TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Saturday, February 3rd, 2024.
When making a response video to a podcast that criticizes you,
it's typically a good idea to actually listen to the podcast first.
Michael Lofton, whom we took the task in the prior episode,
appears not to have done that.
About 12 hours after the release of TrapCast Express 184,
Lofton fired up his webcam for what ended up being a 41-minute livestream
purporting to react to it.
Except he didn't. Not really.
He reacted merely to the title of the episode,
which was Pope Francis Checkmates Michael Lofton
by Permitting Invalid Anglican Mass.
Not once did Lofton quote from or play an audio snippet from the podcast,
which was only 18 minutes long, by the way.
So, in his supposed video response,
Lofton confidently explained that he hadn't been checkmated by Francis
since he never claimed that a pope is impeccable.
A bad move, since that wasn't our argument here at all.
Rather, we were pointing out that in April of 2023,
Lofton had expressed his outrage at those who had rashly accused Francis
of having known about and permitted an invalid Anglican Mass
that was offered in the Cathedral of St. John Lateran.
How dare anyone accuse the Holy Father of that
when it is clear he would never permit such a terrible thing, right?
And we played the audio clips from Lofton's show of April 21st, 2023 to prove it.
But now, just this past January 25th,
Francis had given the explicit approval
for an invalid Anglican Mass to be offered
in a Catholic basilica in Rome
by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, no less,
thus proving Lofton's outrage and confident assurances
that the pope would obviously never do something like that
to have been without merit.
That was the checkmate,
the title of the...
the episode was in reference to.
Anyone who's been keeping up with Francis
for the last almost 11 years now
would not consider it out of the question at all
for him to let a Catholic church be defiled
by an Anglican Eucharistic liturgy.
It's only people like Lofton,
whose credibility rests heavily on successfully spinning Francis
into an Orthodox Catholic,
who would say that's an unfounded malicious suspicion
against the vicar of Christ.
And so, for this one, Lofton took a gamble and lost.
That's what the last episode,
Tradcast Express 184, was about.
Now, of course, Lofton is welcome
to respond to our criticism of him,
but then he has to actually respond to it,
and that requires that he first listen to it.
Yes, that can be a painful thing to do,
and it takes time and real work
to put together an interpretation,
but that's what I did with him,
and I shall do it again now in the present podcast.
So, let's go ahead now and analyze
Lofton's oh-so-confident non-response response
step by step.
After making sure everyone hits the subscribe
and like buttons on this video,
Lofton begins by conditioning his audience a little bit
into not taking Tradcast Express 184 at face value
because it's not a good idea.
Because, you know, it happened to be published
shortly after his own publication
of an interview with a religious sister
who had once been a Sedevacantist
and then converted to the Vatican II religion.
So, obviously, Tradcast Express 184
must have been a retaliatory move against him
because, you know, that interview
with the former C. Morinon sister Mary Eucharista
was so powerful.
Here's how that sounded.
Yesterday, I did have,
I did have a video with Sister Mary Eucharista
who is a former Sedevacantist
who has become Catholic
and, you know, entered into full communion
with the Catholic Church
and she gave her story
and it was incredibly awesome.
If you haven't seen it, go and watch it.
I mean, just, wow.
Wow.
I really enjoyed it.
I was captivated the whole time
and I just thought that, wow,
this is a story people really need to hear.
And shortly after that,
I get a text message from a viewer of the show
and they said something along the lines of,
you know, the Novus Ordo watch guy
is going to be really mad or upset about this.
And I'm like, why?
And why does it even matter?
And he said, oh, watch.
He'll be really upset
and he'll come out and say something against you.
Like, okay, what else is new?
But you know what?
He was right.
Shortly right after that,
the Novus Ordo watch posted something
and, you know,
let me share it on my screen.
This is pretty hilarious.
Pope Francis's,
or Pope Francis's check,
Pope Francis checkmates,
Michael Lofton,
by permitting invalid Anglican mass.
I just had to laugh at that.
I thought, okay,
I must've really got to them.
I guess that interview really struck a nerve,
but okay.
Yeah.
Like,
I would have immediately dropped everything
to listen to that interview as soon as it came out
and then decided to find something stupid
to slam Lofton with as retaliation
and then stitch together a bunch of audios
from a 2023 video
and then wrote a script for it
and then recorded and edited it
all within a matter of a few hours.
