However many copies of 50 shades of grey were sold is probably close to the amount of people led to hell by the Vatican II documents

This is from Marie Julie Jahenny if you were wondering

Trad Jewftonstein

Mr. Lofton is now attacking Reactionary Catholics like us; one would suppose he, like the liberals of the 19th century, would have opposed the good and healthy doctrine of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and the reactionary Catholic thinkers endorsed by the Papacy such as De Bonald, Louis Veuillot, Cretineau, De Maistre, etc.
Make sure to leave him a dislike on the video, please.

Mr. Lofton, there are no double standards in Reactionary Catholicism, not in doctrine. We happy few merely cling to the Faith as it was handed down and taught for close to 1800 years, and Reactionary Catholics are little more than Catholics faithful to the Catechism of Trent and the doctrines plainly set out by the Popes during the time of the Counter-Revolution. It is you, Mr. Lofton, and those like you who in a manner worthy of a two faced octopus stretch out your tentacles of subversion far and wide within the Faith - promoting the great liberal tenets of the 19th century, destroying the Faith from the inside by corrupting its pure doctrines with your “nuances” (which are more so errors disguised in ambiguity) which are worthy far more of Rousseau than of Trent.
This attack is merely a veil for attacking true Catholicism, and deserves only contempt. Dislike his video. https://youtu.be/0i3ZuihynwQ

What I find bizarre is how one comes to the conclusion that something that has only existed since 1965 and the 19th century (liberal Catholicism and indifferentism) was taught by the Church for 1800 years.

He should look into what some of the Saints had to say about his people

LMFAOOOO Trad Jewfton just made the stream unlisted 😂

Lofton's fans seem pretty eager to see if their daddy makes a decision as to whether they can finally reject Trent or not

levels of post-trad that i didn't think post-trads could even reach have now been reached

Lofton is now hosting Dr. Lawrence J. King, a man who has devoted his academic life to attacking Pope Pius IX & Gregory XVI, the Catholic Monarchies, and the Crusades, by arguing that religious Liberty, indifferentism and free speech for heresy and blasphemy are not only Divine Rights, but are *infallibly* so as he believes Vatican II to be of superior authority to Pius IX.
You know what to do - downvote now!

https://youtu.be/huRRzZgHuFY

In case you’re wondering, this is what he writes - which, by the way, is condemned or at least incredibly proximate to condemnation, as the theory that a council can override a Pope’s doctrinal decision (such as were Pius IX’s syllabus, of near Ex Cathedra infallibility) merely for being a council. Remember, the doctrine of the Church cannot change *substantially*, as was always taught - yet here, they plainly admit the new teachings contradict previous doctrine!

Lofton is now hosting Dr. Lawrence J. King, a man who has devoted his academic life to attacking Pope Pius IX & Gregory XVI, the Catholic Monarchies, and the Crusades, by arguing that religious Liberty, indifferentism and free speech for heresy and blasphemy are not only Divine Rights, but are *infallibly* so as he believes Vatican II to be of superior authority to Pius IX.
You know what to do - downvote now!

https://youtu.be/huRRzZgHuFY

In case you’re wondering, this is what he writes - which, by the way, is condemned or at least incredibly proximate to condemnation, as the theory that a council can override a Pope’s doctrinal decision (such as were Pius IX’s syllabus, of near Ex Cathedra infallibility) merely for being a council. Remember, the doctrine of the Church cannot change *substantially*, as was always taught - yet here, they plainly admit the new teachings contradict previous doctrine!

Besides the simple fact that even if the Syllabus isn’t considered Ex Cathedra, it’s still infallible and there cannot be any dissent from its doctrine (in this case, you cannot promote and hold the propositions condemned absolutely and eternally); there’s no point using post-conciliar magisterium as though it had the weight to contradict the Church Doctrine of before (such a notion is ridiculous), for a simple reason - there is no legitimate post-conciliar magisterium because it’s been mutilated:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm

Imagine saying that V2 (specifically dignitatis humanae) outweighs Mirari Vos, the Syllabus, Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Summo Iugiter Studio, and Libertas, Immortale Dei, Humanum Genus, and Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes. It is impossible to reconcile these documents with Dignitatis Humanae and V2, impossible. They directly contradict each other. An "ecumenical council" cannot teach anything which is contrary to dogma, and Vatican II did exactly that. To get around this, like Lofton and Dr. Lawrence try to do, require a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics, retarded "nuances" and hermeneutic of continuity tropes. Any pre-Vatican II theologian who wrote extensively on the magisterium would simply dismiss these talking points as utter nonsense.