What's with all the camera angles? Does he have a production team or something?

I think Yeti gets that.  I just think he's trying to pinpoint when Fr Altman/Fr Dix date their interregnum.  Do they say it starts when Benny resigned or died (which would make them Bennyvacantists)? Or is there some date that they think Bergoglio lost the papacy (vs never had it)?

Off topic:  I just have to say that today marks my 10th anniversary on CathInfo....Wowser.

Congratulations Vermont!

What's with all the camera angles? Does he have a production team or something?

Yeah, that bothers me too.

And we must pray for our enemies. May they convert back to the Catholic Faith. 

I keep thinking of that prophecy from Blessed Tomasuccio de Foligno:

By about twelve years shall the millennium have passed when the resplendent mantle of legitimate power shall emerge from the shadows where it was being kept by the schism. And beyond harm from the one who is blocking the door of salvation, for his deceitful schism shall have come to an end. And the mass of the faithful shall attach itself to the worthy Shepherd, who shall extricate each one from error and restore to the Church its beauty. He shall renew it.

Jorge was "elected" in early 2013, so shortly after 2012 had passed, while legitimate authority hasn't been restored yet, no one can deny that Jorge is exposing the schism and bringing that to light where it had been hidden in the shadows with his Conciliar predecessors.

I think the reason that Lofton believes that Fr. Altman harms the body of Christ is specifically because of Sedevacantism, of which Lofton himself is a former adherent. If I recall correctly, he said that there's only one place left to go from sedevacantism, and that's to leave the Catholic Faith altogether.

 If Lofton WAS an adherent of SV, but is so no longer, then by his own logic the only place he could have gone is....to have left the Faith altogether!  Utter nonsense, obviously. 

Well, perhaps he thinks of himself as an exception?

Which is of the essence of humility, of course! 

 Or, perhaps it is a good indicator that his extreme conclusion on the matter cannot be taken seriously.  We ALL know something is radically wrong in Rome and has been since before most of use were born.  Otherwise, none of us would be in Traddieland.  SV is a perfectly rational take, even if one disagrees with it.  Those who believe SV is non-Catholic, schismatic, etc (or who think the same about SSPX-ers, et alii) are part of the problem and just embracing the dogmatic version of whatever flavor of Traddieland gels best with them (for now).

Which is of the essence of humility, of course!

 Or, perhaps it is a good indicator that his extreme conclusion on the matter cannot be taken seriously.  We ALL know something is radically wrong in Rome and has been since before most of use were born.  Otherwise, none of us would be in Traddieland.  SV is a perfectly rational take, even if one disagrees with it.  Those who believe SV is non-Catholic, schismatic, etc (or who think the same about SSPX-ers, et alii) are part of the problem and just embracing the dogmatic version of whatever flavor of Traddieland gels best with them (for now).

I, for one, never indicated that this James Lofton is humble. But that doesn't mean that he cannot make a few good points, as well as some wrong ones. The Dimonds do the same, and they of course are far from humble. Humility isn't really a sedevacantist virtue. 

I don't agree that SV is rational. Nor, on the other hand, do I believe that it's schismatic, but it can lead to schism. Therin lies the problem, IMO.

In doing more research on James Lofton, it seems that he is a fan of Siscoe and Salza. Not surprising, given his view of things sedevacantist. But that doesn't mean that I write him off altogether.