[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Saturday, February 3rd, 2024. [ 15 → 21] When making a response video to a podcast that criticizes you, [ 21 → 25] it's typically a good idea to actually listen to the podcast first. [ 26 → 30] Michael Lofton, whom we took the task in the prior episode, [ 30 → 32] appears not to have done that. [ 33 → 38] About 12 hours after the release of TrapCast Express 184, [ 38 → 43] Lofton fired up his webcam for what ended up being a 41-minute livestream [ 43 → 46] purporting to react to it. [ 46 → 49] Except he didn't. Not really. [ 49 → 52] He reacted merely to the title of the episode, [ 52 → 56] which was Pope Francis Checkmates Michael Lofton [ 56 → 59] by Permitting Invalid Anglican Mass. [ 60 → 65] Not once did Lofton quote from or play an audio snippet from the podcast, [ 66 → 68] which was only 18 minutes long, by the way. [ 69 → 72] So, in his supposed video response, [ 73 → 77] Lofton confidently explained that he hadn't been checkmated by Francis [ 77 → 81] since he never claimed that a pope is impeccable. [ 82 → 85] A bad move, since that wasn't our argument here at all. [ 85 → 89] Rather, we were pointing out that in April of 2023, [ 90 → 95] Lofton had expressed his outrage at those who had rashly accused Francis [ 95 → 100] of having known about and permitted an invalid Anglican Mass [ 100 → 104] that was offered in the Cathedral of St. John Lateran. [ 104 → 108] How dare anyone accuse the Holy Father of that [ 108 → 112] when it is clear he would never permit such a terrible thing, right? [ 113 → 120] And we played the audio clips from Lofton's show of April 21st, 2023 to prove it. [ 120 → 124] But now, just this past January 25th, [ 124 → 127] Francis had given the explicit approval [ 127 → 131] for an invalid Anglican Mass to be offered [ 131 → 133] in a Catholic basilica in Rome [ 133 → 136] by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, no less, [ 137 → 140] thus proving Lofton's outrage and confident assurances [ 140 → 144] that the pope would obviously never do something like that [ 144 → 146] to have been without merit. [ 147 → 149] That was the checkmate, [ 149 → 150] the title of the... [ 150 → 152] the episode was in reference to. [ 153 → 155] Anyone who's been keeping up with Francis [ 155 → 158] for the last almost 11 years now [ 158 → 161] would not consider it out of the question at all [ 161 → 164] for him to let a Catholic church be defiled [ 164 → 166] by an Anglican Eucharistic liturgy. [ 166 → 168] It's only people like Lofton, [ 169 → 173] whose credibility rests heavily on successfully spinning Francis [ 173 → 174] into an Orthodox Catholic, [ 175 → 178] who would say that's an unfounded malicious suspicion [ 178 → 180] against the vicar of Christ. [ 180 → 186] And so, for this one, Lofton took a gamble and lost. [ 187 → 188] That's what the last episode, [ 189 → 191] Tradcast Express 184, was about. [ 192 → 194] Now, of course, Lofton is welcome [ 194 → 196] to respond to our criticism of him, [ 197 → 200] but then he has to actually respond to it, [ 200 → 203] and that requires that he first listen to it. [ 204 → 206] Yes, that can be a painful thing to do, [ 206 → 209] and it takes time and real work [ 209 → 210] to put together an interpretation, [ 210 → 213] but that's what I did with him, [ 213 → 217] and I shall do it again now in the present podcast. [ 217 → 220] So, let's go ahead now and analyze [ 220 → 224] Lofton's oh-so-confident non-response response [ 224 → 225] step by step. [ 227 → 230] After making sure everyone hits the subscribe [ 230 → 232] and like buttons on this video, [ 232 → 235] Lofton begins by conditioning his audience a little bit [ 235 → 240] into not taking Tradcast Express 184 at face value [ 240 → 240] because it's not a good idea. [ 240 → 242] Because, you know, it happened to be published [ 242 → 244] shortly after his own publication [ 244 → 247] of an interview with a religious sister [ 247 → 249] who had once been a Sedevacantist [ 249 → 252] and then converted to the Vatican II religion. [ 253 → 256] So, obviously, Tradcast Express 184 [ 256 → 260] must have been a retaliatory move against him [ 260 → 262] because, you know, that interview [ 262 → 265] with the former C. Morinon sister Mary Eucharista [ 265 → 266] was so powerful. [ 267 → 268] Here's how that sounded. [ 269 → 270] Yesterday, I did have, [ 270 → 273] I did have a video with Sister Mary Eucharista [ 273 → 276] who is a former Sedevacantist [ 276 → 279] who has become Catholic [ 279 → 281] and, you know, entered into full communion [ 281 → 282] with the Catholic Church [ 282 → 284] and she gave her story [ 284 → 285] and it was incredibly awesome. [ 285 → 287] If you haven't seen it, go and watch it. [ 287 → 288] I mean, just, wow. [ 289 → 289] Wow. [ 290 → 290] Wow. [ 290 → 291] I really enjoyed it. [ 292 → 293] I was captivated the whole time [ 293 → 295] and I just thought that, wow, [ 295 → 297] this is a story people really need to hear. [ 298 → 300] And shortly after that, [ 300 → 302] I get a text message from a viewer of the show [ 302 → 304] and they said something along the lines of, [ 304 → 306] you know, the Novus Ordo watch guy [ 306 → 308] is going to be really mad or upset about this. [ 308 → 310] And I'm like, why? [ 312 → 313] And why does it even matter? [ 314 → 316] And he said, oh, watch. [ 317 → 318] He'll be really upset [ 318 → 320] and he'll come out and say something against you. [ 320 → 322] Like, okay, what else is new? [ 322 → 323] But you know what? [ 323 → 324] He was right. [ 324 → 325] Shortly right after that, [ 326 → 329] the Novus Ordo watch posted something [ 329 → 330] and, you know, [ 330 → 331] let me share it on my screen. [ 331 → 332] This is pretty hilarious. [ 333 → 335] Pope Francis's, [ 335 → 337] or Pope Francis's check, [ 338 → 339] Pope Francis checkmates, [ 340 → 341] Michael Lofton, [ 341 → 344] by permitting invalid Anglican mass. [ 347 → 349] I just had to laugh at that. [ 349 → 350] I thought, okay, [ 350 → 351] I must've really got to them. [ 354 → 357] I guess that interview really