There’s a popular mode of online intellectual discourse that I rather dislike, which might be labeled “the extended YouTube hot take.” It involves a talking head riffing, for an hour or so, on something someone has written on a complex philosophical or theological topic (an article, a book, a lecture, or whatever). My impatience with this kind of thing is no doubt partly generational, but there is more to it than that. The written form is more conducive to intellectual discipline. A good article on a philosophical or theological topic, even when written for a popular rather than academic audience, requires the careful exposition of ideas and lines of argument, both the writer’s own and those of anyone he’s responding to. It also has to be clearly written and well-organized. You can’t achieve all this by simply pouring out on the page whatever pops into your stream of consciousness. It takes time, and as a writer tries to whip a piece into shape, he’s likely to mull over the ideas and come to see flaws in interpretation and reasoning he would otherwise have overlooked. A video, because it is so much quicker and easier to make, is for that very reason likelier to be of considerably lower intellectual quality.
Naturally, I’m not saying that such videos are always of low quality or that written pieces are always of good quality. Obviously, there’s a lot of good material to be found at YouTube and similar platforms, and a lot of garbage in written form. The point is just that, all things being equal, written pieces are likelier than quickly-made videos to be of intellectual substance.
There’s also the fact that watching a video requires a much higher time commitment. A book or article is all laid out in front of the reader, and typically organized into units – chapters, sections and sub-sections, paragraphs, and so on. You can scan the whole and get a sense of what it covers and where, and thus see relatively quickly whether it is necessary to read the whole thing, which parts are relevant to your interests, whether certain topics that are not covered in one part are addressed in another, and so on. Videos are not like that. You pretty much have to watch the whole thing in order to know exactly what’s in it. And though a video is sometimes broken into segments, the brief descriptions of these are nowhere near as helpful as being able to scan ahead in a text and see exactly what is covered in each section or paragraph. On top of that, if you want to reply to such a video, you have to carefully transcribe any remarks you want to quote and comment on, which requires playing and replaying the same segments, and this also sucks up time.
Finally, such videos are typically made either by amateurs, or by people who, though they may have some academic training, spend far more time making videos and other online ephemera than doing the much harder work of producing written material that is publishable and has to get through the gauntlet of an editor or a referee. Hence the videos and other online ephemera are not popularizations of their more substantive work. The videos and online ephemera pretty much are their work. Naturally, this work is simply not going to be as substantive as that of someone who has an intellectual day job, as it were.
The bottom line is that engaging with what I am calling “the extended YouTube hot take” requires a high time investment with the promise of a low intellectual return. And I’m just not interested in that, which is why I don’t watch a lot of this stuff. That includes material of this type that is directed at things I’ve written. Over the years, readers have often asked me to reply to this or that video commenting on some book or article of mine. I rarely do it, because I’ve got too much else going on. There is, for example, always a ton of written material, much of it of high quality, that I need to get through in the course of working on whatever book project or academic article I’ve got going at the moment. To be sure, the occasional respite from that is welcome. But even then, it rarely seems to me worthwhile to (for example) spend two or three hours watching snarky videos some kid has made about an academic book that I spent years writing.
Lofton’s libel
All the same, occasionally I’ll make an exception. That brings me to Michael Lofton, about whom I know very little other than that he appears to fancy himself an upholder of Catholic orthodoxy and devotes a lot of time to making videos of this kind. This week he posted a YouTube video responding to my recent Catholic World Report article “Cardinal Newman, Archbishop Fernandez, and the ‘suspended Magisterium’ thesis.” It’s quite bad, in just the ways that “extended YouTube hot takes” tend to be bad. But on top of that, it’s bad in a special way that online Catholic content, in particular, tends to be bad these days. I refer to the knee-jerk tendency of a great many Catholic commentators of all stripes to approach any topic having to do with Pope Francis in a Manichean, ideological manner. Too many of the pope’s critics will accept nothing but the most negative and apocalyptic interpretations of his every word and action. Too many of the pope’s defenders refuse to consider even the most measured and respectful criticism of him. Everything one side says is folded by the other side into a simplistic “good guys/bad guys” narrative. And if you plead for nuance, you will be accused by each side of “really” aiming subtly to do the work of the other. It’s tiresome, intellectually unserious, and deeply contrary to justice and charity. And while each side self-righteously thinks of itself as defending the Church, all they are really accomplishing is tearing it further apart.
How does this play out in Lofton’s case? Over the course of an hour, he works through my article line by line, suggesting early on to his listeners that there is something “weird” or “odd” about it and hinting darkly that it “serves an agenda.” And what agenda is that? By the end of the video, it is finally revealed that:
To entertain talk about suspense in the magisterium… I think is to prepare people to reject magisterial teaching… to prepare people to reject papal teaching authority… to use it as an excuse to ignore the papal magisterium.
To be sure, he immediately tries to cover his rear end by acknowledging that he “[doesn’t] know what [Feser’s] intentions are, specifically.” But he insists that “at least… some people” have this agenda, and is “left scratching [his] head” about exactly what my own intentions could be. The obvious insinuation – especially given all the heavy going throughout the video about how “weird” my article is – is that this is my agenda too and that I am being cagey about it. Thus does Lofton fold my article into the hackneyed narrative of a dark army of bogeymen seeking by hook or crook to undermine Pope Francis.
The insinuation is defamatory, and a travesty of what I wrote. What follows is intended to correct the record. I apologize in advance for the length of this post. Unfortunately, Lofton has a gift for packing ten pounds of error into a five pound bag, and it all has to be carefully and tediously unpacked. I also apologize in advance if I lose my temper here or there – something that has been very hard to avoid given the many hours I’ve now had to waste on this that could have been devoted to something of greater intrinsic value. I hope not to watch another YouTube hot take again for a long time.
My CWR article essentially has two halves, and Lofton badly distorts what I say in each one. In the first, I explain what some of Pope Francis’s critics mean when they claim that the Magisterium has been “suspended” during his pontificate up to this point. Lofton gives the impression that I am at least somewhat sympathetic with this thesis. But in fact, not only do I not endorse it, I explicitly reject and criticize it. In the second half of my article, I suggest that the remarks made by Pope Francis and Archbishop Fernandez upon the archbishop’s appointment as prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) imply that the DDF, specifically, will to a large extent no longer exercise its traditional magisterial function. Lofton transforms this into the claim that the magisterium of the Church in general will from here on out be suspended – something I never said and would not say. He accomplishes this sleight-of-hand by reading portentous meanings I never intended into innocuous remarks, and especially into my use of the phrase “organ of the Magisterium.”
The “suspended Magisterium” thesis
Let’s consider each half of my article in turn. Those who posit a “suspended Magisterium” claim to get the idea from St. John Henry Newman, so I began my article by rehearsing some of the remarks Newman made about the behavior of the Church’s hierarchy during the Arian crisis. Lofton gives the impression that my comments somehow make stronger claims than Newman himself did about the failure of the bishops, and about the temporary lapse of Pope Liberius. That is false. I simply report Newman’s own position, and in particular the position he took on the matter after his conversion to Catholicism in an appendix to his famous work on the crisis.
Lofton claims that my remark about Liberius’s temporary agreement to an ambiguous formula is “in error,” and cites Bellarmine in his favor. He makes it sound as if I had flatly made a simple historical mistake here and/or gotten Newman’s views about Liberius wrong. But that is not the case. Newman himself claims that Liberius “sign[ed] a Eusebian formula at Sirmium,” and approvingly quotes remarks from saints Athanasius and Jerome to the effect that Liberius had under pressure temporarily “subscribed” to the heresy, and a claim by another authority that Liberius temporarily “[gave] up the Nicene formula.” Moreover, Bellarmine is neither infallible nor the final word among orthodox Catholic historians on the matter. That is not to deny that Bellarmine, Lofton, and others have the right to defend Liberius against this charge. That is not the point. The point is rather that the matter is controversial and Catholics are at liberty to take either position. Hence Lofton has no business claiming that I flatly made a historical “error” here. The most he is entitled to say is that reasonable people can disagree about the issue.
Lofton is also right to note that Newman’s remark about there being no “firm, unvarying, consistent testimony” for sixty years after Nicaea needs to be qualified. But Newman himself does qualify it, and nothing in what I said is affected by the qualification. In any event, I was not trying in my article to offer a detailed account of what happened during the Arian crisis, to defend Newman’s own account of it, or to draw momentous lessons from it. I was simply giving a brief summary in order to let readers know where this notion of a “suspended” Magisterium came from. So, it is misleading for Lofton to go on about it to the extent he does.
In a passing remark about the nature of the Magisterium, Lofton asserts that “there is a protection and assistance of the Holy Spirit to non-infallible teachings as well,” and that this is something I ought to address. If what Lofton has in mind here is the claim, which some have made, that even non-infallible exercises of the papal magisterium are somehow protected from error, then I have in fact argued elsewhere that that thesis is incoherent and not taught by the Church. (That is not say that such non-infallible teachings are not normally owed religious assent. They are owed it. But that is a different matter.)