And all because that video with Sister Eucharista
made me so mad.
Michael Lofton,
I have news for you.
I had not,
and have still not listened to that interview
and I have no plans to do so.
And if I did listen to it
and it were to make me mad,
I would respond to that video
and not to some other video you made in 2023.
So I'm sorry to disappoint,
but your interview with a former Satan
had absolutely nothing to do
with Tradcast Express 184.
So ladies and gentlemen,
you can see how Lofton is setting the stage
for the next interview.
The viewer nudging him
in a particular direction,
more or less poisoning the well
from the outset.
The subtle message is,
don't you be giving those
Sedevacanis any credibility.
They're just mad I interviewed
that former Sede nun.
You know, as if we didn't have
our own converts from the Novus Ordo religion,
including priests.
Anyway, let's get back
to the Lofton audio.
He has a teaching moment for us.
Well, you know what?
This is a good...
This is a good teaching moment.
This is pretty interesting
because this demonstrates
an inability
to make very basic distinctions.
And I will suggest to you
it is that exact reason
why you have these people
being Sedevacanis.
If you are going to be
a Sedevacanis,
you suffer from an inability
to make some basic theological distinctions
I'm sorry if that offends you,
but that's the reality.
I am actually amused
rather than offended.
So apparently Michael Lofton thinks
that we're all just a bunch of dimwits
who can't tell the difference
between infallibility and impeccability,
who think everything a pope does
is and must be perfect,
and who don't even know
that even the pope himself
is a sinner.
And so, Lofton to the rescue.
Look, it's one thing
if you don't know that you're a sinner,
and you disagree with Sedevacantism.
It's one thing if you say
you're not convinced by Sedevacantist arguments.
But no one
who spends even 10 minutes
on the Novels Ordo Watch website
seriously looking at the content
presented there is going to come away
thinking, man, those Sedevacantists
sure can't draw basic
theological distinctions.
So, I think
if anyone should be offended here,
it's the people who regularly listen
to Michael Lofton, because honestly,
he's insulting your intelligence.
And here we see it manifested
in other places.
Because what this assumes
is somehow that
everything the pope does
is absolutely impeccable.
And of course, that's not my position
in any, you know,
Catholic 101 course
would teach you
the pope is not impeccable.
Yeah, it's not our position either.
And if the pope-splainer had actually
listened to the podcast,
he means to be responding to,
he would have known it.
I've criticized Pope Francis.
I don't agree with everything
Pope Francis does.
And let's just say
with this particular case,
Pope Francis permits
an invalid Anglican mass.
How's that a checkmate for me?
Glad you asked.
If you'd listened to
Tradcast Express 184
the first time around,
you'd already know the answer.
But hopefully you know it by now.
Now, since I just summarized it
a few minutes ago.
It's not.
Because my position is not that
Pope Francis is impeccable
in everything that he does.
My position is nuanced enough
to sustain problems
and even sins on parts of popes.
Yes.
Yes, we've had popes who were
fornicators.
We've had popes who did
all kinds of horrible things.
Yeah, my theology can account for that.
Because it's not, you know,
it's not this very shallow,
un-nuanced theology that thinks that,
well, if he's Pope,
he has to be impeccable.
So again, this inability
to make distinctions
is what so many set of
accountants suffer from.
And you see it right here.
I'm glad Michael Lofton
is such a nuanced scholar,
but apparently not nuanced enough
to actually listen to the audio
he's criticizing.
I mean, he just denounced a position
that is no longer a position.
That is nowhere to be found
in Trotcast Express 184.
So at the end of the day,
even if any of this is true,
my point is,
that doesn't touch on my position at all.
And for anybody who knows me
and knows my show,
they know that I don't always agree with the Pope.
I have criticized the Pope on occasions
and in a constructive way,
and I'll continue to do so when necessary,
but I also don't buy into lies
and slander about the Pope.
And when people disseminate lies and slander,
such as Novus Ordo Watch,
and I've documented that on this channel,
which is probably why they're a little upset.
When I have documented that before
and pointed that out,
I'm not going to go along with it.
I'm not going to go along with the lies and slander
just because I don't think that Popes are perfect
doesn't mean that I don't think that they're perfect.