struck a nerve, [ 357 → 358] but okay. [ 358 → 359] Yeah. [ 359 → 359] Like, [ 359 → 361] I would have immediately dropped everything [ 361 → 364] to listen to that interview as soon as it came out [ 364 → 366] and then decided to find something stupid [ 366 → 369] to slam Lofton with as retaliation [ 369 → 372] and then stitch together a bunch of audios [ 372 → 373] from a 2023 video [ 373 → 375] and then wrote a script for it [ 375 → 377] and then recorded and edited it [ 377 → 379] all within a matter of a few hours. [ 380 → 383] And all because that video with Sister Eucharista [ 383 → 384] made me so mad. [ 385 → 386] Michael Lofton, [ 386 → 388] I have news for you. [ 388 → 389] I had not, [ 389 → 392] and have still not listened to that interview [ 392 → 394] and I have no plans to do so. [ 394 → 396] And if I did listen to it [ 396 → 397] and it were to make me mad, [ 398 → 399] I would respond to that video [ 399 → 402] and not to some other video you made in 2023. [ 403 → 405] So I'm sorry to disappoint, [ 405 → 407] but your interview with a former Satan [ 407 → 410] had absolutely nothing to do [ 410 → 413] with Tradcast Express 184. [ 414 → 416] So ladies and gentlemen, [ 416 → 419] you can see how Lofton is setting the stage [ 419 → 419] for the next interview. [ 419 → 421] The viewer nudging him [ 421 → 422] in a particular direction, [ 423 → 424] more or less poisoning the well [ 424 → 425] from the outset. [ 426 → 427] The subtle message is, [ 427 → 429] don't you be giving those [ 429 → 430] Sedevacanis any credibility. [ 431 → 432] They're just mad I interviewed [ 432 → 434] that former Sede nun. [ 434 → 436] You know, as if we didn't have [ 436 → 438] our own converts from the Novus Ordo religion, [ 439 → 440] including priests. [ 441 → 443] Anyway, let's get back [ 443 → 444] to the Lofton audio. [ 444 → 447] He has a teaching moment for us. [ 447 → 448] Well, you know what? [ 448 → 449] This is a good... [ 449 → 450] This is a good teaching moment. [ 450 → 452] This is pretty interesting [ 452 → 456] because this demonstrates [ 456 → 457] an inability [ 457 → 460] to make very basic distinctions. [ 461 → 464] And I will suggest to you [ 464 → 467] it is that exact reason [ 467 → 468] why you have these people [ 468 → 470] being Sedevacanis. [ 471 → 473] If you are going to be [ 473 → 474] a Sedevacanis, [ 474 → 476] you suffer from an inability [ 476 → 479] to make some basic theological distinctions [ 479 → 482] I'm sorry if that offends you, [ 482 → 483] but that's the reality. [ 484 → 485] I am actually amused [ 485 → 486] rather than offended. [ 487 → 489] So apparently Michael Lofton thinks [ 489 → 490] that we're all just a bunch of dimwits [ 490 → 492] who can't tell the difference [ 492 → 495] between infallibility and impeccability, [ 495 → 497] who think everything a pope does [ 497 → 499] is and must be perfect, [ 499 → 500] and who don't even know [ 500 → 502] that even the pope himself [ 502 → 503] is a sinner. [ 504 → 506] And so, Lofton to the rescue. [ 507 → 508] Look, it's one thing [ 508 → 509] if you don't know that you're a sinner, [ 509 → 510] and you disagree with Sedevacantism. [ 511 → 512] It's one thing if you say [ 512 → 515] you're not convinced by Sedevacantist arguments. [ 516 → 517] But no one [ 517 → 519] who spends even 10 minutes [ 519 → 520] on the Novels Ordo Watch website [ 520 → 523] seriously looking at the content [ 523 → 525] presented there is going to come away [ 525 → 527] thinking, man, those Sedevacantists [ 527 → 529] sure can't draw basic [ 529 → 530] theological distinctions. [ 531 → 533] So, I think [ 533 → 534] if anyone should be offended here, [ 535 → 537] it's the people who regularly listen [ 537 → 539] to Michael Lofton, because honestly, [ 539 → 541] he's insulting your intelligence. [ 541 → 543] And here we see it manifested [ 543 → 544] in other places. [ 546 → 548] Because what this assumes [ 548 → 549] is somehow that [ 549 → 551] everything the pope does [ 551 → 553] is absolutely impeccable. [ 554 → 556] And of course, that's not my position [ 556 → 558] in any, you know, [ 558 → 560] Catholic 101 course [ 560 → 561] would teach you [ 561 → 563] the pope is not impeccable. [ 563 → 565] Yeah, it's not our position either. [ 566 → 567] And if the pope-splainer had actually [ 567 → 569] listened to the podcast, [ 569 → 570] he means to be responding to, [ 570 → 571] he would have known it. [ 572 → 573] I've criticized Pope Francis. [ 573 → 575] I don't agree with everything [ 575 → 576] Pope Francis does. [ 577 → 579] And let's just say [ 579 → 581] with this particular case, [ 581 → 583] Pope Francis permits [ 583 → 585] an invalid Anglican mass. [ 587 → 588] How's that a checkmate for me? [ 589 → 590] Glad you asked. [ 590 → 592] If you'd listened to [ 592 → 594] Tradcast Express 184 [ 594 → 595] the first time around, [ 595 → 597] you'd already know the answer. [ 597 → 599] But hopefully you know it by now. [ 599 → 600] Now, since I just summarized it [ 600 → 601] a few minutes ago. [ 601 → 602] It's not. [ 602 → 604] Because my position is not that [ 604 → 606] Pope Francis is impeccable [ 606 → 607] in everything that he does. [ 608 → 610] My position is nuanced enough [ 610 → 613] to sustain problems [ 613 → 616] and even sins on parts of popes. [ 617 → 617] Yes. [ 618 → 619] Yes, we've had popes who were [ 619 → 621] fornicators. [ 621 → 622] We've had popes who did [ 622 → 624] all kinds of horrible things. [ 625 → 627] Yeah, my theology can account for that. [ 627 → 628] Because it's not, you know, [ 628 → 630] it's not this very shallow, [ 631 → 633] un-nuanced theology that thinks that, [ 633 → 634] well, if he's Pope, [ 634 → 636] he has to be impeccable. [ 636 → 639] So again, this inability [ 639 → 641] to make distinctions [ 641 → 643] is what so many set of [ 643 → 644] accountants suffer from. [ 644 → 645] And you see it right here. [ 646 → 648] I'm glad Michael Lofton [ 648 → 649] is such a nuanced scholar, [ 650 → 652] but apparently not nuanced enough [ 652 → 654] to actually listen to the audio [ 654 → 655] he's criticizing. [ 655 → 658] I mean, he just denounced a position [ 658 → 658] that is no longer a position. [ 658 → 659] That is nowhere to be found [ 659 → 662] in Trotcast Express 184. [ 662 → 663] So at the end of the day, [ 664 → 666] even if any of this is true, [ 666 → 668] my point is, [ 668 → 672] that doesn't touch on my position at all. [ 673 → 675] And for anybody who knows me [ 675 → 676] and knows my show, [ 676 → 679] they know that I don't always agree with the Pope. [ 680 → 682] I have criticized the Pope on occasions [ 682 → 685] and in a constructive way, [ 685 → 688] and I'll continue to do so when necessary, [ 688 → 693] but I also don't buy into lies [ 693 → 695] and slander about the Pope. [ 696 → 698] And when people disseminate lies and slander, [ 698 → 701] such as Novus Ordo Watch, [ 701 → 703] and I've documented that on this channel, [ 703 → 704] which is probably why they're a little upset. [ 705 → 708] When I have documented that before [ 708 → 709] and pointed that out, [ 710 → 712] I'm not going to go along with it. [ 712 → 714] I'm not going to go along with the lies and slander [ 714 → 717] just because I don't think that Popes are perfect [ 717 → 718] doesn't mean that I don't think that they're perfect. [ 718 → 721] I somehow now have license to lie about a Pope. [ 722 → 724] So if people are lying about him, [ 725 → 726] misleading souls, [ 728 → 730] saying things that are entirely not true, [ 732 → 733] slandering the Pope, [ 733 → 734] and it's leading people astray, [ 735 → 736] I will respond to that. [ 737 → 740] As any good Catholic should. [ 740 → 742] Says the man who won't even interact [ 742 → 745] with a single quote from the podcast he's criticizing. [ 746 → 748] He's basing everything on the title, [ 748 → 752] How's that for carefully nuanced research [ 752 → 754] to expose lies? [ 755 → 756] All right. [ 756 → 759] Next, Lofton brings up Pope Leo XIII's [ 759 → 762] Apostolic Constitution, Apostoli Cecure, [ 762 → 765] declaring the invalidity of Anglican orders, [ 766 → 768] and then says that since Justin Welby, [ 768 → 770] the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, [ 770 → 773] said from the pulpit that he had Francis' permission [ 773 → 776] for offering his sacrilegious pseudo-Eucharist there [ 776 → 778] in St. Bartholomew's Basilica, [ 778 → 782] he will accept that at face value and believe him. [ 782 → 782] Okay. [ 783 → 784] So far, so good. [ 785 → 787] Then Lofton continues as follows. [ 787 → 790] So a couple things going on here. [ 790 → 794] Let's just say that this is the worst case scenario. [ 795 → 795] Okay. [ 796 → 797] It would just mean Pope Francis is wrong. [ 798 → 798] Oh, really? [ 799 → 800] No big deal. [ 800 → 802] It would just mean Francis is wrong. [ 803 → 803] Huh? [ 803 → 805] Funny, but that sounded a bit different [ 805 → 807] in April of last year [ 807 → 808] when Taylor Marshall, [ 808 → 810] and others on social media, [ 810 → 813] accused Francis of doing this very thing, [ 813 → 816] giving permission for an invalid Anglican Mass [ 816 → 819] to be celebrated in a Roman Basilica. [ 819 → 822] Michael Lofton was beside himself. [ 823 → 824] Here are some clips stitched together [ 824 → 828] from his April 21st, 2023 video, [ 828 → 833] Taylor Marshall Spreads Lie About Pope and Anglican Mass. [ 834 → 835] And by the way, [ 835 → 837] I am by no means a Taylor Marshall fan. [ 837 → 838] Hey, everyone. [ 838 → 840] Welcome back to Reason and Theology. [ 841 → 841] Your host, Michael. [ 842 → 842] On a Friday, [ 843 → 846] I want to review Taylor Marshall's video [ 846 → 849] spreading the lie that Pope Francis [ 849 → 852] allowed a fake Mass by a fake bishop [ 852 → 854] on an altar in Rome. [ 854 → 857] However, I do agree that it would be a fake Mass [ 857 → 859] and a fake bishop [ 859 → 861] since it was an Anglican bishop [ 861 → 862] who celebrated the liturgy, [ 862 → 863] which I think is tragic. [ 863 → 866] That certainly should not have been allowed. [ 866 → 868] And however this happens, [ 868 → 871] there was somebody who certainly dropped the ball [ 871 → 873] in light of the fact that Anglican Masses [ 873 → 876] are invalid per Pope Leo XIII [ 876 → 878] due to the invalidity of their order. [ 878 → 880] So this is certainly an issue. [ 880 → 882] It needs to be corrected. [ 882 → 884] It doesn't ever need to happen again [ 884 → 885] because at the end of the day, [ 886 → 887] this is simulating a Mass. [ 887 → 889] It's not actually a Mass itself. [ 889 → 891] So I agree with the fake Mass and fake bishop part, [ 892 → 896] but the claim is Pope Francis allowed it to take place [ 896 → 898] at St. John Lateran's Basilica. [ 898 → 899] And this is a lie. [ 900 → 902] This is spreading a lie, misinformation, [ 903 → 905] and stirring people up in their passions [ 905 → 910] to get people all angry and upset with Pope Francis. [ 912 → 917] And of course, this lie is spreading all over social media. [ 917 → 919] And now, as you can imagine, [ 920 → 921] the orthobros, that is, [ 921 → 925] some of the more toxic online orthodox apologists, [ 925 → 928] are trying to use this against Catholics, [ 928 → 930] and saying, you know, [ 930 → 933] look, your Pope approves of fake Anglican Masses [ 933 → 934] and stuff like that. [ 934 → 937] And so they're, of course, [ 937 → 940] watching radical traditionalist Catholics [ 940 → 941] who are spreading this lie, [ 941 → 943] and they're trying to use it against us. [ 943 → 945] So once again, the radical traditionalists [ 945 → 948] are wreaking havoc upon the church, [ 948 → 950] stirring people's passions up [ 950 → 953] and falsely accusing the Holy Father. [ 953 → 954] Truly tragic. [ 954 → 958] The enemies of the church. [ 958 → 961] Are now using this against the Catholic Church [ 961 → 962] to mock the Catholic Church. [ 963 → 964] They are watching this stuff, [ 964 → 966] and they're using it as ammunition [ 966 → 968] against the Catholic Church. [ 970 → 972] Looks like the people who are in charge [ 972 → 974] of booking at St. John Lateran's, [ 975 → 977] yeah, whoever made this