Anyway, the main topic of the first half of my article is the claim that the Magisterium has up to now been “suspended” during Pope Francis’s pontificate. Again, I explicitly rejected this claim. Indeed, in the past, I have defended the authoritative and binding nature of Pope Francis’s magisterial acts even in cases where my fellow traditional Catholics have resisted it. For example, I have repeatedly defended the CDF’s document (issued at the pope’s direction) on the moral liceity of Covid-19 vaccines – and, I will add, I took a considerable amount of grief from some fellow traditional Catholics for doing so. I have defended Pope Francis against the charge that he has departed from just war teaching. I have defended him against the charge of heresy. I have repeatedly criticized those who have claimed that his election was not valid. It is true that, like many others, I have been critical of parts of Amoris Laetitia and of the pope’s revision to the Catechism. But that is not because I do not regard these as magisterial acts. Rather, while they are magisterial acts, they exhibit “deficiencies” of the kind that Donum Veritatis acknowledges can exist in non-infallible magisterial statements. Lofton would presumably disagree with that judgment, but the point is that my own objections do not rest on the claim that the pope has not exercised magisterial authority.
Lofton suggests that it is “weird” or “odd” that, when in my article I gave an example of Pope Francis’s magisterial teaching, I cited documents issued by the CDF under the pope’s authority. Why, he asks, did I not cite instead a document like Amoris? He suggests I have an “agenda” and insinuates that there is something suspect about the example. In particular, he seems to think it a ploy to try to reduce the papal magisterium to the CDF.
But there is nothing suspect about the example, and by no means do I reduce the papal magisterium to the CDF. For one thing, what I actually wrote is this:
For there clearly are cases where [Pope Francis] has exercised his magisterial authority – such as when, acting under papal authorization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under its current prefect Cardinal Ladaria has issued various teaching documents.
As the words “such as” show, I was clearly saying that such CDF documents are examples of Pope Francis’s magisterium. Nowhere do I say or imply that they are the whole of it. For another thing, there is a reason why I chose that particular sort of example, and it has nothing to do with what Lofton’s fevered imagination supposes it to be. I wanted to pick examples that are as uncontroversial as possible, especially among the pope’s critics. Citing Amoris would not do for that purpose, not only because it has been widely criticized, but especially because there are those who (again, wrongly) claim that it is not magisterial. By contrast, some of the CDF documents issued under Cardinal Ladaria at the pope’s behest could not possibly be objected to by the pope’s critics – one example being the recent responsum affirming that the Church cannot bless same-sex unions. It is clearly intended to be magisterial, and not even the pope’s harshest critics could dispute its orthodoxy. Hence it is an ideal piece of evidence against the thesis that the Magisterium has in recent years been “suspended” under Francis – a thesis which, again, I was criticizing, not sympathizing with.
It is true that I also say that “because Pope Francis has persistently refused to answer [the] dubia, he can plausibly be said at least to that extent to have suspended the exercise of his Magisterium” (emphasis in the original). But Lofton reads into this remark exactly the opposite of what it is saying. He asks, shocked: ““What?! Pope Francis is teaching constantly! He hasn’t suspended the magisterium!” But I did not say that he has; indeed, I had just got done saying the opposite, and I immediately go on to say: “Again, though, it doesn’t follow that the ‘suspended Magisterium’ thesis is correct as a general description of Pope Francis’s pontificate up to now.”
What I meant by the remark Lofton expresses shock at should be obvious to any fair-minded reader. I was saying that even if one could maintain that Pope Francis has failed to exercise his magisterium in the specific case of not answering the dubia, it simply would not follow that his magisterium has been suspended beyond that – and, again, I gave specific examples of acts of Pope Francis that are magisterial in nature.
Lofton also, as it happens, goes on to claim that the pope has in fact answered at least four of the dubia, but that is irrelevant to the present point. For the present point is that even if he has failed to answer any of them, that is no grounds to think his magisterium has somehow been suspended beyond that particular example. Lofton’s problem is that he completely gets my intentions wrong in interpreting what I say about this example. He seems to think that I am citing the dubia controversy to lend plausibility to the “suspended Magisterium” thesis. No, what I was doing was citing it precisely to deny plausibility to the thesis. I was not saying: “Consider the dubia controversy – that’s pretty good evidence for the suspended Magisterium thesis.” Rather, I was saying: “Consider the dubia controversy – that’s very weak evidence for the thesis, because it does nothing to show that the pope has failed to exercise his magisterium beyond that one case.”
Organ of the Magisterium?
But what Lofton tries to make the most hay out of is my reference to the CDF (now the DDF) as an “organ of the Magisterium.” He treats this as if it were a bizarre claim or even a theological howler. First, he objects that DDF documents have no teaching authority on their own, but only when issued under papal approval – as if this were something I don’t know. But in fact I explicitly qualified my claim in just this way when I said that Pope Francis “has exercised his magisterial authority… when, acting under papal authorization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under its current prefect Cardinal Ladaria has issued various teaching documents.” (Indeed, Lofton admits this later on in the video. Here’s a good example of the limitations of the “YouTube hot take” format. If, instead of his stream-of-consciousness commentary, Lofton had tried to put together a well thought-out written response, he would have caught this and avoided giving his audience the false impression that I had made some rookie mistake.)
Lofton even claims that the CDF/DDF “is not a magisterial organ” at all, and that in fact there are “only two organs of the magisterium, the pope and the college of bishops.” This makes it sound as if the phrase “organs of the Magisterium” has some precisely delineated technical meaning in Catholic theology, and that I misidentified what these well-defined “organs of the Magisterium” are. But neither of those things is true, and in fact it is Lofton who is using the term in an unusual way.
First of all, the phrase has no precise technical meaning or doctrinal significance, but is simply an expression that crops up from time to time in writing about the Church to refer to agencies through which the Church might speak or operate. And it is in fact often used in these contexts to refer to the CDF and other such bodies (as a little Googling will reveal to anyone ignorant of the fact). For example, in a Pontifical Biblical Commission statement on the relationship between the Magisterium and biblical exegetes, then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted that “Paul VI completely restructured the Biblical Commission so that it was no longer an organ of the Magisterium” (emphasis added). Note that this entails that the Biblical Commission once was an “organ of the Magisterium” – which suffices to falsify Lofton’s claim that the term is used to refer only to the pope and college of bishops. (Of course, the CDF/DDF and other such bodies are magisterial only insofar as they operate at the pope’s or bishops’ behest. But I never denied that, and in fact implied it when I spoke of the CDF “acting under papal authorization.”)
Now, in my article, I also referred to the CDF/DDF as “the main magisterial organ of the Church,” and Lofton reacts as if this were somehow especially suspect. Indeed, he calls it a “jaw-dropping error” and reiterates his claim that “it’s not an organ, it’s inappropriate to call it an organ, and… it’s not the primary mode or means by which the pope teaches.” But my remark is only an “error” (jaw-dropping or otherwise) if one understands “organ” in Lofton’s idiosyncratic way. Certainly it is perfectly innocent if one reads “organ” in the sense in which I meant it. The Church is a body with the pope as its visible head. The “organs” of the Church, as I was using the term, are those agencies through which the pope and the Church act, just as a human being acts by using organs such as the tongue (to speak) and the hand (to manipulate objects). An office like the Dicastery of Divine Worship is the “organ” or agency through which the pope and the Church he heads handle liturgical matters. And the DDF is that “organ” or agency through which the pope and the Church he heads handle doctrinal matters, specifically. As I was using the term, it wouldn’t make sense to call the pope himself an “organ,” because, again, the “organs” I had in mind are the agencies the pope works through. It also wouldn’t make sense to call other modes by which the pope teaches – encyclicals, for example, or sermons – “organs” of the Church, for they are not agencies in the sense in which the DDF is an agency. Issuing an encyclical or giving a sermon is an action that the pope carries out, not an “organ.”
When properly understood, then, my remark that the DDF is “the main magisterial organ of the Church” is perfectly innocuous. If Lofton or anyone else wants to argue for using the expression “organ” in some other way, that’s fine. But he has no business accusing me of an “error,” jaw-dropping or otherwise. Again, my use of the expression is in line with common usage, and the term has, in any event, no precise technical or doctrinal meaning that would render objectionable my description of the DDF as an “organ” or “the main organ” of the Magisterium. Certainly, Lofton has no business drawing from my remarks an absurd inference to the effect that I am trying to reduce the entire Magisterium of the Church to whatever documents the DDF happens to issue. This is a sheer fantasy on Lofton’s part, and not anything I either said or implied.
Archbishop Fernandez and the DDF
Let’s turn finally to what I said in my article about Archbishop Fernandez’s appointment as Prefect of the DDF. My claim was quite precise. I said that the pope’s and the archbishop’s remarks implied that the DDF would largely no longer be exercising its traditional magisterial functions. Each of the words and phrases italicized here is crucial, and they highlight aspects of my remarks that Lofton ignores in order to make his inflammatory charges.
First, I spoke only of the DDF. I did not say that the remarks in question implied that the pope or the Church as a whole would cease exercising their magisterial functions. It’s true that in the second to last sentence in my article, I quoted Newman’s phrase “temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens,’” in order to wrap up the discussion by tying it into the reference to Newman with which the article began. Read in isolation, one might suppose from that one sentence that I was speaking about the Church as a whole. But the larger context makes it clear that that is not what I meant. I was clearly referring to the “temporary suspense” of the exercise of the DDF’s traditional function within the Church, specifically.
