Primacy of conscience and following the Pope
#21
(06-07-2020, 03:17 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(06-07-2020, 02:38 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: I don't have any specific comments on Mr. Hoffman's thesis but I am convinced at the "Spirit of Vatican II" didn't originate at Vatican II (thus it is a misnomer).  The Church didn't go from traditional and faithful in 1962 to the clown Masses, ecumenism, and religious indifferentism that would seem to sweep the Church by the early 1970's.  The early Modernists that St. Pius X beat back didn't come from nowhere.  All of this has been building up for a very long time, perhaps for centuries now.  The Devil plays the long game.

And this, at its center, is what he's getting at with his book. Which, I got about halfway through it originally and was scandalized because I thought he was trying to denigrate the Church. But, now that I understand Mr. Hoffman's thought, what he says makes a lot of sense and he backs it up with quite a bit of sources. I've got to say, the book is a black pill for sure.

As for Modernism, as derived from the author's thesis, it has to do with the occult concept of Revelation of the Method. Essentially,  event A happens, is wrapped up quickly, and then is frozen with the evidence surrounding it. Over time, circumstances surrounding event A begin to "thaw" as more and more information contrary to the supposed conclusions of event A are "exposed". Eventually, the truth behind event A is publically exposed at a time when it is too late to do anything about it. Modernism, and Masonry, in essence, were the trickle-down effects of this severe occult corruption in the Church hierarchy; the bulk of which culminated in the public exposure of the "Church of Rome" at Vatican II.

There's a reason beyond mere communist and Masonic infiltration as to why Vatican II happened simultaneously with the Kennedy assassination and the depravity of the 60s. According to the author, this was all meant to be "revealed" once the public had been sufficiently dulled to the "Method."
I'm glad you're revisiting Hoffman's book, it's worth reading for trads as far as I'm concerned. Definitely "black pill" as you say, as he pulls no punches and backs all of it up with hundreds of footnotes and citations.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 1 user Likes formerbuddhist's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#22
(06-04-2020, 09:38 PM)Paul Wrote: I don't disagree at all that this would be rare, possibly even non-existent, but if theoretically possible, it's not heresy. Saying 'those who are subjectively not guilty of mortal sin can receive Communion' is fine; the fact that the number of such people might be zero doesn't change that.

The heresy comes in when we add in the notion that God requires the impossible in the natural moral law, and that somehow subjective situations allow the violation of the natural law.

I still don't see how someone could truly be invincibly ignorant that something is wrong with remarriage an divorce at least in the eyes of the Church when the Church refuses to bless or recognize such a marriage. I have good priest friends in Mexico where there are a lot of marriages outside of the Church, so much so that it's one of the first topics learned in learning pastoral Spanish: "¿Estas casado en la iglesia?" It is common that Catholics, knowing that they can only marry once, will have a child baptized several times in different parishes to create several baptismal records so as to show freedom to marry after divorce.

Without wanting to debate the merits of the theoretical possibility, I do think it is a practical impossibility ... at least until Amoris Lætitia, which for some will seem to be the Church teaching that this is okay.

We also have to factor in scandal, however. Even if a public sinner is somehow in the State of Grace (e.g. a man who is a known abortion doctor has repented by means of confession) we don't allow him to publicly receive the sacraments until the public sin is fixed. Until he publicly renounces his evil ways, to admit to Communion in a public manner would be a source of scandal, and so even one in the State of Grace, but still appearing to be a public sinner, would have to be barred from Communion in public, but could privately receive the Sacraments.

The same could happen with a couple that is living chastely as brother and sister for the sake of the children in an adulterous relationship. In private they could be absolved, and make their Communion, but not publicly. Publicly they appear to be married and acting as married people. Privately, however, if the priest is aware that they are not able to separate, but are also living chastely, then there is no issue.

That's nothing new, but the problem is (aside from all of the mess of AL), that what could be privately done, and was a guarded secret to discourage such relationships, now is put out as if it is a public solution, and something novel, and in doing this, the whole basis for the moral law is made subjective to man's needs, and not based on his nature and the Divine Law.

(06-04-2020, 09:38 PM)Paul Wrote: What about the situation where one spouse insists on sex despite the other believing it's adultery, and gets violent if refused, or threatens to take the children away, or kick the Catholic spouse out of the house and she doesn't have anywhere else to go? Seems like most Catholics think that lessens culpability, but I wouldn't think those things justify mortal sin. If it did, then the early martyrs should have just offered the incense.