mistake [ 977 → 978] probably needs to be fired, [ 979 → 981] and you need to get somebody more reliable. [ 981 → 982] Just FYI. [ 983 → 985] If you're booking people [ 985 → 988] who aren't actually valid priests, [ 988 → 990] and bishops to celebrate liturgies [ 990 → 991] on a Catholic altar, [ 992 → 996] you might need to get somebody else in charge. [ 996 → 998] So there's certainly some fault here [ 999 → 1000] with whoever did it, [1000 → 1003] but it can't be blamed on Pope Francis [1003 → 1005] or any of the high dicasteries [1005 → 1006] that represent him, frankly. [1008 → 1010] Let's just make sure this doesn't happen again. [1011 → 1012] Can we do that? [1012 → 1013] That'd be helpful. [1014 → 1016] So now Loftin would have us believe [1016 → 1017] that there's really nothing to see, [1018 → 1020] Francis was wrong. [1020 → 1021] He sinned. [1021 → 1023] Well, then why didn't Loftin [1023 → 1024] in April of last year [1024 → 1026] simply criticize those [1026 → 1028] who were accusing Francis [1028 → 1029] of rushing to judgment [1029 → 1031] without sufficient evidence? [1032 → 1034] Why then was there outrage? [1035 → 1036] Ah, we know, [1036 → 1039] because he considered it beyond the pale [1039 → 1041] that Francis would do such a thing. [1042 → 1044] He said that those evil trants [1044 → 1046] are calumniating Francis [1046 → 1047] in order to get people all riled up [1048 → 1050] and that this is something [1050 → 1051] the enemies of the church [1051 → 1053] are now using in their argumentation [1053 → 1054] against Catholicism. [1055 → 1057] So he was blaming the trants [1057 → 1058] for giving powerful ammunition [1058 → 1060] to non-Catholics [1060 → 1062] to argue against Catholicism. [1062 → 1066] So why is Loftin not now outraged [1066 → 1069] at Francis for giving powerful ammunition [1069 → 1070] to non-Catholics [1070 → 1072] to argue against Catholicism? [1074 → 1076] See, this is what's so reprehensible [1076 → 1077] about the kind of Pope's [1077 → 1079] explaining Loftin does. [1079 → 1083] He spins based on the need of the moment. [1084 → 1086] Last year, since there was no real evidence [1086 → 1088] that Francis himself [1088 → 1089] had permitted the invalid Mass, [1090 → 1092] it was easy for Loftin to argue [1092 → 1094] that the Pope would never do such a thing. [1095 → 1097] Well, now that Francis clearly [1097 → 1099] just did permit such a sacrilege, [1100 → 1101] the emphasis is on, [1101 → 1103] well, he's a sinner too. [1103 → 1104] Nothing to see here. [1104 → 1105] Move along. [1106 → 1107] But let's understand [1107 → 1109] what just happened here. [1109 → 1111] The supposed Pope, [1111 → 1112] Vicar of Christ, [1112 → 1113] and Supreme Pontiff [1113 → 1116] of the Roman Catholic Church [1116 → 1117] established by Jesus Christ [1117 → 1122] permitted a heretical and schismatic layman [1122 → 1124] to publicly simulate [1124 → 1126] the offering of Mass [1126 → 1128] on a Catholic altar [1128 → 1131] of a historic Roman basilica. [1132 → 1133] What a scandal. [1134 → 1136] So when a traditionalist blogger [1136 → 1137] or YouTuber [1137 → 1139] or even a Novus Ordo cardinal [1139 → 1141] criticizes Francis, [1141 → 1143] poof, there is Michael Loftin [1143 → 1144] denouncing them. [1144 → 1146] But when the supposed Pope [1146 → 1148] authorizes an abomination [1148 → 1149] in a Catholic basilica, [1150 → 1152] there is silence from Loftin. [1152 → 1154] I mean, sure, he mentioned it now [1154 → 1156] in his January 31st podcast, [1156 → 1158] but only in response [1158 → 1160] to Tradcast Express 184. [1161 → 1163] And then he's not really outraged. [1163 → 1165] He's just trying to spin it all [1165 → 1166] as favorably to Francis [1166 → 1167] as possible, [1167 → 1169] all the while criticizing [1169 → 1170] a Sedevacantist podcast [1170 → 1173] he didn't even listen to. [1174 → 1175] Last April, [1175 → 1177] when he was able to deny [1177 → 1179] that Francis had anything to do with it, [1179 → 1181] Loftin threw his entire weight [1181 → 1183] behind the false Pope to defend him. [1184 → 1186] Whereas now that Francis [1186 → 1187] just checkmated him, [1188 → 1189] he makes it seem like [1189 → 1192] it's really nothing to lose sleep over. [1193 → 1194] Well, obviously, [1194 → 1196] as the facts now show, [1196 → 1198] permitting an invalid [1198 → 1200] Anglican bread and wine service [1200 → 1201] to be offered in a Catholic church [1201 → 1204] is something Francis has no problem with. [1205 → 1206] And those who believed [1206 → 1208] he was guilty of it last April [1208 → 1210] have been vindicated [1210 → 1211] in their suspicion of him. [1212 → 1214] Loftin was simply wrong to say [1214 → 1216] that it would have been a firm no [1216 → 1218] if Francis had been asked [1218 → 1219] to give permission. [1219 → 1220] And he should at least [1220 → 1222] acknowledge that much. [1222 → 1225] Remember, here's what Loftin said [1225 → 1225] on April 21st, 2020. [1225 → 1225] Loftin said, [1225 → 1225] on April 21st, 2020, [1225 → 1225] that he was guilty of doing so. [1225 → 1226] And he was guilty of doing so. [1226 → 1227] On April 21st, 2023. [1228 → 1229] I think the Dicastery, [1230 → 1231] one of the Dicasteries, [1231 → 1232] if not the Holy Father himself, [1233 → 1233] should have been involved [1233 → 1235] in making this decision, [1235 → 1236] which would have been a firm no. [1237 → 1238] But since they weren't involved, [1238 → 1239] and this shows you [1239 → 1239] they weren't involved, [1239 → 1241] Pope Francis wasn't involved, [1241 → 1242] and none of the Dicasteries [1242 → 1244] were involved, [1245 → 1245] you know, [1246 → 1248] you can't blame this on Pope Francis [1248 → 1251] or any of his direct representatives [1251 → 1252] in the Dicastery. [1252 → 1253] Yeah, well, [1254 → 1255] bailing out Francis [1255 → 1256] has its risks. [1256 → 1258] What you confidently assert today, [1258 → 1261] you may just have to eat tomorrow. [1262 → 1263] Let's return to Loftin's [1263 → 1266] January 31st, 2024 audio. [1267 → 1268] Let's go even more [1268 → 1269] worst-case scenario. [1269 → 1271] Let's go to the extent [1272 → 1273] that Pope Francis [1273 → 1275] personally believes [1275 → 1277] that Apostolica Cure [1277 → 1280] is somehow [1280 → 1284] not definitive in nature. [1285 → 1285] You know, [1285 → 1286] let's say he, [1286 → 1286] he denies that. [1288 → 1288] Okay. [1290 → 1291] You would just simply argue [1291 → 1292] he's wrong. [1293 → 1294] By the way, [1294 → 1295] that wouldn't even make him a heretic. [1296 → 1296] You would have to deny [1296 → 1298] a first paragraph teaching, [1298 → 1299] not a second paragraph [1299 → 1299] to be a heretic. [1300 → 1301] It would mean he's an heir. [1302 → 1304] If only Loftin had listened [1304 → 1306] to Tradcast Express 184, [1307 → 1308] he would have known [1308 → 1310] that that didn't even come up at all. [1310 → 1312] At no point did I argue [1312 → 1314] that this means Francis believes [1314 → 1316] Anglican orders are valid. [1316 → 1318] Or that it would make him a heretic [1318 → 1320] if he did believe that. [1320 → 1321] Honestly, [1321 → 1322] I don't think Bergoglio [1322 → 1324] gives a hoot about any of this. [1325 → 1326] Validity or invalidity. [1326 → 1329] He probably doesn't even believe in God. [1330 → 1332] For the next audio clip, [1332 → 1334] listen closely to what Loftin says [1334 → 1337] about a pope and being a heretic. [1337 → 1339] As I've noted many times on this show, [1340 → 1342] you can even go a step further than that. [1342 → 1345] A pope can privately be a heretic. [1345 → 1345] A heretic. [1346 → 1349] Pretty much everybody agrees. [1350 → 1351] I don't really know anybody [1351 → 1353] who would dispute that. [1353 → 1354] Even Bellarmine, [1354 → 1355] who takes a really, really [1355 → 1358] high view of the papacy [1358 → 1359] and doesn't believe that any pope [1359 → 1360] would ever teach heresy. [1361 → 1363] He does believe and did believe [1363 → 1365] that a pope couldn't materially [1365 → 1366] be a heretic. [1366 → 1366] Ouch. [1367 → 1369] Boy, that was bad. [1369 → 1371] Notice how Loftin just went [1371 → 1374] from a pope being a heretic privately [1374 → 1376] to being a heretic materially. [1376 → 1379] As if they were the same thing [1379 → 1381] or even closely related. [1382 → 1384] They're different categories altogether. [1385 → 1388] But as far as whether it is possible [1388 → 1390] for a pope to be a heretic, [1390 → 1393] I'm talking about a genuine formal heretic [1393 → 1396] in his capacity as a private person, [1396 → 1400] meaning not in his official acts as pope, [1400 → 1402] especially not in his magisterium, [1402 → 1404] St. Robert Bellarmine said [1404 → 1406] that it is probably not true. [1406 → 1406] It is probably not true. [1406 → 1406] It is not possible. [1407 → 1409] But it cannot be proved [1409 → 1411] that it's not possible [1411 → 1413] and therefore he considered [1413 → 1415] what consequences would follow [1415 → 1416] if it did happen. [1416 → 1418] Such a heretical pope [1418 → 1420] would immediately cease to be pope [1420 → 1422] by the very fact itself [1422 → 1424] without any kind of declaration [1424 → 1426] or official judgment. [1427 → 1429] I'm putting the link in the show notes [1429 → 1431] for this so you can read it for yourself. [1431 → 1433] It's discussed by Bellarmine [1433 → 1435] in chapters six and seven [1435 → 1436] of part four, [1436 → 1437] four of his work [1437 → 1439] De Romano Pontifice [1439 → 1440] on the Roman pontiff. [1441 → 1443] Now, returning to the issue [1443 → 1445] of Francis giving permission [1445 → 1446] to Justin Welby [1446 → 1449] to offer an invalid Anglican mass, [1450 → 1451] Loftin says this. [1452 → 1454] Pope Francis gave him permission [1454 → 1456] to celebrate this. [1457 → 1458] Number one, you're assuming [1458 → 1460] that he somehow thinks [1460 → 1461] that it's a valid mass. [1461 → 1463] I'm going to show you something here [1463 → 1463] in a moment [1463 → 1465] that will put that into question. [1466 → 1469] No, I am not assuming that at all. [1469 → 1471] And if Loftin had actually listened [1471 → 1472] to the podcast [1472 → 1474] instead of just reading the title, [1474 → 1475] he would have known it. [1476 → 1478] Talk about assuming stuff. [1478 → 1479] But again, let's just say [1479 → 1480] he thinks it's a valid mass. [1481 → 1483] OK, folks can be wrong. [1484 → 1486] That's not the same as teaching air. [1487 → 1488] Yes, I know. [1488 → 1490] And I never said otherwise. [1490 → 1492] See, these are basic distinctions [1492 → 1493] we have to learn to make. [1493 → 1494] And if we don't make them, [1494 → 1495] we'll end up becoming [1495 → 1496] set of a contest [1496 → 1497] like this Mario guy [1497 → 1498] at Novus Ordo Watch. [1498 → 1500] Basic distinctions. [1500 → 1502] You know, like what he just did [1502 → 1504] by equating being a material heretic [1504 → 1506] with being a private heretic. [1506 → 1508] But again, he's refuting an argument [1508 → 1510] that was never made. [1510 → 1511] But he doesn't know that [1511 → 1513] because he didn't bother listening [1513 → 1515] to the podcast [1515 → 1516] to which he's responding. [1518 → 1519] Next, Loftin moves on [1519 → 1522] to another gigantic red herring. [1522 → 1523] Listen to this. [1523 → 1524] A number of people [1524 → 1525] have pointed out [1525 → 1526] to me and I've found it helpful [1526 → 1529] that there have been [1529 → 1531] some factual changes [1531 → 1533] in the situation [1533 → 1534] with Anglicans [1534 → 1539] since the time of 1896. [1541 → 1543] Since that time, [1543 → 1546] there has been an introduction [1546 → 1548] of valid orders [1548 → 1550] into Anglicanism, [1551 → 1552] pockets of Anglicanism [1552 → 1554] through old Catholics [1555 → 1556] and also Eastern Orthodox. [1558 → 1561] How widespread that has been [1561 → 1562] is a different question. [1563 → 1565] But some argue [1565 → 1566] that it's actually [1566 → 1567] become pretty prevalent. [1568 → 1570] So the situation [1570 → 1573] that Leo XIII was analyzing, [1574 → 1575] some would