Second, I did not say that the archbishop’s and pope’s remarks implied that the DDF (much less the pope or Church as a whole) would lose its magisterial function. I said explicitly that what was in question was the exercise of that function. Naturally, even if the DDF did stop exercising that function, it could take up its exercise again immediately any time the pope wanted it to. Hence the point is not nearly as radical as Lofton implies. Third, even then I explicitly said that the archbishop’s and pope’s remarks implied only that the DDF would largely no longer be exercising its traditional magisterial function – largely, not entirely. Lofton says that the pope’s and the archbishop’s remarks make it clear that the DDF would still be teaching, as if this were something I denied. But I did not deny it. On the contrary, I quoted those remarks myself, and – again – claimed only that the remarks implied a partial refraining from the exercise of the teaching function, not a complete refraining.
Finally, I was not putting forward any bold thesis about the nature of the Magisterium, or furthering an “agenda” to “prepare people to reject magisterial teaching,” or whatever else Lofton fantasizes might be my motivation. I was simply noting the logical implications of what the pope and the archbishop themselves had said. And I did so tentatively, explicitly remarking that “it is possible that the remarks will be clarified and qualified after Archbishop Fernandez takes office.”
It is true that I went on to indicate that I doubted such a qualification would be forthcoming. I was definitely wrong about that, because as it happens, the archbishop issued some clarifying remarks only a few days later, as I noted in a follow-up article. And his latest remarks essentially nullify the implications of his earlier remarks. But as I argue in the follow-up article, that makes the significance of the earlier remarks less clear, not more. The whole episode amounts to yet another instance of a pattern of action exhibited by the pope and his subordinates throughout his pontificate – a tendency to generate needless confusion and controversy by failing to speak with precision.
Lofton himself halfway admits this. Speaking of Francis’s magisterium in general, Lofton says: “I would like to see more clarification from Pope Francis in some cases.” Of the pope’s letter announcing Archbishop Fernandez’s appointment, Lofton admits: “I have some criticisms of the letter.” Specifically, with respect to the goals of upholding orthodoxy while allowing for different ways of expressing the Faith, Lofton acknowledges that the pope regrettably seems “to kind of pit these things against each other.” In that case, though, it is intellectually dishonest for Lofton to insinuate that when I and others have criticized the pope’s and the archbishop’s recent remarks, this criticism must reflect some suspect “agenda.”
There is one more concession that Lofton makes that is extremely important, and the significance of which he and other self-appointed defenders of Pope Francis routinely overlook. Commenting on Archbishop Fernandez’s remarks about the “persecution” some theologians suffered from the CDF around the time of Vatican II, Lofton says:
There were things that the Second Vatican Council taught that ended up vindicating some of the people that… previously… [had] a negative judgment against them [by the Holy Office]… Over and over and over, the Holy Office did render negative judgments about people who were later on vindicated… That’s a fact, and it’s a fact we see often.
End quote. For those unfamiliar with the details of this period of Church history, what Lofton is referring to is the situation of thinkers commonly classified as part of the nouvelle théologie (“new theology”) movement – Henri Bouillard, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, and many others. These writers were highly critical of, and engaged in a sustained controversy with, the Neo-Scholastic Thomists who represented the mainstream of Catholic theology in the decades prior to Vatican II. Some of them were considered suspect by the CDF at the time, and Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis was in part a correction of nouvelle théologie excesses. (For example, Pius’s famous criticism of those who “destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order” is widely understood to be a shot across de Lubac’s bow.) These thinkers had to “fly under the radar,” as it were, until the arrival of a more friendly pontificate. With Vatican II, they were rehabilitated. Some of them even became cardinals, and Ratzinger, of course, became pope.
The irony here is many of these thinkers are heroes to Pope Francis’s most ardent defenders – who nevertheless condemn the pope’s critics for doing exactly what the nouvelle théologie writers did! They can’t have it both ways. If it was legitimate for nouvelle théologie writers respectfully to criticize the shortcomings they claimed to see in the Magisterium of their day, then it cannot be denied that it can be legitimate respectfully to criticize the shortcomings some see in Pope Francis’s magisterium. If the nouvelle théologie writers shouldn’t be dismissed en masse as “dissenters,” then it is not fair to dismiss Pope Francis’s critics en masse as “dissenters.”
More to the present point, if Lofton is willing to acknowledge the good will of the nouvelle théologie writers and the soundness of some of their views, despite their having been at odds with the Magisterium of their day, then justice and charity require him to afford the same courtesy to the sober and respectful critics of Pope Francis. For example, he should refrain from insinuating that they have an “agenda” of “prepar[ing] people to reject papal teaching authority.”
One final comment. Apparently worried that his video was insufficiently condescending, Lofton adds a little trash talk in the comments section, remarking: “I think [Feser] needs to stick to his lane which is philosophy.”
Well, as the Scholastics and the pre-Vatican II popes who commended Scholasticism emphasized, training in philosophy is a prerequisite to doing theology well. The reason is that it disciplines the intellect, teaching one to use words precisely, to make careful conceptual distinctions, to reason with logical exactness, and to evaluate texts and arguments with caution and charity.
Lofton’s response to my article provides evidence that he is lacking in these capacities. Hence I’d suggest that he might consider sticking to his own lane, which is making facile YouTube videos – but about topics other than theology, which requires levels of rigor and charity that he appears to lack.
(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I’ve never thought to equate most of the homilies I’ve been subjected to as akin to YouTube videos. It also confirms what I’ve long thought about the preparation of homilies: they should be thought about, prayed over, prepared in draft form in writing, re-written and edited to be certain that the ideas are clear, cogent, and flow logically. When this is accomplished, the homilist will be so familiar with the content of the message that it can be delivered seamlessly. Compare this with what one of my homiletics professors referred to as homilies that are “random thoughts while shaving.”
Somewhere beyond Lifesitenews, Cathold World Report Commentary and Youtubers, we desperately need a New Professionnel Body of serious, brave, free, and lets face it well-financed investigative Catholic Journalism.
Enter Edward Feser.
Are you perhaps giving too much air time and thus weightage to this Lofton fella? What is his qualification and claim to fame? That channel named Reason and Theology is neither – supporting heresy is neither theology nor reasonable. I have seen a couple of podcasts, in which he seemingly denigrates anyone who criticises “Pope” Francis as some rad trad conspiracy theorist. It seems that to him – at least from the few I heard before switching off in disgust – that “Francis” can do no wrong. The reality is that Bergoglio’s heresies are now book-length, the mask of “who am I to judge” has dropped and it is now openly anti-Catholic doctrine. The crackdown on nuns and orders is vicious, for the mere “sin” of preferring Mass in Latin; this Mass of St Pio, St Thomas Aquinas, Augustine is now suddenly something evil to be suppressed. If ‘Reason and Theology’ were a print article, I wouldn’t even use it as toilet paper. But because it is a podcast, I simply don’t even click on it. Save electricity, save angst, save your eyeballs.
1.) Francis:
Address to the Diocese of Rome’s Pastoral Congress, Q&A Session 14, Jun 16, 2016:
“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity.”
It’s not a challenge it’s wrong. No amount of fidelity makes it have the grace of a real marriage.
And Francis can window dress it all he wanted to with additional comments about the seriousness of marriage, etc, but he was nonetheless flat-out teaching error as no amount of fidelity makes it have the grace of a real marriage.
2.) St. Francis de Sales: Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…”
3.) St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
4.) St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
This is a most unfortunate rant lacking any substantive critique of Michal Lofton. Mr. Lofton has no illusions about Pope Francis and equally praises and criticizes with substance as opposed to mere ranting.
I’m not sure why you call this a rant, as the author is very specific in what he is addressing. Are you a Hyper Bergoglioist per chance?
Francis is to be rejected, what else? You cannot be serious!
Lofton is a vigorous defender of Jose Ma Bergoglio who took out the title Vicar of Christ..first time in 2K years. He sounds condescending most times, even in his responses to comments on his posts.
Thank you for writing Dr. F. At least someone is trying to make sense of this pizza.
All some of us can do is make a mess in the peanut gallery of the Synod circus. Knowing my luck, I will miss the Ringmaster and just feed his monkey.
Dr. Fezer’s commentary might remind us that responding to Lofton with PRECISION is something like trying to kill a bottom-feeder sponge with a needle…It might also remind us of the impossible synodal task assigned to “experts”: namely, to harmonize the catchall local listening sessions/synods to some kind of synthesis.
Fezer mentions the Nicaea (A.D. 325) and the Arian heresy. Perhaps it’s time to reflect soberly on a timely analysis of same supplied by a voice from the very recent past…
Ratzinger/Benedict makes the case that “ambiguity” actually served a purpose in the decades following NICAEA (as some intend today following the Second Vatican Council II?). Benedict writes of the three Cappadocian Fathers—that after Nicaea, Basil opted for “persuasion,” while Nasianzus opposed this “tendency toward indecisiveness and ambiguity [!].” Basil preferred a “relatively open formulation of faith in the Holy Spirit, a language of religious experience that was intended to and did in fact make it possible for as many as possible to accept these words” (a welcoming Church?}
Then, Ratzinger concludes:
“In this case [!], the compromise was PROTECTED BY the liturgical witness [!] and the spiritual life [!] that made it possible and, at the same time, gave it unequivocal [!] meaning.”
