Does Michael Lofton understand the arguments made in the debate on Francis?
Lofton's analysis is not relevant to membership of the Church – and therefore, it has nothing to do with Francis’ legitimacy, and completely misses the point of the debate.
.jpg){kind=link}
This essay is written in response to Mr Michael Lofton’s comments on a debate hosted by Mr Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas on 20 September 2022. (We have also published other attempts to engage Mr Lofton here and here).
But first, some background for those who have not heard of Mr Lofton.
Mr Michael Lofton is the personality behind the website and YouTube channel Reason and Theology. Reason and Theology Live describes itself as:
“A show dedicated to charitable discussion, debates, interviews, commentary and analysis. The show concentrates on theological topics, historical matters and philosophical problems, with content ranging from introductory material to in-depth examinations.”[1]
The channel sometimes features lecturers explaining points of Catholic doctrine with clarity and thoughtfulness.
It also features respectful debates and conversations with Protestants, Orthodox and others.
I want to state clearly at the outset that I appreciate some of Mr Lofton’s work.
But unfortunately, I must also note that the respect shown to Orthodox and Protestants does not extend in the same way to those whom he calls “radical traditionalists.”
Some background on Michael Lofton and “Rad-Trads”
Lofton has become increasingly concerned about those who, to differing degrees, reject the reforms that have appeared since Vatican II.
He has made very many critical videos and comments about aspects of traditionalism. While it may not be intentional, these videos are often marred by what appears to be disdain, superiority and condescension.
As a further example, he appears to have taken down the video of his interview with the Society of St Pius X’s district superior of Canada.[2]
In August 2022 – responding to “Criticism and Hate Mail” – Lofton was asked to explain the reasoning behind the different ways he treats “Rad-Trads” and non-Catholics. In response – after denying that he is harsher on traditionalists than Orthodox and Protestants – Lofton said:
“[S]ome aspects of radical traditionalism are more pernicious than Orthodoxy and Protestantism, because in some ways radical traditionalists are closer to the Catholic faith than Orthodox or Protestants. Here’s the problem though. The closer you are, however one when you add an error mixed in with it that leads people away from Christ, the more dangerous you are. […]
“It’s more pernicious, it’s more subtle, but it’s also more dangerous for that reason because it’s so easy to then confuse that with the proper understanding of the Catholic faith, with proper ecclesiology, a proper understanding of the magisterium – because they’re so close. You have just a little drop of poison in there, it’s so easy to think that the whole thing is good. […]
“But I’m not seeing a lot of people engaging with Radical Traditionalists and the misinformation that they’re offering, and the content that is taking people away from Christ and his Church. I’m not seeing people engaging that as much, so I’m seeing more of a need to address that.”[3]
While we sharply disagree with Mr Lofton on the nature of the current crisis, we do have some common ground.
His theological principles and those expressed on this website (The WM Review) are largely in accord – it’s clear that he and we are reading many of the same sorts of standard pre-conciliar books (viz. those recommended here).
We share his criticisms of those who say that we must “rethink the papacy” in light of the current ecclesial crisis.
In the above text, Lofton talks about the importance of having a proper understanding of ecclesiology, and of addressing the “misinformation” coming from traditionalists.
There is no doubt that some “Rethinkers” are promoting distorted and untraditional understandings of ecclesiology and the magisterium. But I would like to point out a serious misunderstanding of Lofton’s own, made in his reaction video to the debate on the so-called “Pope Question.”
But first, a comment on the medium and this idea of engagement.
This is a advanced preview post for those who choose to support us with a monthly or annual subscription.
Work like this takes a lot of time and energy. Please consider subscribing if you like it.
We want to make it freely available clergy, priests and seminarians freely, upon request (please contact us if this applies to you).