lack of people claiming to be Christ come again, or the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, or what have you.
Gosh, I got sidetracked because I was trying to look up the name of the particular heresy which declared the guy (or one of his female companions) to be the incarnated Holy Spirit, and instead I found out about Saint Lucifer 😁
"Lucifer of Cagliari (Latin: Lucifer Calaritanus, Italian: Lucifero da Cagliari; died 20 May 370 or 371) was a bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia known for his passionate opposition to Arianism. He is venerated as a Saint in Sardinia, though his status remains controversial.
...He may have been excommunicated as is hinted in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, as well as Jerome, who refers to his followers as Luciferians. There is extant a work known as Libellus precum ad Imperatores, written by two Luciferian clergy called Faustinus and Marcellinus. Jerome discusses Lucifer and his supporters in his polemic Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi ("Altercation of a Luciferian and an Orthodox"), as well as describing the bishop's career in De Viris Illustribus (chapter 95)."
I do feel that if you are a bishop named "Lucifer", you will indeed end up in controversy.