Now following Vatican II, in our case of smorgasbord synodality, (a) WHERE exactly is the liturgical witness when Mass attendance is down to 5 to 15% and only 29% even accept the central, concrete/sacramental Real Presence of a broadly omnipresent and self-donating God; and (b) where is the “spiritual life” in a world where even half of Catholics are channeling the Aztecs, and the very nature of man is now torched by the “tyranny of relativism” and a spreading range fire of LGBTQ gender theory?
Nicaea clarified the meaning of what has been self-disclosed (!) by the infinite Mystery of God, while multitasking synodality even tinkers with a redefinition of the humanly knowable (!) meaning of NATURAL LAW, human nature, and binary/complementary human sexuality. Instead, this from the magisterium and St. John Paul II: “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter [!] of this [‘moral’] norm,” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 95).
So, about our Nicaea-like aftermath today, Ratzinger also concludes: TODAY, too, the Church cannot be saved by compromise and accommodation [!] or by mere theorizing but only by self-reflection and a depth of faith that opens the door to the Holy Spirit and his unifying power.” In the late 4th century, finally, the unambiguous Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381…but in the 21st century, the polyglot “Synod on Synodality”?
Nicaea and then Constantinople displayed both dynamism and STEADFAST FIDELITY, in excluding (!) Arius. Not merely a middling “compromise” of synthesis/consensus. On some key points controverted today, history might well reflect that the Cappadocian Fathers are already given to us today, in another trio–the late Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.
(Source: Ratzinger, “The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople,” in “Principles of Catholic Theology,” 1982/Ignatius 1987, pp. 112-121.)
Feser is correct. In the main. Correct due to his wide spectrum of knowledge. Although this writer started late. Whose extension of research is narrowed to Aquinas’ ethics, which is not condensed, rather spread throughout his opera, requiring painstaking ‘excavation’ of what are perceived as perennial moral principles.
Consequently, having spent much time in thought on these permanent truths in relation to the issues of the day I do write comments here from a stream of consciousness. Otherwise in book form or when lecturing there is more of the planned, thought out method. Although, for good or for bad, even there not entirely. Still prone to ad lib. Certainly I would wish to have a semblance of Dr Feser’s extension of knowledge.
Not sure all this was necessary. People of good faith understood the points and arguments in the original article.
“Not sure all this was necessary.”
On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I read many of the comments left at Lofton’s YouTube page. Which indicated, yes, it was necessary.
Thanks for publishing the rejoinder.
There were some mean-spirited digs in this that were not only unnecessary, they have an uncharitable edge that detracts from the message. For that matter, it’s ridiculous for a blogger to talk condescendingly to a YouTuber. Not ony is there ZERO POINT ZERO intellectual superiority of blogs, it also shows that Feser fails to understand the work that goes into producing videos.
Edward Feser is a professor of philosophy and an accomplished author. His blog and writing is far superior to Lofton’s content. Feser cannot spit out hot takes every day because he spends hours writing, thinking, reviewing, considering the arguments of others, etc. The work that goes into producing a video is superficial (lighting, microphone, camera) versus what goes into producing a well written piece.
You really should not hurl the “defamation” charge. You made your comments, he made his. This, in America, is called an exchange of ideas. If he is too stupid to understand your initial comments, that is not evidence of “defamation”. Under US defamation law, you are a “limited purpose public figure” who has entered a controversy in an attempt to sway public opinion. Therefore, virtually anyone can shoot back at you, in any way, and no, he has not defamed you. He might be a crummy opponent, he might not have understood a word you said, but in no way has he defamed you.
By leveling this charge, you sound brittle and vengeful, and unable to take a punch.
I recall reading years ago this line from Bertand Russell (possibly not an exact quotation): I do not recognize my theory in your parody.
From the AZ Quotes website:
Karl Popper: Criticism of my alleged views was widespread and highly successful. I have yet to meet a criticism of my views.
This is really sad. Dr Feser has had several instances of misrepresented people online on Twitter. His Twitter is not something you want representing your high quality news source. I expect better of Catholic World Report. Please review Michael Lofton’s side before allowing Twitter drama to be posted to your reputable news source.This is comparable to a piece in TMZ at this point.
Those are some strong accusations, Halley. I’ve been following and reading Dr. Feser’s work for many years, and I have yet to see an instance in which he misrepresents people. On the contrary, he consistently quotes them at length and provides necessary context. The “I expect better of CWR” approach doesn’t fly in the face of the evidence.
Also, this is not “Twitter drama”. Dr. Feser penned a reasonable and measured piece about papal authority and related topics, and Mr. Lofton has now created at least three lengthy videos about it. Yes, there have been Twitter comments, but anyone who knows some basic theology and logic can see that Dr. Feser’s response here is factual, detailed, and careful to a fault.
“This is comparable to a piece in TMZ at this point.” Not from Dr. Feser’s end.
Hi Carl,
Hope you are well these days.
Does the following qualify as Dr. Feser misrepresenting people? Is it ad hominem or a sweeping personal attack?:
“Longtime readers might recall Dave Armstrong, a Catholic apologist who, to put it gently, has a tendency to stretch the truth in bizarre ways. His odd behavior has even inspired a definition:
“armstrong, verb. Boldly but casually to insinuate a falsehood in the hope that others will go along with it. “Dave tried to armstrong me into a debate. Can you believe that guy?”
“Well, Dave “Stretch” Armstrong is at it again.”
[Title] “Dave’s armstronging again” (6-3-21 on his blog)
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/06/daves-armstronging-again.html
[complete with a ridiculous image of “Stretch Armstrong]
crickets lol
Yes and if you notice in that thread I (under my nom de plume Son of Yachov) I sided with Feser on this and I am your friend. Also as I recall you complain about Censorship & you took down a few of my criticisms of you off yer blog combox.
Also since we are airing grievances yer boi Lofton blocked me for no reason on twitter. I was a fan of his. No more. Dave Lofton is in the wrong here.
If he wants to debate someone on it in public. I will be happy to oblige him….
My point remains, of course, and has not been overcome in the slightest by all the little potshots. Personally attacking those who have an honest disagreement is not a good thing, and it’s not wrong to point it out.
This is the problem with Internet “discourse” today. When one tries to point out that ad hominem attacks are unethical, irrelevant (non sequiturs and logically fallacious), and pollute online discussion, instead of engaging the point and taking action to reform, the person critiqued and their followers almost always simply savage and attack the one making the critique: thus amply proving the original point . . .
Hence Christians online (in this case, Catholics against Catholics) now habitually engage the usual secular tactics of “shouting down” any dissenter. This impresses no one who is interested in substantive discussion.
Edward Feser is a professor of philosophy and an accomplished author. His blog and writing is far superior to Lofton’s content. Feser cannot spit out hot takes every day because he spends hours writing, thinking, reviewing, considering the arguments of others, etc. The work that goes into producing a video is superficial (lighting, microphone, camera) versus what goes into producing a well written piece.
Thanks for the link to the really good read. Feser’s blog article about your remarks and your tendencies is quite accurate. You can’t armstrong your way out of it either.
Thanks for the classic, playbook example of precisely what I am talking about. It doesn’t matter whether the attack is against me. That’s irrelevant. My case was but an illustration and an example of how Dr. Feser sometimes behaves.
What matters is the scandal and terrible witness of Catholics attacking other Catholics in these inane, fatuous, vapid ways. It’s bearing false witness, and a mortal sin to boot. God is watching, and He’s not fooled by all the nonsense that passes for legitimate discussion. We’re accountable for all of our words and actions.
There is legitimate criticism and holding someone accountable (“faithful are the wounds of a friend”) and there is juvenile insults and worthless ad hominem garbage.
That is what a strong arm does best; it’s the one strength s/he/it/they has/have developed through repeated use. That, plus pathetic attack-dog growls and cries of cats in heat of battle.
Reminds me of some Catholics that habitually attacked the late father Raymond brown SS …
Repeating the accusation that I engaged in “defamation” and “libel” is the problem. As I’ve have already said, I don’t have an issue with Dr. Feser, or even CWR, misrepresenting my theological critique. The problem is when there is an accusation of “libel,” which has moral and legal consequences. As I have already said (and you would know this if you watched any of my responses) my issue is that you should have removed the defamation accusation before running this (or at least have asked me about it first) – and you still should – as it is a false accusation. I will soon respond in another online news journal to this claim by Feser and CWR since you have not taken the claim down and I have a right to defend my name against accusations of “libel.” For the sake of free speech, please approve this comment. I do have a copy of it.
Halley:
Having read Feser’s essay above, and your sanctimonious comment about the matter, you have crowned yourself Twitter-Worthy.
Feser just confirmed here is not just of low theological acumen as I commented in his previous article but worse also a bully and smug philosopher. I invite all here to watch and listen to Lofton’s response to this accusation in his YouTube channel Reason and Theology.
I’m sure all readers appreciate the celestial heights from which you condescend to “minister” to us.
I will read Feser a fifth time. So far what I see is that he developed his points directly built off of Newman. The “suspense” theme is Newman’s.
My conclusion so far has to be that he is neither smug nor a bully. You further can not make such descriptions without at least showing from where they are suggested to you or to a reader.
Meantime I can say Lofton could easily have come on to the CWR platform an engaged the the issues in the comments section as everyone else does it. What he seems to have pulled off is some “advertising” for his YOUTUBE talk-shop /reflection zone, trying to redirect audiences from CWR.
