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.

How can something which is not infallible as it contradicts previous infallible magisterial teaching outweigh dogma? This is bizzare.

Allow me to summarise their errors:

They correctly say that not everything taught by the Pope is infallible; they incorrectly derive from that premise that, therefore, any non-infallible doctrine is subject to change and contradiction.

A doctrine may evolve and deepen; there may be some scholarly debate on an issue when a Pope has yet to decisively use his authority - but that is exactly what the Popes of the past did! « He who hears you, hears Me », Pius XII quoting Our Lord to specify the grave authority of what him and his predecessors had written in their encyclicals, when done with the intention of teaching what the Church had always taught. The Pope cannot contradict what his predecessors have authoritatively taught in doctrine - this very idea of Sola Ex Cathedra (and therefore the rest is non binding and non definitive) is, you guessed it: condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX.

And before some sedevacantes show up, two things: 1) a Pope’s contradiction with the universal doctrine of his predecessors doesn’t deprive him of his office & 2) the issue, as I’ve explained before, is that the Popes no longer teach doctrine, because they’ve abandoned and mutilated the magisterium - as Fr. Calderón of the SSPX proves, everything said by the Pope since Vatican II has been as a private doctor, and nothing as the Pope.

The Theological Notes of the encyclicals of Pius IX far outweigh the Theological Notes of post conciliar documents. You can look up what theological notes are, they’re essentially a ranking system to determine how definitive a doctrine is - and post conciliar documents don’t fare very well on the topic of having much authority...

Read "They have uncrowned him" by Archbishop Lefebvre, and "Liberalism is a sin" by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany

Good read for clarification on the Magisterium.

Some non-Catholic laymen dressed as clerics in Germany are helping to bring God's wrath down upon the West.