And this is why I like Country Music

I have covered the knowing heretics, fake Catholics, and Freemason Satanists several times, and by now, I should hope it is clear that I give no “clergy” that doesn’t specifically reject Vatican II and the Fake Popes from 1958 on any kind of pass. They are knowing heretics, and to be treated as such, as per Cum Ex Apostolato Officio; to wit (emphasis added):

(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.

But… but… what about some poor wanna-be Catholic “priest” that is ignorant of the whole Vatican II issue, and the rampant sodomy in the seminaries, and the utter manifest heresy of Bergoglio in real-time, never mind all of it since 1958, you say?

Yeah… that’s like saying that an adult, who takes all the courses to be a firearms instructor, then points a loaded gun at a child and pulls the trigger and then claims he didn’t know the gun was loaded when he did it. Even if you assume he’s telling the truth, and even if you could somehow determine it with absolute certainty (impossible), the fact remains that such an idiot would and should, go to jail, or preferably the death penalty, for what is known legally as criminal negligence. Or as I prefer to call it, criminal stupidity. Yes, being stupid enough is a crime. Because really stupid people should not be allowed to take certain jobs. You don’t want a 50 IQ retard trying to fly a plane. And I don’t care whose feelings it hurts. Ditto these fake “idiot” “priests”. If they are that stupid, they have no business being priests, and no, I do not give them the benefit of the doubt, and neither should you. Why? Because it is Church dogma to not do so. If you act like a heretic, practice like a heretic, promulgate heresy, regardless of your possible retardation, we are to treat you like a heretic. And must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess. See above.

So that deals with the intentional, knowing heretics.

But what about the laymen who are also trying to lead people to Hell? Well, once again, I have detailed some of these grifting liars, Emo Jones, Tay-Tay Marshall, Michelle Voris, Milo Yankmypoleus and their kind. And one hopes it is now relatively easy to spot them. And we have a generic witch test for all who profess to be “Catholics”, it’s really simple:

“Do you reject Vatican II and all those who promulgate it?“

Anything other than a resounding YES! means you are dealing either with a knowing impostor, an egomaniacal fame or status hungry “smartboi”, or, at best, a deceived, lazy, ignorant.

Yes, yes, I know, charity and all that, but let me point something out here: It is by using and appealing to your charity when they have absolutely no right to do so, that these snakes enter your home and pervert it. And the Catholic Church also dogmatically explains that one should use prudence and avoid anything suspect.

Great. We got that cleared up. What then of the autistically persistent laymen? And here I add a couple of warnings:

1. First of all assure yourself as best you can that they actually are simple laymen. The example of note here is John Salza. Who has written a retinue of lies against Sedevacantism, supposedly in defence of Catholicism as a simple, pious layman. Except… that Salza was (is) a self-confessed freemason. Oh, oh, but he’s not anymore… right, because Satanists are such paragons of truth-telling. Get it through your head, freemasons are Satanists, that is literally what Freemasonry is. The literal worship of Lucifer. The fact the lower echelons might not be immediately aware of it… again… see criminal stupidity above. And if a freemason did honestly convert and became a Catholic (there are historical examples) then the only thing they may continue to do is explain how freemasonry is Satanic. That’s it. And that is the only legitimate thing they might be allowed to speak on as laypeople. Because once you have been a Satanist, it’s really quite obvious you should never be allowed to say anything at all about Catholicism, other than it is the absolute truth and you were absolutely wrong. And should such a person go on to write long tracts on why this or that theological position is better or worse, they are to be immediately assumed to be simply continuing their Satanic mission. These people, once you discover they are in fact freemasons or associate with such, etcetera, can safely be dismissed as liars at the very least, and heretics almost to a certainty.
2. But let us now assume you have satisfied yourself that they are not intentional deceiver or gatekeepers. And further (somehow) satisfied yourself they are not grifters either, making a buck from their “preaching”. And by making a buck I mean, literally making their living, or a substantial part of it from it. Because if they are, well, then their intent might not be consciously Satanic, but they are certainly at least useful idiots for Satan.

Ok then, assuming they even pass the Satanists/Grifter smell test, what are we left with? The smartbois. The Gammas who do it for personal ego/stature/status.

Are there honestly deceived people who believe they are “Catholics” when instead they are just fooled, lazy ignorants? Yes. Plenty of them. Millions. maybe even over a billion of them. Certainly.

