Editor’s Note: I will begin my comments by noting that the general argument is true, that we should not redefine sins so as to excuse them. But the self-contradiction of the man, who sustains this argument while sporting a large tattoo on his right arm (tattooing the body is held in all manuals of moral theology in the last 500 years as a mortal sin), is outstanding!

As for “redefining” “sedevacantism”, his accusation against Fr. Altman has a big problem, namely, that the term, “sedevacantism” has no official definition in canon law or moral theology.

Also, I find highly offensive that Lofton refuses to call Father Altman, “Father”. He does not realize that Fr. Altman has not been reduced to the lay state by a canonical penalty. And even if he was, he is a priest forever. And if we call protestant ministers, Minister, what shall we call a defrocked priest who is defrocked for political views, not for denying the faith?

Therefore, Lofton’s argument is false. If Fr. Altman says, that he is not a sedevacantist (in the accepted usage, which refers to the fact that there can be no more valid Conclaves because the current “pope” is an imposter), but he no longer recognizes Bergoglio as the Pope, but will recognize the validity of a future Conclave; then Fr. Altman is not playing games with terms, he is making a valid distinction.

I would remind Lofton that is also a grave sin to accuse a person of deceit to cover over a grave sin, when he is not doing that.

Fr. Altman’s position here is sound, because -ism added to a term indicates an ideology, which insists that its position is true regardless of reality; but Fr. Altman’s position is based on particular judgements regarding a particular person, not the entire Apostolic succession at Rome.

Lofton, then inconsistently says he is not sure if we can call Altman, Father, yet, but nevertheless opened his video without the title.

Finally, even I am not so old, that I would wish a man studying for a graduate degree in Catholic Theology wear a dress shirt when speaking about the Faith or a priest. Otherwise, we are profaning the sacred.

IN RELATED NEWS:

Antony Stine, in the video below, defends the right of all the Faithful to say someone is a heretic, inasmuch as this saying means a recognition, not a juridical determination. He does this in a video which expounds Fr. Nix’s recent blog post on this topic.

HOW CATHOLIC WARRIORS ACT DIFFERENTLY THAN SEDEVACANTISTS and Grifters

What Antony Stine says above and argues is true as I have always said, and do say often; but as to saying that he is deprived of his office and saying you won’t recognize that he holds that authority over you so as to prevent you from rebuking him or getting him removed from office, is a distinction which most do not make.

And this distinction is important. Because the man who makes these distinctions remains in the communion of the Church, but the man who denies this distinction, separates himself from the Church when he recognizes and judges that the man who is his superior is no longer his superior (for schism from your superior is an ipso facto excommunication in virtue of canon 1364). For those who do recognize a superior is a heretic or suspect of heresy, complacency is not an option, as an honest Catholic does not make this recognition to be complacent, but for the sake of the truth and restoring the Church to a unity in the truth, as I explain here.

Thus, once it is reasonably certain by external facts that your superior is a manifest heretic, you do not have to obey any command or decision he makes regarding you so as to prevent you from having him removed from office: such as formally denouncing him to his superior, asking for the convocation of a provincial council to rebuke and or depose him (if he be a pope or bishop).

And the proper response to any such obstructive command, is, “Sir, it is clear you are a public heretic; I ask you to publicly recant. And until you do I will do everything to have you deposed from office. But since you have this manifest defect, I am not going to obey any more commands you give, until this matter is cleared up, because I have the moral right and the juridical obligation to act as if you are pertinacious, if you refuse now to recant. So the ball is now in your court, and you cannot appeal to any canonical right which you have to stop me or demand obedience of me. And neither can any of your superiors or subordinates.” Such a man continues in his habitual duties of office, but stands firm. And if his superior refuses to recant but takes punitive action against him, he should carefully document this as proof that his superior is pertinacious in his error. He should further more encourage all his peers and subordinates to join him in his appeals to have the superior removed from office. And he can presume any right necessary to do this, such as raising funds, writing, traveling, holding meetings or conferences, because necessity knows no law, as the ancient maxim teaches.

This is what it means to be a Militant Catholic.