I somehow now have license to lie about a Pope.
So if people are lying about him,
misleading souls,
saying things that are entirely not true,
slandering the Pope,
and it's leading people astray,
I will respond to that.
As any good Catholic should.
Says the man who won't even interact
with a single quote from the podcast he's criticizing.
He's basing everything on the title,
How's that for carefully nuanced research
to expose lies?
All right.
Next, Lofton brings up Pope Leo XIII's
Apostolic Constitution, Apostoli Cecure,
declaring the invalidity of Anglican orders,
and then says that since Justin Welby,
the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury,
said from the pulpit that he had Francis' permission
for offering his sacrilegious pseudo-Eucharist there
in St. Bartholomew's Basilica,
he will accept that at face value and believe him.
Okay.
So far, so good.
Then Lofton continues as follows.
So a couple things going on here.
Let's just say that this is the worst case scenario.
Okay.
It would just mean Pope Francis is wrong.
Oh, really?
No big deal.
It would just mean Francis is wrong.
Huh?
Funny, but that sounded a bit different
in April of last year
when Taylor Marshall,
and others on social media,
accused Francis of doing this very thing,
giving permission for an invalid Anglican Mass
to be celebrated in a Roman Basilica.
Michael Lofton was beside himself.
Here are some clips stitched together
from his April 21st, 2023 video,
Taylor Marshall Spreads Lie About Pope and Anglican Mass.
And by the way,
I am by no means a Taylor Marshall fan.
Hey, everyone.
Welcome back to Reason and Theology.
Your host, Michael.
On a Friday,
I want to review Taylor Marshall's video
spreading the lie that Pope Francis
allowed a fake Mass by a fake bishop
on an altar in Rome.
However, I do agree that it would be a fake Mass
and a fake bishop
since it was an Anglican bishop
who celebrated the liturgy,
which I think is tragic.
That certainly should not have been allowed.
And however this happens,
there was somebody who certainly dropped the ball
in light of the fact that Anglican Masses
are invalid per Pope Leo XIII
due to the invalidity of their order.
So this is certainly an issue.
It needs to be corrected.
It doesn't ever need to happen again
because at the end of the day,
this is simulating a Mass.
It's not actually a Mass itself.
So I agree with the fake Mass and fake bishop part,
but the claim is Pope Francis allowed it to take place
at St. John Lateran's Basilica.
And this is a lie.
This is spreading a lie, misinformation,
and stirring people up in their passions
to get people all angry and upset with Pope Francis.
And of course, this lie is spreading all over social media.
And now, as you can imagine,
the orthobros, that is,
some of the more toxic online orthodox apologists,
are trying to use this against Catholics,
and saying, you know,
look, your Pope approves of fake Anglican Masses
and stuff like that.
And so they're, of course,
watching radical traditionalist Catholics
who are spreading this lie,
and they're trying to use it against us.
So once again, the radical traditionalists
are wreaking havoc upon the church,
stirring people's passions up
and falsely accusing the Holy Father.
Truly tragic.
The enemies of the church.
Are now using this against the Catholic Church
to mock the Catholic Church.
They are watching this stuff,
and they're using it as ammunition
against the Catholic Church.
Looks like the people who are in charge
of booking at St. John Lateran's,
yeah, whoever made this mistake
probably needs to be fired,
and you need to get somebody more reliable.
Just FYI.
If you're booking people
who aren't actually valid priests,
and bishops to celebrate liturgies
on a Catholic altar,
you might need to get somebody else in charge.
So there's certainly some fault here
with whoever did it,
but it can't be blamed on Pope Francis
or any of the high dicasteries
that represent him, frankly.
Let's just make sure this doesn't happen again.
Can we do that?
That'd be helpful.
So now Loftin would have us believe
that there's really nothing to see,
Francis was wrong.
He sinned.
Well, then why didn't Loftin
in April of last year
simply criticize those
who were accusing Francis
of rushing to judgment
without sufficient evidence?
Why then was there outrage?
Ah, we know,
because he considered it beyond the pale
that Francis would do such a thing.
He said that those evil trants
are calumniating Francis
in order to get people all riled up
and that this is something
the enemies of the church
are now using in their argumentation
against Catholicism.