Why do I call them lazy ignorants? Because they are. Is it harsh? Not really, it is a statement of fact. If I decided to call myself a prince of the blue garter belt of Liliputz, or whatever, you can bet I would not do so until I have studied with care what and how one becomes or is born as a Prince of Liliputz, and even if I fit those requirements, I would then delve deeply into what it takes to belong to the order of the blue garter belt, and why that isn’t gay somehow, if indeed it is not!

And how much more important is your claim to belong to a specific religion, to a specific God, with specific rules, because after all, if God is real, and Good, and Loving, then he MUST have, at a minimum, a Way for you to find Him and His rules and a way for you to KNOW what those rules are. And indeed there is: The Catholic Church. And it is your minimum duty to ensure you are actually in it, and not fooled into some travesty of it through your laziness of not bothering to learn your own religion.

So, if you’re one of the lazy ignorants, either get offended, flounce off in flamboyant fake indignation, or, get your lazy ass off the couch, and start reading. And learning.

But what about the smartbois?

Ah yes.

And here we encounter one such: Michael Lofton (because I am still being charitable here and still investigating him). He appears to have spent a LOT of time and effort to defend the heretic, fake, impostor riddled “Catholic Church” headed by the Vicar of pedophiles himself, Bergoglio. Now, why would that be?

If we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a true believer (in the Novus Orco, fake Church) and not a grifter (but he does make considerable revenue from his podcasts) or an intentional deceiver, then we need to assess what he is, and why he’s doing it.

At first glance, what I can say so far is that he certainly likes to use the sophist’s method preferred by Bill Clinton when asked if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. For those young-uns among you, here is the detail:

During his grand jury testimony, Clinton questioned the exact meaning of the word ‘is’ in an attempt to defend a false affidavit in which Lewinsky claimed ‘there is no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with president Clinton’. When asked by former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg, to confirm the affidavit was ‘utterly false’, the former president gets into semantics. ‘It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement,’ Clinton said with what seems like a smirk on his face. 

I remember watching that on TV and seeing the lawyer take him to task on it, saying effectively: Wait…what? Are you saying that your statement was “true” because you weren’t physically having sex with Monica Lewinsky at that specific time the question was asked?!

It was truly baffling and absurd. Well, Michael does quite a bit of this.

When cornered on certain topics he tries to dodge by becoming absurdly “specific” about certain words.

For example, watch this video from 53.20 on, where he admits that Bergoglio said that Proselytising is a sin. But, he goes on to “explain” that what Bergy-the-Oleous means by that, is “to use force” to convert people to Catholicism.

Which is, of course, abject nonsense. “What does he mean by Proselytism?” he says, “the question is, is proselytism the same as evangelisation?” And he goes on to say that “convincing people” of the truth is evangelising, and fine, but Proselytism is, according to him, understood by Bergoglio to be the use of “coercion and force”. He doesn’t explain how he knows this, or what evidence he has that Bergy-the-Olous uses this word this way, of course. But does it matter? No. Because we know very well what words mean around here.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Let’s go to my 13 volume set of the Oxford English Dictionary and look them both up.

Evangelise means:

1. to preach the gospel or
2. to bring under the influence of the gospel
3. the state or condition of being evangelised or converted to the Christian faith

And Proselytise means:

1. To make proselytes
2. To make a proselyte of

What is a Proselyte?

It is defined as:

1. One who has come over from one opinion, belief, creed or party to another; a convert
2. A gentile convert to the Jewish faith
3. to convert form one religious faith or sect to another

In short, they are perfectly synonymous of each other, and if anything evangelise is the one that could potentially have some “force” attributable to it since in definition 3 it simply states to be “converted to the Christian faith”. And in definition 2 one might be “brought under the influence of” by having a gun pointed to one’s head with a command to convert. One (if autistic) might try to argue that in this case, the presumption is that perhaps it’s okay to do it by any means, including against the individual’s free will.

While in the definitions of Proselyte the implication of free will of the convert is clearly always grammatically present.

So, it is, of course a lie. Nonsense. And it is said to run cover for the never-was-Catholic, protector of Pedophiles on Earth, Bergy-the-Oleous, fake “pope” and grand vizier of Moloch.

He does this in other ways and in other videos. He in fact tried to dismiss the entirety of the Code of Canon Law using similar subterfuge, I forget now the detail and I can’t be bothered to look for it presently, but the case is clearly made, if you listen to him for any length of time on the topic of Sedevacantism, that he is dishonest.