My impression is that Lofton is in damage control, he is trying to swing the Arian crisis implications to his want of seeing things.
But there was a generalized lapse during the Arian crisis -admitted by all. Crediting the laity who made up the bulwark for the faith is a work of
1. justice in terms of the actual history
2. encouragement in terms of VATICAN II as well as the feeling of the Church through the centuries
3. charity in terms of the spiritual mercies -praying for the living and the dead.
Why try to blur it!
When I finish reading Feser this fifth time and weighing Lofton’s professed complaints, I might decide not to come back here and add further comment if it still then seems that Feser on the whole covered the issues enough.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/07/15/cardinal-newman-archbishop-fernandez-and-the-suspended-magisterium-thesis/
I hope that you will offer Michael Lofton some space in your publication todefend his position and to clear his good name.
“You really should not hurl the “defamation” charge”
Agree. First of all, I am way not smart enough to decide who was right or wrong on the original philosophical/theological issues, and I am no lawyer either, but by hurling words such as “LIBEL” and “DEFAMATORY”, Dr. Feser just raised what at best an exchange of ideas/opinions and at worse a quarrel, to a LEGAL battle, that would force Michael Lofton no choice but to punch back hard, to defend himself legally. No choice. If I were Mr. Lofton, I would make my case that I was not libeling him, AND would be on the offensive by accusing Dr. Feser of DEFAMING me.
If Dr. Feser thought he already waste too much time on this matter with this “YouTube hot take” blogger/YouTuber, he is going to spend tons more time in the days to come. Outcomes: at worse a lawsuit or, at best an apology from somebody. This is sad. An unnecessary fight among brothers. Now, I don’t mean to say Dr. Feser should not respond. I just think that making a LEGAL ACCUSATION as a response is unnecessary … unless, of course, that Dr. Feser truly believes that he is defamed. This is going to be sad, and potentially very ugly, unless someone swallows his pride and apologizes. PRIDE. VANITY. Source of all evils.
It is basic journalistic professionalism to atleast ask for and include a response from the person you are writing an article about. It seems like you are only interested in one side, and that is very sad
Sometimes it’s best to put your ideas out there and pay no attention whatsoever to every person’s response to them. Let’s remember that Satan is the Father of Lies and will attempt to inject distortions into human discourse any which way he can. But we also have to remember that Truth is ultimately victorious ( just look at recently testimony regarding Covid, the laptop, the FBI, CIA, etc). Christ rose from the dead (to Satan dismay). So, Dr. Feser keep on writing what you believe is the Truth and let others say or do what they will. Satan is not going away but his Lies cannot stand up to the Truth.
I’m a long time reader of Feser and I’ve always enjoyed his writing, but the way this whole ordeal has panned out has been disappointing to see. Even more disappointing is to see one side given such a platform (aka CWR).
There’s plenty of poor form on both sides: Feser’s original article smelled a bit too much like a “Hot Take” itself, Lofton read way to much into it and was overly critical, then Feser responded with an article that deliberately insulted Lofton rather than just the views he presented.
And now the whole thing has been publicised in a big way by CWR. Poor form. Stop feeding the Rad Trad Trolls.
This is probably the best take I have seen. That the whole thing had to blow up like it did is unfortunate. The fact that Catholic World Report has decided to blow it up even further and press the boot on Lofton is sad.
Your prejudice is showing, and your entire comment, if it had any inherent value or any other hint of value, you poured pus to fester on it.
If Feser is a RadTradTroll, CWR is the Latin Mass.
I’m not sure what you mean? I meant Feser and CWR are unintentionally feeding the Rad Trad Trolls. Don’t be too quick to see prejudice where there is none: I love the Old Mass (I sing Gregorian Chant and have cantored at the Old Mass on many occassions), I was devastated when TC came out, theologically and philosophically I’m a Thomist. I’ve just noticed that too many traditionalists have gone too far (way too far in some instances) and articles such as these feed their narative.
I agree that this is sad.
But, as I see it, the root of it is the controversy on the conservative side of the Church about the Pope of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
For myself I have grown increasingly leary of voices which either only or mostly criticize Pope Francis and, as far as I can tell, refuse to enter into what I regard as sincere and charitable dialogue with his controversial magisterial statements. Also problematic is how the controversial aspects of the Papacy have soured many on most or almost all or even all of the entire Papacy. But I believe this is wrong because there are many good things in the last 10+ years! No? I mean today was the 3rd annual Day of Grandparents and the Elderly. In my opinion this Pope’s devotion to the ages and their role in society and the Church is of great merit and value. Where is the promotion and praise?!
Now, concerning the controversies, ground zero for this is Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 and especially certain footnotes. Commentators like Michael Lofton, Mike Lewis, (wherepeteris.com), Pedro Gabriel (also wherepeteris.com) and many others have repeatedly explained how this teaching can be reconciled with dogma/doctrine. Scarcely, if ever, have I seen this commentary interacted with seriously. But it is so simple: If there are mitigating circumstances there isn’t mortal sin and maybe no sin at all. This has pastoral consequences and possibilities for greater inclusion! Is that such a hideous doctrine that we have to have peeps thinking it right to start believing Benevacantism or becoming neo-sedevacantists? Accusing the Pope of heresy? Tuning him out in the hopes of better times?
I have learned many good things from Pope Francis and I think people who have him ‘heresy-zoned’ or ‘Bergoglio-zoned’ or who are somehow fine with having him be an almost insufferable place holder Pope for hopefully better times…such in my opinion should find a new way to understand his words and actions.
Thank you for your consideration,
Yes, the uniquely (not found in other countries) fundamentalist American Catholic subculture of Pope-Francis-hate like as exemplified here and in the overall editorial tilt of CWR has taken its ugly head that by thinking they are more Catholic than the Pope, has unknowingly or unconsciously turned many believers into active schismatics, sedevacantists, or downright Protestants.
That’s too strong. Certainly people like Feser and the people at CWR are not reading the “signs of the times” well in the sense that they are doing a poor job at moderating their criticism of the Pope at a time when denegration of the Successor of Peter is rampant. Case in point: no sooner as I had read Feser’s “Suspended Magisterium” article, I see a video by the newest SSPX apologist singing his (Feser’s) praise.
Nevertheless, although I think this criticism is imprudent, it’s unfair and untrue to lump Fewer and CWR in with the “fundamentalist American Catholic subculture of Pope-Francis-hate”.
Calling CWR “fundamentalist,” as occasionally happens, is simply a sophomoric way of trying to dismiss sober questions and reasonable criticisms of a pontificate that has a now established, decade-long history of puzzling to problematic decisions about a number of prudential judgments. And the label is especially humorous to me since I was actually raised in Fundamentalist Protestantism and know a fair more about actual fundamentalism than do some people. That said, CWR has never peddled in conspiracy theories, or denied that Francis is pope, or stooped to sensationalist nonsense. (And attentive readers know that CWR does not cater to the SSPX crowd. Quite the opposite.) Considering all that has happened over the past ten years, that is no small feat.
Carl Olson, I completely agree with your above comment. Nevertheless, one thing that “has happended over the past ten years” is the creation of an entire industry of online personalities and organisation who do nothing but criticise, denigrate and slander the Pope and other Church authorities. In such a climate, one should be very careful and charitable in ones criticisms given the likelihood that such criticisms will almost certainly be used tear down rather than build up the body of Christ.
Thank you, Daniel, for the remark and observation.
I’m all too familiar with said industry; in fact, I occasionally warn friends and acquaintances about certain outlets who seem solely focused on Pope Francis and making sensational claims. CWR works very hard to provide substantive analysis and commentary while avoiding sensationalism, cyber-dumpster diving, and rumor mongering.
I cannot control what others do with what CWR reports, comments on, etc. Frankly, I’d go insane if I tried to keep track of how often CWR has been misread, misinterpreted, or even lied about. It can bother me at times, but it’s out of my control. It’s not my fault that far too many people either cannot comprehend, or think well, or set aside their feelings, or follow an arguments, or look at evidence. So it goes.
In the meantime, the past 10 years has also seen the creation of an entire industry that tries to gaslight Catholics who have serious concerns and legitimate questions. And some of that industry is promoted and aided by those who work in Pope Francis’ orbit. Such is the nature of things in 2023. It’s not ideal, or good, or desirable. But it cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand.
Thank you for your reply. And yes I understand you cannot control what others do with your material. I guess the main concern with this article was that it was aimed at the magesterium particularly and as such could be very easily used to undermine said magesterium.
Regarding the gaslighting industry, it’s no wonder that a movement of uncharitable, and unreasonable papal defamers has lead to a movement of uncharitable, and unreasonable papal defenders.
Nevertheless, a charitable and reasonable papal criticism should be open to a charitable and reasonable defense.
Thank you again for the interaction.
I’ve read fesers article and seen Loftons response video, and it’s clear it’s Feser – and seemingly now CWR – who is acting in misrepresentation, and seemingly defamation. Michael never intended a judgement of Fesers motives (he says so in his first video and makes it even clearer in his response): saying that he did anyways is, ironically, libel itself. On the points he misunderstood Feser he has apologized and retracted his statements. On the points Feser got him wrong, and indeed misrepresented him in his article, Lofton has made throughout clarifications and called for Feser to retract his statements.