So he was blaming the trants
for giving powerful ammunition
to non-Catholics
to argue against Catholicism.
So why is Loftin not now outraged
at Francis for giving powerful ammunition
to non-Catholics
to argue against Catholicism?
See, this is what's so reprehensible
about the kind of Pope's
explaining Loftin does.
He spins based on the need of the moment.
Last year, since there was no real evidence
that Francis himself
had permitted the invalid Mass,
it was easy for Loftin to argue
that the Pope would never do such a thing.
Well, now that Francis clearly
just did permit such a sacrilege,
the emphasis is on,
well, he's a sinner too.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
But let's understand
what just happened here.
The supposed Pope,
Vicar of Christ,
and Supreme Pontiff
of the Roman Catholic Church
established by Jesus Christ
permitted a heretical and schismatic layman
to publicly simulate
the offering of Mass
on a Catholic altar
of a historic Roman basilica.
What a scandal.
So when a traditionalist blogger
or YouTuber
or even a Novus Ordo cardinal
criticizes Francis,
poof, there is Michael Loftin
denouncing them.
But when the supposed Pope
authorizes an abomination
in a Catholic basilica,
there is silence from Loftin.
I mean, sure, he mentioned it now
in his January 31st podcast,
but only in response
to Tradcast Express 184.
And then he's not really outraged.
He's just trying to spin it all
as favorably to Francis
as possible,
all the while criticizing
a Sedevacantist podcast
he didn't even listen to.
Last April,
when he was able to deny
that Francis had anything to do with it,
Loftin threw his entire weight
behind the false Pope to defend him.
Whereas now that Francis
just checkmated him,
he makes it seem like
it's really nothing to lose sleep over.
Well, obviously,
as the facts now show,
permitting an invalid
Anglican bread and wine service
to be offered in a Catholic church
is something Francis has no problem with.
And those who believed
he was guilty of it last April
have been vindicated
in their suspicion of him.
Loftin was simply wrong to say
that it would have been a firm no
if Francis had been asked
to give permission.
And he should at least
acknowledge that much.
Remember, here's what Loftin said
on April 21st, 2020.
Loftin said,
on April 21st, 2020,
that he was guilty of doing so.
And he was guilty of doing so.
On April 21st, 2023.
I think the Dicastery,
one of the Dicasteries,
if not the Holy Father himself,
should have been involved
in making this decision,
which would have been a firm no.
But since they weren't involved,
and this shows you
they weren't involved,
Pope Francis wasn't involved,
and none of the Dicasteries
were involved,
you know,
you can't blame this on Pope Francis
or any of his direct representatives
in the Dicastery.
Yeah, well,
bailing out Francis
has its risks.
What you confidently assert today,
you may just have to eat tomorrow.
Let's return to Loftin's
January 31st, 2024 audio.
Let's go even more
worst-case scenario.
Let's go to the extent
that Pope Francis
personally believes
that Apostolica Cure
is somehow
not definitive in nature.
You know,
let's say he,
he denies that.
Okay.
You would just simply argue
he's wrong.
By the way,
that wouldn't even make him a heretic.
You would have to deny
a first paragraph teaching,
not a second paragraph
to be a heretic.
It would mean he's an heir.
If only Loftin had listened
to Tradcast Express 184,
he would have known
that that didn't even come up at all.
At no point did I argue
that this means Francis believes
Anglican orders are valid.
Or that it would make him a heretic
if he did believe that.
Honestly,
I don't think Bergoglio
gives a hoot about any of this.
Validity or invalidity.
He probably doesn't even believe in God.
For the next audio clip,
listen closely to what Loftin says
about a pope and being a heretic.
As I've noted many times on this show,
you can even go a step further than that.
A pope can privately be a heretic.
A heretic.
Pretty much everybody agrees.
I don't really know anybody
who would dispute that.
Even Bellarmine,
who takes a really, really
high view of the papacy
and doesn't believe that any pope
would ever teach heresy.
He does believe and did believe
that a pope couldn't materially
be a heretic.
Ouch.
Boy, that was bad.
Notice how Loftin just went
from a pope being a heretic privately
to being a heretic materially.
As if they were the same thing
or even closely related.
They're different categories altogether.