So WHY is he dishonest? Is he getting paid for it? (I don’t know)

Is he funded by some rich heretic interested in funding gatekeepers like the money man behind both Emo Jones and Church Militant’s ex(sure)gay guy Voris, Marc Brammer? (I don’t know)

Does he make a substantial amount of money from his podcasts? Yes. Is it enough to keep him in the level of luxury he wants? I don’t know but I doubt it, these guys tend to be greedy.

So can I definitely point at him and scream “KNOWING HERETIC! BURN HIM!” Well, I certainly will treat him like one, because he is, but no, I can’t quite yet do that, because he may just be stroking his own ego instead of have a vested interest in sending souls to Hell for a third party.

But what we can be certain of is that the he is a sophist. And I mean that in the EOD version n. 3:

One who makes use of fallacious arguments; a specious reasoner.

And by specious, here they mean EOD definition n. 2:

Having a fair or attractive appearance or character, calculated to make a favourable impression on the mind, but in reality devoid of the qualities apparently possessed.

And, without surprise, he not only never argues Sedevacantism honestly, but he is absolutely terrified of even beginning to have an argument with someone that (though ultimately wrong) knows enough to prove him to be absolutely flawed in all his reasonings concerning Catholicism.

Peter Dimond is ultimately wrong because he doesn’t not recognise Baptism of Desire and of Blood, which the Church and Canon Law in fact do recognise, and as a result of that error he then rejects the few remaining valid Priests and Bishops (sedevacantists).

That said, Dimond would wipe the floor with Lofton, because autistic though Dimond is about baptism of desire (he literally twists the meaning of the black on white word of Canon Law of 1917 to “make his case”, not unlike Lofton himself) he is pretty rock-solid on most other aspects of Catholicism. In fact, barring that (serious and unfortunate error) and a few other points which are really so far-out as to be literally non-issues for almost anyone at all, Dimond is sound in his Catholicism. But note how Lofton resorts to specious ad hominem instead of answering the question.

If I were tasked with arguing Dimond I would say that we essentially only have one main point of contention, and it is baptism of desire and baptism of blood. I would have to research the various places this was clearly stated by multiple Popes etcetera, which would be pointless, because it is addressed in the canon Law of 1917, and Dimond has already shown that his approach to it would be autism redux with no ability to objectively evaluate the relevant code. So, arguing with him would be pointless and fruitless for us both. But I have no doubt he would be able to recite the various passages from Papal Encyclicals that he uses (erroneously) to make his case, from memory. I certainly could not.

Lofton instead, tries to side-step the entire major point of the Sede vs Heretics arguments, and never really addresses them in his own “takes”.

Tell us Michael, where is the Code of Canon Law, or the Dogma, that says 70 years is too much for an interregnum? Oh wait…what is that? There isn’t one?

Right.

And the Church has been without a Pope for a few years before and for over 70 with no clear way of knowing who was Pope because there were up to three at a time claiming it. But that was fine was it?

Oh and, no one judges the Pope… yet… there have been more than 40 antipopes before 1958, so… SOMEHOW we must be able to know when a Pope is a heretic, eh Michael? And definitely judge it so. Why don’t you explain that one away too.

But I want to now address those who get affected by specialbois or deceivers, whichever he is, like Lofton.

That is, those who get convinced by him on the basis that he introduces right at the start of the linked video, and that is, that oh, well, if there are only a few actual Catholics left (i.e. if Sedevacantism is true and there are “only” 200,000 to a 1,000,000 catholics left) then one should despair and become oh… he doesn’t know… Say Eastern “Orthodox” or a Copt or maybe a Syrian Catholic… (are there even 200k of those guys?!) because, you know, as Jesus Himself and all the Apostles clearly stated, Christianity is a popularity contest!

If you don’t have the numbers you just don’t play, right?

Go to a “winning” team like Russian Orthobros. Or stick with the Molochian usurpers LARPing at being “Catholic” clergy, because, hey, they have the numbers!

Right. Sure.

If you go along with hat argument, then, it is patently obvious, that your flaw here is not just your ability to do logic, perceive truth, or understand objective reality, but also, that you are supremely weak, and more akin to a herd animal than a reasoning, thinking, human being.

And, at best, that’s the type of “Catholic” Michael Lofton is, Ladies and Gentlemen, by his own admission at 18.10 or so of his video.

So I rest my case.

Matthew 7:13-14

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.