Without saying Lofton is all in the right here, giving this side is essential to get a full sense of the story, and I’m sad to see that CWR completely ignored and just ran the words of Feser. I’m sure you have the best intentions, but effectively this is slander.
CWR needs to know how to be and follow Fox News (in its old tagline): Fair and Balanced.
“He accomplishes this sleight-of-hand by reading portentous meanings I never intended into innocuous remarks…”
Something that Newman himself had to put up with a lot from his critics, both Protestant and Catholic.
The theme of non-infallible statements being divinely protected from error — and the sleight of hand involving a shifting definition of the word infallible itself — is a persistent theme in many of Lofton’s hot-takes and videos.
He has tried to defend his thesis that the Church teaches, definitively, that the Magisterium can teach and has taught _non-definitive_ teachings that nonetheless are infallible. To meet challenges to his thesis, for example the simple observation that “non-definitive” and “infallible” are non-overlapping categories of statements, that any statement in any language must firstly be of a definitive nature before it could possibly be eligible to be considered infallible — Lofton has explained that by infallible all he really meant was “safe”, as in, that assenting to such a Church teaching could not possibly be dangerous to anyone’s salvation. A perfectly innocuous claim, but not at all what the word “infallible” means in Vatican I or anywhere else!
Kind of sad to see someone as esteemed as Dr. Feser totally losing his mind over a YouTube video and using Ignatius Press and Catholic World Report to promote the meltdown. Also sad that neither Dr. Feser or Ignatius Press seem to know what actually constitutes libel. My opinion of both Dr. Feser and Ignatius have definitely been affected by this situation and I hope that this baseless article is retracted soon.
In what way is Dr. Feser’s response an example of “losing his mind”? Mr. Lofton has now, from what I can tell, posted four lengthy videos about Dr. Feser. It was Mr. Lofton who first criticized Dr. Feser’s original article. Should Dr. Feser not respond when he believes (and argues in detail) that Mr. Lofton has seriously misrepresented his views? Especially when those misrepresentations certain do public damage to Dr. Feser’s reputation?
Having spent some time perusing comments on Mr. Lofton’s YouTube page(s), I am saddened to see how many folks there readily ascribe views to Dr. Feser that are incorrect, and could have been avoided if those folks had read his original article.
Dr. Feser has not “used” CWR or Ignatius Press. That is inaccurate and sloppy, even manipulative. I chose to post Dr. Feser’s pieces. And while I avoid making magisterial pronouncements, I do have a graduate degree in theology and I think that Dr. Feser’s original essay is well within the bounds of orthodox opinion and reasonable discussion.
My friend, you’re an editor, something i have some knowledge about– this is not informative, this is not entertaining, you’ve just let your friend run roughshot over your organizations publishing standards.
2…libel isn’t the right word..it has a specific meaning with legal connotations, lofton certainly doesn’t meet the definition of slander against fraizer, and it’s actually possible that accusing him of libel actually is malicious — but for the most part neither of each party has legal expose to slander or libel.
3. You should have done the bare minimum of editing and known and changed the title to “false accusations, or what Micheal misunderstands” ect..
4. This destroys the Christian witness..you should help facilitate Christian charity, if you’re concerned about your friend have a meeting bring the bishop if need be and settle it.
You’re turning cwr into tmz knock it off. (And I told Michael the same on his channel)
My issue has never been that you ran a piece critical of my theological position. I have no issue with that, even though it is a straw man of my position. My issue with you and CWR has ONLY been (and you would know this if you watched my video) that you ran this piece with the false accusation that I defamed and committed “libel” against Feser without checking your facts. Accusing me of libel is the issue. I find it odd you speak of me potentially damaging Feser’s reputation when you are the one running a piece falsely accusing me of defamation. You have a much larger platform than I, and you have accused me falsely of libel, which has put my livelihood in jeopardy. I can’t help but see this as partial and personal. Prove me wrong. I’m making a copy of this comment as well in case you decide not to post it.
Curious. If Mr. David claims knowledge about editing. Why, then, does he capitalize “Michael” twice while failing to capitalize many other proper nouns? Why does he call Mr. Olson his friend while denigrating his rights and his reasons to publish as he sees fit?
Mr. Olson certainly has not destroyed any Christian witness. His editorial decision here has furthered the exposure of truth and of error. Those propagating error may have had their pride injured. Those propagating truth have defended it. Persons who give false witness or demonstrate flawed or careless use of reason often suffer from injured pride. That often leads to fury.
If Olson were to print a piece “falsely accusing me of defamation” I should have no complaint and no reason to fear. If the piece is FALSE, that alone would further my security. Trust in the Truth. Jesus Lives.
I read both articles and listened to all the videos. I’m a long time reader of Feser but he was definitely open to fair criticism on this one (I certainly would concede that Lofton probably overdid it though). Keep in mind that Feser was originally criticizing the Pope and Fernandez. I’m not saying that’s out of bounds but a critical response should be expected. Perhaps everyone’s grown too comfortable with Papal criticism and the needle has moved too far as to what constitutes “reasonable discussion” in catholic discourse.
To be clear I have my grievances with this pontificate (I generally fit the “trad” category though I wouldn’t refer to myself as such) and I don’t have much time for publications such as Where Peter Is but papal criticism (and ecclesiastical criticism) has gotten out of hand. Perhaps CWR should dial it back a little. And if anyone wants to bring up Donum Veritatis:
“In cases like these [refering to cases where theologian’s have serious concerns with Magisterial Authorities], the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.”
I question whether Feser’s main concern is with the per se authority of a per se magisterium. Is it more his concern that some authority is in question if/when Christ’s authority is lacking in some teaching?? Is it fair to say that many Catholics today have a concern with magisterial teaching which tends to lean away from prior magisterial teaching?
I think Newman’s THESIS (and presented by Feser) is a way to understand how we faithful Catholics may, in ALL CHARITY, view the Vatican’s recent choice of personnel and policy which seems to disavow the faith of even very recent memory. I do not see that Feser sought to “exert pressure of public opinion”; rather, he wrote about an idea which may have meaning, utility or value to the faithful. Many are flummoxed and confused by contradictions made apparent in high levels of the Church. Who would the ‘responsible’ authority be to whom Feser should address Newman’s thesis if it is not those holding worried interest in understanding and handing on our faith as we received it? Finally, where was papal criticism in Feser’s OP? I
The quote from Donum Veritatis refers to teachings of the magisterial authorities. The relevant paragraphs are 24 to 31. I’ve found the document very instructive.
I don’t think Feser’s thesis in the original argument was very good actually. Certainly he could make a strong case for a weak magisterium on certain doctrines (I would agree) but the talk of a “suspended magisterium” just made it confusing because the CDF/DDF rarely teaches magisterially.
Consequently, I’m not sure Feser’s originaly article would actually help anyone deal with the “contradictions” which “many are flummoxed and confused by”. It creates more questions than answers. I say this as someone who is very familiar and interested in such “contradictions” and I think people should wrestle with them. Let’s do it in the way expressed in DV.
Finally, Feser’s original article was a criticism of a letter of the Pope to Fernandez. A criticism of a letter is a criticism of its author. I’m not saying criticism is out of bounds, I just think Feser’s critique was a poor one and further that Feser should tread lightly in such criticisms given that other less charitable outlets might use his intellectual authority for tearing down the body of christ.
If ecclesiastical authorities are undermining their own authority (the God given authority of the Pope and the College of Bishops) shouldn’t we be working extra hard to build it back up? It is a dogma of our faith afterall.
Feser said it best.
Quote”ave the impression that I was defending the claim that with the appointment of Archbishop Fernandez, the Magisterium of the Church would be entirely suspended. He describes the things I say in my article as “weird,” “odd,” and “serv[ing] an agenda” in such a way that he is “left scratching [his] head” about what I might be up to. But he also suggests that some people advance such views in order “to prepare people to reject papal teaching authority… to use it as an excuse to ignore the papal magisterium.” All of this makes it seem as if this is likely my intention but that I’m not being up front about it.”
My Scottish ancestors stole sheep. I steal good quotes…
Which are grander but sadly don’t make good sweaters.
Ugh? Why won’t my Linux Umbuntu behave?
This is the quote I wanted(the other one was from another post).
“Too many of the pope’s critics will accept nothing but the most negative and apocalyptic interpretations of his every word and action. Too many of the pope’s defenders refuse to consider even the most measured and respectful criticism of him. Everything one side says is folded by the other side into a simplistic “good guys/bad guys” narrative. And if you plead for nuance, you will be accused by each side of “really” aiming subtly to do the work of the other. It’s tiresome, intellectually unserious, and deeply contrary to justice and charity. And while each side self-righteously thinks of itself as defending the Church, all they are really accomplishing is tearing it further apart.”
Thanks for the interaction. I responded to Dr. Feser’s accusation that I engaged in “libel” against him in my video entitled “I JUST MADE INTERNATIONAL NEWS!!! | The Michael Lofton Show” found here: https://youtube.com/live/MDhf8QXOblI
I also responded to Dr. Feser’s theological criticisms of my video in a video entitled: “Did Dr. Ed Feser Just Refute Me? | The Michael Lofton Show” found here: https://youtube.com/live/FIEJ9dP5tzM
Your website says you have an “unwavering commitment to the truth in light of the Gospel” then you shouldn’t have an issue approving this respectful comment for the sake of “truth” and free speech. God bless you!