But as far as whether it is possible
for a pope to be a heretic,
I'm talking about a genuine formal heretic
in his capacity as a private person,
meaning not in his official acts as pope,
especially not in his magisterium,
St. Robert Bellarmine said
that it is probably not true.
It is probably not true.
It is not possible.
But it cannot be proved
that it's not possible
and therefore he considered
what consequences would follow
if it did happen.
Such a heretical pope
would immediately cease to be pope
by the very fact itself
without any kind of declaration
or official judgment.
I'm putting the link in the show notes
for this so you can read it for yourself.
It's discussed by Bellarmine
in chapters six and seven
of part four,
four of his work
De Romano Pontifice
on the Roman pontiff.
Now, returning to the issue
of Francis giving permission
to Justin Welby
to offer an invalid Anglican mass,
Loftin says this.
Pope Francis gave him permission
to celebrate this.
Number one, you're assuming
that he somehow thinks
that it's a valid mass.
I'm going to show you something here
in a moment
that will put that into question.
No, I am not assuming that at all.
And if Loftin had actually listened
to the podcast
instead of just reading the title,
he would have known it.
Talk about assuming stuff.
But again, let's just say
he thinks it's a valid mass.
OK, folks can be wrong.
That's not the same as teaching air.
Yes, I know.
And I never said otherwise.
See, these are basic distinctions
we have to learn to make.
And if we don't make them,
we'll end up becoming
set of a contest
like this Mario guy
at Novus Ordo Watch.
Basic distinctions.
You know, like what he just did
by equating being a material heretic
with being a private heretic.
But again, he's refuting an argument
that was never made.
But he doesn't know that
because he didn't bother listening
to the podcast
to which he's responding.
Next, Loftin moves on
to another gigantic red herring.
Listen to this.
A number of people
have pointed out
to me and I've found it helpful
that there have been
some factual changes
in the situation
with Anglicans
since the time of 1896.
Since that time,
there has been an introduction
of valid orders
into Anglicanism,
pockets of Anglicanism
through old Catholics
and also Eastern Orthodox.
How widespread that has been
is a different question.
But some argue
that it's actually
become pretty prevalent.
So the situation
that Leo XIII was analyzing,
some would argue,
is very different than today
because now you have
this new phenomenon
where some of these Anglican people
have received
orders from
communions who do have
valid apostolic succession
and valid orders
such as old Catholics
and Eastern Orthodox.
I'll just give you
just one example of this
and that is most recently
we know of Calvin Robinson.
Well, you look on his profile,
he says old right orders
or old Catholic orders.
He received his orders
through the old Catholics.
Through that lineage.
And therefore,
he would have valid orders,
it would seem.
Okay, stop, stop, stop.
Not all old Catholic orders
are valid, Mr. Lofton.
Some are, some are not.
The so-called old Catholics,
for those who don't know,
are a liberal sect
that developed in 1870 or 71
in response to the first Vatican Council,
whose dogma,
of papal infallibility,
they refused to accept.
Anyway, why do I say
that's a red herring?
Very simple.
Because what Michael Lofton
brings up here
does not pertain
to the Anglican Church in general,
but merely to individual clerics
specifically,
who for whatever reason
had in their particular case
received a valid ordination.
Possibly.
It would depend on whether
the Anglican ordination right
itself is valid,
because if it isn't,
then it doesn't matter
if a valid bishop is involved,
if the right itself is defective.
And frankly,
I don't know the issue well enough
without researching
to know whether the right itself,
as it is done at this point,
is valid or not.
I just don't know.
So the point is, though,
that unless Michael Lofton
can demonstrate
that Justin Welby
is one of those special cases
that has valid ordination,
even though he is an Anglican,
then what he's saying here
is irrelevant.
Unless maybe he wants to argue
that out of the 49 other clerics
that accompanied Welby
and presumably can celebrate it with him,
at least one of them was valid
and that that would have made it
a valid mass.
But even that argument
would not hold water
because the scandal is
that Justin Welby
very specifically
was given permission,
not a horde of other priests,
or bishops.
Furthermore,
in order to prevent scandal,
the Vatican would have had to publicize
that Justin Welby
is a valid bishop
despite the general invalidity
of Anglican orders.