argue, [1575 → 1577] is very different than today [1577 → 1579] because now you have [1579 → 1580] this new phenomenon [1580 → 1584] where some of these Anglican people [1584 → 1585] have received [1585 → 1587] orders from [1587 → 1591] communions who do have [1591 → 1592] valid apostolic succession [1592 → 1594] and valid orders [1594 → 1596] such as old Catholics [1596 → 1597] and Eastern Orthodox. [1598 → 1599] I'll just give you [1599 → 1601] just one example of this [1601 → 1603] and that is most recently [1603 → 1606] we know of Calvin Robinson. [1607 → 1609] Well, you look on his profile, [1609 → 1611] he says old right orders [1611 → 1612] or old Catholic orders. [1613 → 1615] He received his orders [1615 → 1616] through the old Catholics. [1618 → 1619] Through that lineage. [1620 → 1621] And therefore, [1622 → 1623] he would have valid orders, [1623 → 1624] it would seem. [1624 → 1626] Okay, stop, stop, stop. [1627 → 1629] Not all old Catholic orders [1629 → 1630] are valid, Mr. Lofton. [1631 → 1633] Some are, some are not. [1633 → 1635] The so-called old Catholics, [1635 → 1636] for those who don't know, [1636 → 1638] are a liberal sect [1638 → 1641] that developed in 1870 or 71 [1641 → 1644] in response to the first Vatican Council, [1644 → 1644] whose dogma, [1645 → 1646] of papal infallibility, [1647 → 1648] they refused to accept. [1649 → 1651] Anyway, why do I say [1651 → 1652] that's a red herring? [1652 → 1653] Very simple. [1653 → 1655] Because what Michael Lofton [1655 → 1656] brings up here [1656 → 1657] does not pertain [1657 → 1659] to the Anglican Church in general, [1659 → 1662] but merely to individual clerics [1662 → 1662] specifically, [1663 → 1664] who for whatever reason [1664 → 1667] had in their particular case [1667 → 1669] received a valid ordination. [1669 → 1670] Possibly. [1670 → 1671] It would depend on whether [1671 → 1674] the Anglican ordination right [1674 → 1675] itself is valid, [1675 → 1676] because if it isn't, [1676 → 1678] then it doesn't matter [1678 → 1680] if a valid bishop is involved, [1680 → 1682] if the right itself is defective. [1682 → 1683] And frankly, [1683 → 1685] I don't know the issue well enough [1685 → 1686] without researching [1686 → 1688] to know whether the right itself, [1689 → 1691] as it is done at this point, [1691 → 1692] is valid or not. [1692 → 1693] I just don't know. [1694 → 1696] So the point is, though, [1696 → 1698] that unless Michael Lofton [1698 → 1699] can demonstrate [1699 → 1701] that Justin Welby [1701 → 1703] is one of those special cases [1703 → 1705] that has valid ordination, [1705 → 1707] even though he is an Anglican, [1708 → 1709] then what he's saying here [1709 → 1710] is irrelevant. [1711 → 1713] Unless maybe he wants to argue [1713 → 1715] that out of the 49 other clerics [1715 → 1717] that accompanied Welby [1717 → 1719] and presumably can celebrate it with him, [1720 → 1721] at least one of them was valid [1721 → 1723] and that that would have made it [1723 → 1724] a valid mass. [1724 → 1726] But even that argument [1726 → 1727] would not hold water [1727 → 1729] because the scandal is [1729 → 1730] that Justin Welby [1730 → 1731] very specifically [1731 → 1733] was given permission, [1733 → 1735] not a horde of other priests, [1735 → 1735] or bishops. [1736 → 1736] Furthermore, [1737 → 1738] in order to prevent scandal, [1739 → 1741] the Vatican would have had to publicize [1741 → 1743] that Justin Welby [1743 → 1744] is a valid bishop [1744 → 1746] despite the general invalidity [1746 → 1748] of Anglican orders. [1749 → 1749] And lastly, [1750 → 1750] of course, [1750 → 1751] it would still be [1751 → 1752] a horrendous scandal [1752 → 1754] and sacrilege [1754 → 1756] to allow a valid Anglican bishop [1756 → 1759] to offer a Eucharistic liturgy [1759 → 1761] in a Catholic basilica [1761 → 1762] since validity [1762 → 1763] is not the only criterion [1763 → 1764] at play here. [1765 → 1766] Valid or not, [1766 → 1768] it is still the official worship [1768 → 1769] of a heretical [1769 → 1771] and schismatic religion. [1773 → 1775] Then, skipping ahead a bit, [1775 → 1777] Loftin uses in his defense [1777 → 1779] the Directory for the Application [1779 → 1781] of Principles and Norms [1781 → 1782] on Ecumenism. [1783 → 1784] Paragraph 137 [1784 → 1786] of that lengthy document [1786 → 1788] allows for a Catholic church [1788 → 1789] to be used, [1789 → 1791] under certain circumstances, [1791 → 1793] by heretics and schismatics [1793 → 1795] for their liturgical celebrations [1795 → 1795] and religious celebrations. [1796 → 1797] But, of course, [1797 → 1798] there is a little problem. [1799 → 1800] The document was promulgated [1800 → 1801] in 1993 [1801 → 1804] by John Paul II. [1805 → 1807] Does Loftin really think [1807 → 1809] he can respond to Sedevacantus [1809 → 1810] with a document [1810 → 1812] of the Novels Ordo Magisterium? [1813 → 1814] In fact, [1815 → 1816] on Novels Ordo Watch, [1816 → 1818] we've used that very document [1818 → 1819] and its evil laws [1819 → 1820] as proof [1820 → 1822] that John Paul II [1822 → 1823] cannot have been [1823 → 1824] a valid pope [1824 → 1825] and the Vatican [1825 → 1826] II Church [1826 → 1826] cannot be [1826 → 1828] the Roman Catholic Church. [1829 → 1830] But wait, [1830 → 1831] it gets better. [1832 → 1833] Loftin doesn't realize it, [1833 → 1834] but by appealing [1834 → 1835] to that document, [1835 → 1837] he just shot himself [1837 → 1837] in the foot. [1838 → 1839] Here's what he said [1839 → 1840] in summary, [1840 → 1841] what appealing [1841 → 1843] to this document proves. [1843 → 1844] It does show, [1844 → 1845] at the very least, [1846 → 1847] in cases where [1847 → 1848] a person might not have [1848 → 1850] access to a building, [1850 → 1852] the church could allow [1852 → 1854] for the use of its property, [1854 → 1855] not only for priests, [1855 → 1856] but even just ministers. [1857 → 1858] And that would include people [1858 → 1859] with invalid orders. [1859 → 1860] Did you notice it? [1861 → 1862] Loftin went from [1862 → 1863] blasting people [1863 → 