You made a whole YouTube video about posting this comment? Lol
You are an eye-poker.
Blah, blah, blah. Whatever…
As a spectator, yours truly is reminded, for some random reason, of the 1969 Western “True Grit.” There’s the scene where the feisty teen lassie, Mattie Ross (played by Kim Darby), finds herself debating with the hung-over bounty-hunter, Rooster Cogburn (played by John Wayne). Says she: “I will not bandy words with a drunkard!”
And then, still thinking cross-culturally, but more globally, are we even reminded of the hadith: “the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on”? (Also attributed to the Portuguese, but Muslims laid claim to the Iberian Peninsula from A.D. 711 through A.D. 1492.)
But, like I said, or implied, or whatever, just random and unrelated thoughts from back bleachers.
Some things are just ….. true. They remain true without infallible declaration and do not need infallible declaration. They support declarations that are infallible.
The corollary holds too. Some things can’t be true and can’t be made true via infallible declaration; and some infallible declarations OUT them.
This is an image of the Spirit. All the controversial statements can be tested by or in truth without necessarily having to get anywhere near infallible declaration.
The truth is the work of the Spirit and invariably He is involved in the testing. That’s what Jesus said, the Spirit comes to lead into all truth.
It is the constancy in the Magisterium, reality within the whole and among parts; Popes, Church, individuals and the Spirit bear witness of it down through the ages.
“Lo I am with you even to the end of the age!”
Yay!
I stand with Pope Francis and all in union with him. Thank you Michael Lofton for defending our Holy Father. As long as you do, I am listening to you. St. Ambrose said it: ‘Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God, there is Eternal Life.” God Bless you
If entity 1a.) Catholic World Report was willing to allow the written exchange between 1b.) Dr Feser and 1c.) Michael Lofton at CWR, then entity 2a.) Michael Lofton at R&T can allow a video debate between himself and 2b.) the Dimond brothers or 2c.) a representative to debate the Dimond brothers (chosen by Michael Lofton) on free speech grounds as ML himself brought up free speech in a recent video entitled “Is Free Speech Dead at the Catholic World Report?”
I would just like to add that you don’t need a battle between St. John Henry Newman and St. Robert Bellarmine on the orthodoxy. The magisterium under Pius IX already dealt with it. Here’s Pius IX in his 1873 encyclical Quartus Supra:
“False Accusations
16. But the neo schismatics declare that they do not oppose the Catholic Church’s principles in the least. Their sole aim is to protect the rights of their churches and their nation and even the rights of their supreme Emperor; they falsely allege that We have infringed these rights. By this means, they fearlessly make us responsible for the present disorder. Exactly in this way did the Acacian schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius.[32] And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.[St. Athanas., hist. Arianor ad Monach., no. 35.]”
There you have it, Liberius actually refused to condemn St. Athanaius and refused to support arianism, case closed. Rome has spoken.
And then there’s the case of Pope Honorius who, decades after his death, was anathematized by a Church synod for, what, perhaps negligence in resisting the heresy of Monothelytism. Not explicit heresy, his, but an enabling silence? https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
“To the Spanish bishops [Pope Leo II] explains his meaning: ‘With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence’.”
As for today and reading the goat entrails of silence and ambiguity, which foot wears the shoe? If not “suspending” the magisterium, what about signaling subjective exemptions? An explicit response to the dubia (Veritatis Splendor and all that bigoted stuff) might have been or might still be a worthy and clarifying thing to do.
Rome has spoken, or whatever.
About moral absolutes, yes indeed,”Rome has spoken”: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 115).
“The Church is no way [!] the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
Synodalize that!
This article is unprofessional in that it attacks Lofton personally and is honestly condescending and theologically lacking. Also, the comment about YouTubers airs of a superiority complex and shows that Feser is not up with the times. It’s disappointing to see a hit piece and smear campaign of another fellow Catholic on this platform. If you’re going to post something like this about Lofton, he should have been offered a chance to give his perspective on the issue. Article should be removed. Lofton does not have a small platform and CWR is risking its credibility with this.
Lofton is a contrarian attention-seeker, but he is hardly alone in that capacity in the Youtube world of self-styled Catholic apologists. The medium fosters this approach, because everyone there has to get their “Likes” and “Subscribers.” If Dr. Feser had written an article making nearly the opposite points, I suspect Lofton would still have jumped in with contrarian views designed to agitate and intimidate the easily-impressed.
Isn’t the payoff on youtube determined by the number of views, up-votes, and the like? It panders to sensationalism and, while I have no idea who this fellow Lofton is, I’d again suggest to Dr. Feser not to engage in these kinds of skirmishes. Dr. Feser is a professional theologian and needn’t put himself in the same category as youtube up-voters.
One could have made the same asinine, ultra-uncharitable remark about Catholic radio when it grew popular some 25 years ago, or about EWTN itself. Are we not to use whatever media is at our disposal? Are all people who like to watch Catholic YouTube videos (and those who make them) to be disparaged? This is amazing, and this toxic bilge is ALLOWED to be aired on this site.
I have watched many, many hours of youtube videos to provide me with artistic instruction on how to oil paint. It has also proven useful in deciphering how to manage the computer-driven displays on my Toyota Highlander and to change the chain on my chainsaw. But, for explication of matters of theology and more profound and esoteric topics I look to printed material as they require more than superficial treatment. Hope my explanation isn’t too asinine for your highbrow tastes.
I’ve always been an enthusiastic supporter of the written medium as superior to oral debates and videos: going back to my wranglings with James White (who challenged me to oral debate three times; every time I told him basically what I am saying now). Nothing’s changed there. I just don’t think YouTube videos of apologetics are *worthless*, as Dr. Feser seems to think, and also you.
St. Paul said “I have become all things to all men.” Clearly there is a big demand for oral material. Many people prefer that these days, and some wouldn’t take in what we have to offer them any other way. We’re in a very visual age. Charity and compassion, therefore, demands that someone in the Christian community reach them in the way that they can relate to. That’s what we’re called to do. Vatican II stressed that we must meet people where they are at, and do what they can relate to, and the videos are clearly part of that effort. They can be done well or badly, like anything else. But we mustn’t get legalistic and make sweeping judgments of an entire medium.
But sadly, some folks seem to have a need to run down whatever is different from their own preferences. “Different strokes . . . ” I can state that I think writing is much better; that doesn’t logically or ethically require me to trash YouTube videos on theology and apologetics. If someone can build up and sustain an audience, more power to them.
Myself, I’ll keep writing . . .
Is this disclaimer absolutely meaningless and not enforced anymore?:
“While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or *****personal attacks*****—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly ***combative*** or ***inflammatory***—will not be published. Thank you.
Mr. C. E. Olson,
If CWR is a fair, decent and respectable news outlet, I expect to read something from Mr. M. Lofton about this matter, at this website within this next few days (something from him should have been posted at the same time as this piece from Dr. Feser). I am well aware that Mr. Lofton has his own YouTube Channel and has posted 2 – 3 videos about this there (I have watched the last 2). Still it’s matter of fairness. I am not telling you how to do your job. But the way CWR has handled this so far is unquestionably blatantly UNFAIR and UNBALANCED.
How has this been unfair at all? Dr. Feser wrote a piece. Mr. Lofton responded on his platform. Dr. Feser responded on this platform, which makes complete sense. CWR has no obligation to run responses on the CWR site by Mr. Lofton. He is free to respond in the comment section like everyone else.
I have been writing and editing professionally for over 25 years. So I think I have a decent grasp of how these things are handled. Thanks.
Clapping hand emojis here for you, Carl.
This was my fifth reading. I’m posting here because I do not see the need to post about Lofton any further who got what was coming to him -and without my having to add anything to it.
The Pope’s letter to Fernandez is a mere guideline and it can’t displace the Council of Jerusalem which OBLIGES POSITIVELY to abstain from certain things. When this has to come to a head it is not offensive to charity or any grace or anything about the Church or in the Church.
When on the other hand, it has to be pointed out – which is how it will ordinarily start out; but yet it gets opposed with a determination to defy it, the offenses are being committed by those (already) proposing the alternative to the Council. If it is done surreptitiously as happened in a case in my parish in the 1990’s, making sure to get it brought to light is not uncharitable, untruthful, neo-Peagian, incurvatus, rigid, gnostic, mani, intellectualist, smug, backwardist, indietrist, etc.
Actually at that time they were already hurling names like fundamentalist and bully and “no room at the inn”. One localese name I got is hard baked.
Another name I got was “holier than the Pope” but I doubt it is localese. I must say I could never figure it this one, to my knowledge I had no connect with the Pope at the time on any content whatsoever, nor feedback.
The First Council would be but one example.
Abuse takes many forms not only to do with sexualisms and Pope Francis has to make sure that the sexualism focus does not define the limits of abuses of the Church. Maybe it is time for him to take stock on why he would adapt zero tolerance to sex abuse but yet actually denounce zero tolerance on other non-negotiable abuses.
Maybe he also must look AS WELL at the risk of giving too much exhibition and time on the sexualism theme as a way to somehow prove orthodoxy being constantly updating “all highly publicized”.