And lastly,
of course,
it would still be
a horrendous scandal
and sacrilege
to allow a valid Anglican bishop
to offer a Eucharistic liturgy
in a Catholic basilica
since validity
is not the only criterion
at play here.
Valid or not,
it is still the official worship
of a heretical
and schismatic religion.
Then, skipping ahead a bit,
Loftin uses in his defense
the Directory for the Application
of Principles and Norms
on Ecumenism.
Paragraph 137
of that lengthy document
allows for a Catholic church
to be used,
under certain circumstances,
by heretics and schismatics
for their liturgical celebrations
and religious celebrations.
But, of course,
there is a little problem.
The document was promulgated
in 1993
by John Paul II.
Does Loftin really think
he can respond to Sedevacantus
with a document
of the Novels Ordo Magisterium?
In fact,
on Novels Ordo Watch,
we've used that very document
and its evil laws
as proof
that John Paul II
cannot have been
a valid pope
and the Vatican
II Church
cannot be
the Roman Catholic Church.
But wait,
it gets better.
Loftin doesn't realize it,
but by appealing
to that document,
he just shot himself
in the foot.
Here's what he said
in summary,
what appealing
to this document proves.
It does show,
at the very least,
in cases where
a person might not have
access to a building,
the church could allow
for the use of its property,
not only for priests,
but even just ministers.
And that would include people
with invalid orders.
Did you notice it?
Loftin went from
blasting people
who dared to accuse Francis
of permitting an Anglican bishop
to offer an invalid mass
in a Catholic cathedral
last April,
and thereby stirring up
people's passions,
to telling us that,
well, worst case scenario is
Francis is wrong
and he sinned,
to now telling us that,
hey, this is basically,
permitted by the church,
so relax.
And it gets worse still.
If we take Loftin's
worst case scenario seriously,
that Francis sinned
by doing that
because it's a sin
to allow an invalid mass
to be offered
by a heretical minister
in a Catholic church,
then he just admitted
that his Vatican II church
has made the sin
into a universal disciplinary law
by including this permission
in paragraph
137 of the Directory
for the Application
of Principles and Norms
on Ecumenism,
solemnly promulgated by
Saint John Paul II.
And by the way,
in true Catholicism,
universal disciplinary laws
promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff
are infallible,
proving that John Paul II
could not have been
a valid pope
and the Novus Ordo sect
cannot be
the Roman Catholic Church.
Thank you,
Michael Loftin.
All right,
skipping ahead some more,
we find that Loftin
also enlists the help
of then Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger.
Here it's noted
on Anglican orders,
Bishop Rowell quotes
Cardinal Ratzinger as saying,
We cannot do anything
about Leo XIII's words.
But there are, however,
other ways of looking at things.
While the Pope Emeritus
does not follow up
with any suggestions,
he does accept that
Anglican Eucharist
and Eucharistic services
have value.
Quote,
When an ecclesial community
with its ordained ministry
in obedience to the Lord's command
celebrates the Eucharist,
the faithful are caught
into the heavenly places
and their feet on Christ,
he says.
Now,
you may not be aware of that,
but that was Ratzinger's view.
Ratzinger would say,
okay,
maybe some of them
are not
don't have valid orders
because, again,
he would say some of them do
if they have, you know,
orders through the old Catholics.
But those who don't,
okay, sure,
Leo XIII,
what he's saying is true,
not valid,
but he's still saying,
but there's still
value to what they're doing.
They feed on Christ spiritually,
though not through
the physical means
in the way that we do
through the dogma
dogma of transubstantiation.
Yeah,
and that is not surprising
that the uber-modernist Ratzinger
would have said that.
It is all part and parcel
of the subjectivism of Vatican II
and the new ecclesiology.
So,
congratulations, Michael Lofton,
you have again used
a Novus Ordo prelate,
a heretic of the worst sort,
the man who later became
Pope Benedict XVI,
in defense of your position
against Sedevacantism.
That makes sense.
That makes as much sense
as appealing to the Bible
when arguing with an atheist.
By the way,
this piece of nonsense
from Ratzinger
regarding the value
of Anglican services
beautifully shows
the direct and irreconcilable
contradiction
with the true
pre-Vatican II
Catholic magisterium.
What you find before Vatican II
is that the official worship
of a heretical sect
is false worship.