1865] who dared to accuse Francis [1865 → 1867] of permitting an Anglican bishop [1867 → 1869] to offer an invalid mass [1869 → 1871] in a Catholic cathedral [1871 → 1872] last April, [1872 → 1874] and thereby stirring up [1874 → 1875] people's passions, [1875 → 1876] to telling us that, [1876 → 1878] well, worst case scenario is [1878 → 1880] Francis is wrong [1880 → 1880] and he sinned, [1881 → 1882] to now telling us that, [1882 → 1884] hey, this is basically, [1884 → 1885] permitted by the church, [1886 → 1887] so relax. [1887 → 1889] And it gets worse still. [1890 → 1891] If we take Loftin's [1891 → 1894] worst case scenario seriously, [1894 → 1895] that Francis sinned [1895 → 1896] by doing that [1896 → 1897] because it's a sin [1897 → 1899] to allow an invalid mass [1899 → 1900] to be offered [1900 → 1901] by a heretical minister [1901 → 1903] in a Catholic church, [1903 → 1905] then he just admitted [1905 → 1907] that his Vatican II church [1907 → 1908] has made the sin [1908 → 1911] into a universal disciplinary law [1911 → 1913] by including this permission [1913 → 1914] in paragraph [1914 → 1916] 137 of the Directory [1916 → 1917] for the Application [1917 → 1919] of Principles and Norms [1919 → 1920] on Ecumenism, [1920 → 1922] solemnly promulgated by [1922 → 1924] Saint John Paul II. [1925 → 1926] And by the way, [1926 → 1927] in true Catholicism, [1928 → 1929] universal disciplinary laws [1929 → 1931] promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff [1931 → 1933] are infallible, [1934 → 1936] proving that John Paul II [1936 → 1937] could not have been [1937 → 1938] a valid pope [1938 → 1940] and the Novus Ordo sect [1940 → 1940] cannot be [1940 → 1942] the Roman Catholic Church. [1943 → 1943] Thank you, [1943 → 1945] Michael Loftin. [1946 → 1947] All right, [1947 → 1948] skipping ahead some more, [1948 → 1950] we find that Loftin [1950 → 1951] also enlists the help [1951 → 1952] of then Cardinal [1952 → 1954] Joseph Ratzinger. [1954 → 1955] Here it's noted [1955 → 1956] on Anglican orders, [1956 → 1957] Bishop Rowell quotes [1957 → 1959] Cardinal Ratzinger as saying, [1959 → 1961] We cannot do anything [1961 → 1962] about Leo XIII's words. [1963 → 1965] But there are, however, [1965 → 1966] other ways of looking at things. [1967 → 1968] While the Pope Emeritus [1968 → 1970] does not follow up [1970 → 1971] with any suggestions, [1971 → 1972] he does accept that [1972 → 1973] Anglican Eucharist [1973 → 1974] and Eucharistic services [1974 → 1975] have value. [1977 → 1978] Quote, [1978 → 1980] When an ecclesial community [1980 → 1981] with its ordained ministry [1981 → 1984] in obedience to the Lord's command [1984 → 1986] celebrates the Eucharist, [1987 → 1988] the faithful are caught [1988 → 1989] into the heavenly places [1989 → 1991] and their feet on Christ, [1991 → 1992] he says. [1993 → 1993] Now, [1994 → 1995] you may not be aware of that, [1996 → 1997] but that was Ratzinger's view. [1999 → 2000] Ratzinger would say, [2000 → 2000] okay, [2002 → 2003] maybe some of them [2003 → 2003] are not [2003 → 2005] don't have valid orders [2005 → 2005] because, again, [2005 → 2006] he would say some of them do [2006 → 2008] if they have, you know, [2008 → 2010] orders through the old Catholics. [2010 → 2012] But those who don't, [2012 → 2013] okay, sure, [2013 → 2014] Leo XIII, [2014 → 2015] what he's saying is true, [2015 → 2016] not valid, [2016 → 2017] but he's still saying, [2017 → 2017] but there's still [2017 → 2022] value to what they're doing. [2023 → 2026] They feed on Christ spiritually, [2026 → 2027] though not through [2027 → 2030] the physical means [2030 → 2031] in the way that we do [2031 → 2032] through the dogma [2032 → 2034] dogma of transubstantiation. [2035 → 2035] Yeah, [2035 → 2036] and that is not surprising [2036 → 2039] that the uber-modernist Ratzinger [2039 → 2040] would have said that. [2040 → 2042] It is all part and parcel [2042 → 2044] of the subjectivism of Vatican II [2044 → 2046] and the new ecclesiology. [2047 → 2047] So, [2048 → 2049] congratulations, Michael Lofton, [2050 → 2051] you have again used [2051 → 2052] a Novus Ordo prelate, [2053 → 2054] a heretic of the worst sort, [2055 → 2056] the man who later became [2056 → 2058] Pope Benedict XVI, [2058 → 2060] in defense of your position [2060 → 2061] against Sedevacantism. [2062 → 2062] That makes sense. [2062 → 2063] That makes as much sense [2063 → 2065] as appealing to the Bible [2065 → 2067] when arguing with an atheist. [2068 → 2069] By the way, [2070 → 2071] this piece of nonsense [2071 → 2072] from Ratzinger [2072 → 2073] regarding the value [2073 → 2075] of Anglican services [2075 → 2077] beautifully shows [2077 → 2079] the direct and irreconcilable [2079 → 2079] contradiction [2079 → 2081] with the true [2081 → 2082] pre-Vatican II [2082 → 2084] Catholic magisterium. [2084 → 2086] What you find before Vatican II [2086 → 2088] is that the official worship [2088 → 2089] of a heretical sect [2089 → 2091] is false worship. [2092 → 2092] Greatly, [2092 → 2093] bravely offends God [2093 → 2096] and is a mortal sin, [2096 → 2097] objectively speaking. [2098 → 2100] The Vatican II modernists [2100 → 2101] have turned that [2101 → 2102] into something positive, [2103 → 2104] something that has value [2104 → 2105] before God. [2106 → 2107] By the way, [2107 → 2108] we're talking about a religion [2108 → 2109] that was founded [2109 → 2111] by King Henry VIII [2111 → 2113] because the Pope refused [2113 → 2115] to declare his valid marriage [2115 → 2116] null and void. [2116 → 2118] We're talking about a religion [2118 → 2120] that killed St. Thomas More [2120 → 2122] and St. John Fisher, [2122 → 2124] and blessed Edmund Campion. [2124 → 2126] The worship of that religion [2126 → 2128] is an abomination to God. [2129 → 2130] God holds his nose [2130 → 2132] at their worship. [2132 → 2134] Again, objectively speaking. [2135 → 2137] Yes, a particular individual [2137 → 2139] who is innocently trapped [2139 → 2140] in the Anglican religion, [2141 → 2143] think especially of young children [2143 → 2144] who don't know any better, [2144 → 2147] could be subjectively pleasing to God, [2148 → 2149] but that would be in spite [2149 → 2151] of the Anglican religion [2151 → 2151] and so on. [2152 → 2153] Certainly not because of it. [2154 → 2155] By the way, [2155 → 2156] let's listen again [2156 → 2158] to what Michael Lofton thought [2158 → 2160] about an invalid Mass [2160 → 2162] being offered in a Catholic church [2162 → 2163] in 2023. [2164 → 2165] I do agree that it would be [2165 → 2168] a fake Mass and a fake bishop [2168 → 2170] since it was an Anglican bishop [2170 → 2171] who celebrated the liturgy, [2171 → 2172] which I think is tragic. [2172 → 2174] That certainly should not [2174 → 2176] have been allowed. [2176 → 2177] And however this happened, [2178 → 2178] there was somebody [2178 → 2180] who certainly dropped the ball [2180 → 2181] in light of the fact that [2181 → 2183] Anglican Masses are invalid [2183 → 2185] per Pope Leo XIII [2185 → 2187] due to the invalidity [2187 → 2187] of their order. [2187 → 2189] So this is certainly an issue. [2189 → 2191] It needs to be corrected. [2191 → 2193] It doesn't ever need to happen again [2193 → 2194] because at the end of the day, [2194 → 2196] this is simulating a Mass. [2196 → 2198] It's not actually a Mass itself. [2198 → 2199] So I agree with the fake Mass [2199 → 2200] and fake bishop part, [2200 → 2202] but the claim is Pope Francis [2202 → 2205] allowed it to take place [2205 → 2207] at St. John Lateran's Basilica. [2207 → 2208] And this is a lie. [2208 → 2211] That just didn't age well, did it? [2211 → 2215] Since you do have this position [2215 → 2218] that many Catholics have put forward [2218 → 2221] that, okay, perhaps this isn't [2221 → 2222] a valid Mass, [2223 → 2225] but it still has value, [2226 → 2228] is that what's going on [2228 → 2228] with Pope Francis? [2229 → 2230] I don't know. [2230 → 2230] Maybe. [2231 → 2232] Yeah, you know, [2232 → 2233] it really doesn't matter [2233 → 2234] what Francis was thinking [2234 → 2236] because either way, [2236 → 2238] it's all garbage, okay? [2238 → 2239] Nothing could justify [2239 → 2241] allowing the Archlaemon [2241 → 2242] of Canterbury [2242 → 2244] to celebrate an Anglican liturgy [2244 → 2245] in the Catholic Church. [2246 → 2246] Nothing. [2247 → 2249] Next, after exhorting [2249 → 2250] Sedevacantus not to be [2250 → 2251] such sloppy thinkers, [2252 → 2254] our nuanced theological scholar [2254 → 2255] reminds us [2255 → 2257] that the worst case scenario [2257 → 2259] is that Francis is wrong on this. [2259 → 2261] And in any case, [2261 → 2262] that doesn't translate [2262 → 2265] into his magisterium is invalid [2265 → 2268] or he teaches heresy [2268 → 2269] in his magisterium [2269 → 2270] or he teaches air [2270 → 2271] in his magisterium. [2271 → 2272] That's right. [2272 → 2274] And that's why I didn't make [2274 → 2275] such a stupid argument [2275 → 2276] in the first place. [2277 → 2278] It's too bad Lofton [2278 → 2279] didn't listen to the podcast [2279 → 2281] he's pretending to refute. [2281 → 2283] Next, he brings up the fact [2283 → 2284] that in 2015, [2285 → 2287] Francis gave a Eucharistic [2287 → 2288] patent and chalice [2288 → 2290] to a Lutheran minister in Rome. [2291 → 2292] The man's name is [2292 → 2294] Jens Martin Kruse, [2294 → 2295] just for the record. [2295 → 2297] Here, Lofton has another [2297 → 2298] brilliant response. [2299 → 2300] Well, you know what? [2300 → 2300] That's not true. [2300 → 2301] Not new. [2301 → 2302] Not new. [2305 → 2306] This is brought up. [2307 → 2308] This is something [2308 → 2309] that we've seen with Paul VI. [2309 → 2311] Well, that changes everything. [2312 → 2314] It's not a new thing Bergoglio did, [2314 → 2316] as if anybody had claimed [2316 → 2317] that it was. [2317 → 2318] Now, you see, [2318 → 2320] one of the other false popes [2320 → 2322] did it before Francis, [2322 → 2324] Paul VI, in 1966. [2324 → 2325] So there. [2326 → 2328] Thank you again, Michael Lofton, [2328 → 2330] for helping us make our case. [2330 → 2333] Ah, but then he concedes [2333 → 2334] that this isn't an argument [2334 → 2335] he can use against [2335 → 2336] Sedevacantists, [2337 → 2338] since we don't accept [2338 → 2340] Paul VI as a valid pope either. [2340 → 2342] I'm speaking more to Catholics [2342 → 2343] who haven't yet embraced [2343 → 2345] the very irrational position [2345 → 2346] of Sedevacantism. [2347 → 2347] Got it. [2348 → 2350] See, I thought his podcast [2350 → 2352] was about reason and theology [2352 → 2354] rather than just keeping Bergoglio [2354 → 2356] adherents loyal to Bergoglio. [2356 → 2358] But then that would explain [2358 → 2360] why he didn't bother listening to [2360 → 2362] or interacting with the content [2362 → 2364] of Trapcast Express 184. [2365 → 2367] He's simply counting on his viewers [2367 → 2368] not to listen to it either. [2370 → 2372] And now I want to end this podcast [2372 → 2374] with another Lofton clip [2374 → 2376] taken from somewhere in the middle [2376 → 2377] of the very same video [2377 → 2379] we've been dissecting here. [2379 → 2380] Sorry, guys. [2380 → 2382] I know those of y'all [2382 → 2384] who really, really don't like me [2384 → 2385] were expecting this to somehow [2385 → 2388] be a checkmate or a defeat [2388 → 2388] from my position. [2388 → 2389] It's not. [2389 → 2390] It just means, [2390 → 2391] it's a checkmate [2391 → 2392] for what you thought, I believe, [2392 → 2393] because you were too lazy [2393 → 2394] to actually pay attention [2394 → 2395] to what I actually say. [2395 → 2398] Well, if that isn't the pot [2398 → 2399] calling the kettle black. [2400 → 2402] Congratulations, Michael Lofton. [2403 → 2405] First, Francis checkmated you, [2405 → 2408] and now you just checkmated yourself. [2409 → 2411] Trapcast Express is a production [2411 → 2412] of Novus Ordo Watch. [2413 → 2415] Check us out at trapcast.org, [2415 → 2416] and if you like what we're doing, [2416 → 2417] please consider making [2417 → 2419] a tax-deductible contribution [2419 → 2422] at novusordowatch.org [2422 → 2423] slash donate.