In addition it is not the purpose of VATICAN II to produce a placate-only apostolate and such an idea, that one obligingly must only seek to placate, is not in the Documents or in the Tradition. And it’s not in common sense.
Such are more in the objective arena.
The guide to Fernandez may be subjectively deficient. For instance, Pope Francis has floated in public a glaring contradiction, in that one can not profess to legalize homosexual civil union and not be Pelagian and gnostic or be true to grace. Such a situation can not be dealt with in the brief expressed in the guiding letter.
If Pope Francis can not discern this error and Fernandez is caught up in placatings with mysticisms about the mouth and who knows what else, but everyone is in denial that subjectivities and blindness can cause trouble; obviously there will then continue to be clashes and “upsets”.
Lastly there is the question of learning, Pope Francis said homosexuality is a sin not a crime -which trashes the learning on both items.
In law it is a crime when committed or induced. In faith it is a sin when held to or led. He thus offends law and faith. But in the first place he has no right in terms of teaching, to so condense the topics as to render them anti-faith and anarchical. And have the rest of us bring him up on it as if we wanted to with others getting up high on their horses that we are bashing him.
In both faith and law if you are affected by that thing you have to MAKE SURE to do something against it.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/07/22/loftons-youtube-straw-man/
Dr. Feser wrote at the end of the article above:
“[Lofton] might consider sticking to his own lane, which is making facile YouTube videos – but about topics other than theology, which requires levels of rigor and charity that he appears to lack.”
Feser’s constant insinuation throughout (and in related Twitter comments) is that Lofton is just some guy (whom he knows little about) who only makes YouTube videos (themselves beneath contempt, in his opinion), as if he has no credentials and is merely self-appointed. In fact, Lofton, according to his Catholic Answers profile:
“is a graduate of Christendom College Graduate School of Theology, where he received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies (Cum Laude) in 2018. He is currently working on a doctorate in Theology with Pontifex University and is writing a dissertation on the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.”
The man has a master’s in theology and is working on a doctorate in the same field. This makes him at least as educated, if not already more so in *theology* than Feser (who is, of course, a philosopher). Feser, it’s true, also has an M.A. in religion from the Claremont Graduate School.
I looked at both programs: what Feser took at Claremont and what Lofton learned at Christendom. The latter involves far more theology, and the fact that Lofton is doing his doctorate on the magisterium shows that he is more than qualified to have ***this particular discussion*** with Feser (arguably more academically qualified than Feser in this specific area).
So why would (or how could) Feser say that Lofton ought not deal with theology in public AT ALL? He has no basis for that, other than sheer ignorance of Lofton’s credentials (he stated, “That brings me to Michael Lofton, about whom I know very little other than that he appears to fancy himself an upholder of Catholic orthodoxy and devotes a lot of time to making videos of this kind”), or good old-fashioned academic snobbery — in this instance, bizarrely misplaced, given Lofton’s education: equal or better than his own, in terms of theology itself.
I would ask those who have not already seen it to read today’s follow-up article:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/07/24/a-comment-on-the-lofton-affair/
It is remarkable how many times Armstrong and Lofton have posted on this thread. They have afforded themselves limitless occasions for expressing outrage at those who object to their methods, all people who – of course – are engaged in “mortal sin.” I would challenge anyone to try such argumentation on Armstrong’s and Lofton’s own domains and see how that works out for you.
You are MORE than welcome to come onto my blog at any time and defend in debate with me the proposition: “Does Dave Armstrong Habitually ‘Stretch’ the Truth and Lie and Descend to Sophistry, Since Dr. Feser has Declared So?”
You have free access to my 4,300 + online articles, and I’ll even give you free e-book files of any of my 51 books, to help you in your noble endeavor to document the truthfulness of Dr. Feser’s claims, which you have gleefully and manfully endorsed in this combox. All of your words will appear on my blog for all to see, just as I have done for most of my more than a thousand back-and-forth debates on my blog.
Then when we’re done with that, I’ll be more than happy to host on my blog a second debate between you and Michael Lofton, where you would defend the proposition, “Is Michael Lofton Obliged to Shut Down His Full-Time Catholic Apologetics Ministry Because Dr. Feser Declares That He Ought Not Write About Theology At All, As a Result of His Outrageously Daring to Express an Honest Disagreement with Dr. Feser, and That Lofton’s Replies to Him in Protest Against Alleged ‘Libel’ [the non-legal definition, mind you] Are Worthless ‘Dreck’ [a potshot on Twitter] etc.?”
Anytime you’re ready to do that, just drop me a line.
Oh, by the way, I have been published in this magazine twice, and editor Carl E. Olson reviewed my book, The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2007) at National Catholic Register (8-21-07), writing:
“This book is commendable for being pithy and precise while never being either simplistic or dense, an indication of how well Armstrong knows his subject matter and his audience. In fact, this is the sort of book that could only be written by someone who has spent countless hours studying, articulating and discussing the Catholic faith, to the point that he knows how to accurately answer questions and clearly correct misunderstandings. . . .
“The writing is punchy but never pugnacious. . . . Accessible and substantial, The One-Minute Apologist will help readers in need of timely answers. And, just as important, it should serve as an inviting introduction to the richness and fullness of the Catholic Faith.”
So I guess I don’t need to shut down my full-time apologetics ministry (active now for over twenty-one years). And — contra Dr. Feser — I don’t think [soon to be Dr.] Michael Lofton needs to do so, either, simply because Dr. Feser says so.
Sorry for making yet another comment here, as pitiable evidence of the “remarkable” frequency of same. My bad . . .
Thanks again to Carl and CWR for allowing dissenting opinions to be expressed.
Do you not realize all this is starting to sound a little… unhinged?
Yes, of course you would think that. And of course you attack my work, seeing that you detest Vatican II and the New Mass, and this pope and the two previous ones: things and people that I am proud — and duty-bound — to defend, as a Catholic apologist. My next blog paper will document all of this (most of it drawn from your past comments in this very venue).
This is why you oppose me, because you can’t tolerate what I stand for. It’s as simple as that (in case anyone was wondering what you had against me).
Hungry sheep bleat. The strongest butt heads. Where is the clear voice of the shepherd to feed them? All this neglect and noise makes it impossible to hear the stalking lion.
Feser still hasn’t retracted his evil defense of the “moral liceity” of the bioweapon injection. He has no moral credibility.
https://thaddeuskozinski.substack.com/p/when-catholic-philosophers-betray
Katherine Watt:
On interpretation of selective silence
Some things are difficult for some leading voices among the Covid-times anti-tyranny voices to say publicly. Four of those things:
Vaccines and biochemical weapons are interchangeable terms for a single product class jointly manufactured and distributed by pharmaceutical companies and the US military for use by militarized health care providers on targets.
Observed harms caused by use of biochemical weapons labeled as vaccines, on targets, are intentional.
Intentional infliction of pain and death, on targets, using biochemical weapons labeled as vaccines, is State-sponsored. Governments have done it to their people in the past, are doing it right now, and clearly indicate their plans to continue doing it in the future.
State sponsorship of the intentional injury and killing of people is coerced through central bank control of money, such that governments are under the direct daily control of central banks, and democratic rituals (such as elections and legislative activity) are performative only. Government officials who try to refuse sponsorship of intentional mass murder (i.e., by speaking or legislating in authentic, non-performative ways) are subject to overwhelming reprisals: currency destruction, economic collapse, lockouts from international financial transaction systems, fomented internal civil disorder, government overthrow and assassination.
Covid has been a global demonstration that financial control mechanisms (banker behavioral control of governments) and political, medical-military ‘public health’ control mechanisms (government behavioral control of civilians) work as designed and installed.
Through the real-time Covid lens, it’s become possible to discern the same demonstrative, murderous hand at work in conducting civil and world wars, famines and economic collapses, especially in the last three centuries.
My goodness. Such an awfully high regard for yourself! Correction of someone’s distortions is not the issue (and is perfectly understandable) – but your tone and pretensiouness (well before the correction) is unfortunate, to say the least.
Here is my written response to the claims made in this article for any who are interested: Can the Magisterium be “Partially Suspended”? https://wherepeteris.com/can-the-magisterium-be-partially-suspended/
As a Catholic convert (who was an altar boy in an Episcopal Church that still used the 1945 Book of Common Prayer and the KJV Bible — both of which I still have on shelf) who now owns a tattered 1949 St. Andrew Missal (.50 cents), a 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal ($50.00), as well as No. 3 Baltimore Catechism ($15.00; is there anything in these sources that will lead me astray in the practice of the Faith? (On Kindle I have John Hardon’s THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM and Benedict XVI’s INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY, the Seewald interviews etc., the Jesus Narratives … safe spaces as well I assume.)
The Feser doth protest too much, methinks
Michael Lofton is one of the most honest to goodness theologians out there defending Christ’s Church. Why? Because that’s the oath he took, to uphold the truth, to defend it with his life. To clear the smokescreen, to bring the flock clarity when the enemy tries to blind them with lies. That’s why Jesus wanted Theologians in His Church. If Michael addresses something, you know it has merit, and he always backs it up with hard facts, not hot air. He’s a blessing to all of us. He has brought so many back to the church, including myself. I see the fruit he bears in his work, and it is plenty. With so many others, I have only seen division and rot.