Greatly,
bravely offends God
and is a mortal sin,
objectively speaking.
The Vatican II modernists
have turned that
into something positive,
something that has value
before God.
By the way,
we're talking about a religion
that was founded
by King Henry VIII
because the Pope refused
to declare his valid marriage
null and void.
We're talking about a religion
that killed St. Thomas More
and St. John Fisher,
and blessed Edmund Campion.
The worship of that religion
is an abomination to God.
God holds his nose
at their worship.
Again, objectively speaking.
Yes, a particular individual
who is innocently trapped
in the Anglican religion,
think especially of young children
who don't know any better,
could be subjectively pleasing to God,
but that would be in spite
of the Anglican religion
and so on.
Certainly not because of it.
By the way,
let's listen again
to what Michael Lofton thought
about an invalid Mass
being offered in a Catholic church
in 2023.
I do agree that it would be
a fake Mass and a fake bishop
since it was an Anglican bishop
who celebrated the liturgy,
which I think is tragic.
That certainly should not
have been allowed.
And however this happened,
there was somebody
who certainly dropped the ball
in light of the fact that
Anglican Masses are invalid
per Pope Leo XIII
due to the invalidity
of their order.
So this is certainly an issue.
It needs to be corrected.
It doesn't ever need to happen again
because at the end of the day,
this is simulating a Mass.
It's not actually a Mass itself.
So I agree with the fake Mass
and fake bishop part,
but the claim is Pope Francis
allowed it to take place
at St. John Lateran's Basilica.
And this is a lie.
That just didn't age well, did it?
Since you do have this position
that many Catholics have put forward
that, okay, perhaps this isn't
a valid Mass,
but it still has value,
is that what's going on
with Pope Francis?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Yeah, you know,
it really doesn't matter
what Francis was thinking
because either way,
it's all garbage, okay?
Nothing could justify
allowing the Archlaemon
of Canterbury
to celebrate an Anglican liturgy
in the Catholic Church.
Nothing.
Next, after exhorting
Sedevacantus not to be
such sloppy thinkers,
our nuanced theological scholar
reminds us
that the worst case scenario
is that Francis is wrong on this.
And in any case,
that doesn't translate
into his magisterium is invalid
or he teaches heresy
in his magisterium
or he teaches air
in his magisterium.
That's right.
And that's why I didn't make
such a stupid argument
in the first place.
It's too bad Lofton
didn't listen to the podcast
he's pretending to refute.
Next, he brings up the fact
that in 2015,
Francis gave a Eucharistic
patent and chalice
to a Lutheran minister in Rome.
The man's name is
Jens Martin Kruse,
just for the record.
Here, Lofton has another
brilliant response.
Well, you know what?
That's not true.
Not new.
This is brought up.
This is something
that we've seen with Paul VI.
Well, that changes everything.
It's not a new thing Bergoglio did,
as if anybody had claimed
that it was.
Now, you see,
one of the other false popes
did it before Francis,
Paul VI, in 1966.
So there.
Thank you again, Michael Lofton,
for helping us make our case.
Ah, but then he concedes
that this isn't an argument
he can use against
Sedevacantists,
since we don't accept
Paul VI as a valid pope either.
I'm speaking more to Catholics
who haven't yet embraced
the very irrational position
of Sedevacantism.
Got it.
See, I thought his podcast
was about reason and theology
rather than just keeping Bergoglio
adherents loyal to Bergoglio.
But then that would explain
why he didn't bother listening to
or interacting with the content
of Trapcast Express 184.
He's simply counting on his viewers
not to listen to it either.
And now I want to end this podcast
with another Lofton clip
taken from somewhere in the middle
of the very same video
we've been dissecting here.
Sorry, guys.
I know those of y'all
who really, really don't like me
were expecting this to somehow
be a checkmate or a defeat
from my position.
It's not.
It just means,
it's a checkmate
for what you thought, I believe,
because you were too lazy
to actually pay attention
to what I actually say.
Well, if that isn't the pot
calling the kettle black.
Congratulations, Michael Lofton.
First, Francis checkmated you,
and now you just checkmated yourself.
Trapcast Express is a production
of Novus Ordo Watch.
Check us out at trapcast.org,
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making
a tax-deductible contribution
at novusordowatch.org
slash donate.