I'm not sure I understand your scenario and how one could think it is adultery and the other not. Perhaps you could explain. Is this an adulterous union after civil divorce? What is the basis for the one thinking this is adultery?
Reply
#23
(06-07-2020, 03:22 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(06-07-2020, 03:17 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(06-07-2020, 02:38 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: I don't have any specific comments on Mr. Hoffman's thesis but I am convinced at the "Spirit of Vatican II" didn't originate at Vatican II (thus it is a misnomer).  The Church didn't go from traditional and faithful in 1962 to the clown Masses, ecumenism, and religious indifferentism that would seem to sweep the Church by the early 1970's.  The early Modernists that St. Pius X beat back didn't come from nowhere.  All of this has been building up for a very long time, perhaps for centuries now.  The Devil plays the long game.

And this, at its center, is what he's getting at with his book. Which, I got about halfway through it originally and was scandalized because I thought he was trying to denigrate the Church. But, now that I understand Mr. Hoffman's thought, what he says makes a lot of sense and he backs it up with quite a bit of sources. I've got to say, the book is a black pill for sure.

As for Modernism, as derived from the author's thesis, it has to do with the occult concept of Revelation of the Method. Essentially,  event A happens, is wrapped up quickly, and then is frozen with the evidence surrounding it. Over time, circumstances surrounding event A begin to "thaw" as more and more information contrary to the supposed conclusions of event A are "exposed". Eventually, the truth behind event A is publically exposed at a time when it is too late to do anything about it. Modernism, and Masonry, in essence, were the trickle-down effects of this severe occult corruption in the Church hierarchy; the bulk of which culminated in the public exposure of the "Church of Rome" at Vatican II.

There's a reason beyond mere communist and Masonic infiltration as to why Vatican II happened simultaneously with the Kennedy assassination and the depravity of the 60s. According to the author, this was all meant to be "revealed" once the public had been sufficiently dulled to the "Method."
I'm glad you're revisiting Hoffman's book, it's worth reading for trads as far as I'm concerned. Definitely "black pill" as you say, as he pulls no punches and backs all of it up with hundreds of footnotes and citations.

The relief, for me, when it came to the author (I sent you a PM on it), is that Mr. Hoffman is not some sort of apostate, Protestant or pseudo-Catholic/sedevacantist. He full-well accepts the current Pontificate, albeit as a result of what he expounds in his book, and takes a position with the Church that a lot of Trads tend to implicitly take.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#24
(06-07-2020, 03:28 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(06-07-2020, 03:22 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(06-07-2020, 03:17 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(06-07-2020, 02:38 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: I don't have any specific comments on Mr. Hoffman's thesis but I am convinced at the "Spirit of Vatican II" didn't originate at Vatican II (thus it is a misnomer).  The Church didn't go from traditional and faithful in 1962 to the clown Masses, ecumenism, and religious indifferentism that would seem to sweep the Church by the early 1970's.  The early Modernists that St. Pius X beat back didn't come from nowhere.  All of this has been building up for a very long time, perhaps for centuries now.  The Devil plays the long game.

And this, at its center, is what he's getting at with his book. Which, I got about halfway through it originally and was scandalized because I thought he was trying to denigrate the Church. But, now that I understand Mr. Hoffman's thought, what he says makes a lot of sense and he backs it up with quite a bit of sources. I've got to say, the book is a black pill for sure.

As for Modernism, as derived from the author's thesis, it has to do with the occult concept of Revelation of the Method. Essentially,  event A happens, is wrapped up quickly, and then is frozen with the evidence surrounding it. Over time, circumstances surrounding event A begin to "thaw" as more and more information contrary to the supposed conclusions of event A are "exposed". Eventually, the truth behind event A is publically exposed at a time when it is too late to do anything about it. Modernism, and Masonry, in essence, were the trickle-down effects of this severe occult corruption in the Church hierarchy; the bulk of which culminated in the public exposure of the "Church of Rome" at Vatican II.

There's a reason beyond mere communist and Masonic infiltration as to why Vatican II happened simultaneously with the Kennedy assassination and the depravity of the 60s. According to the author, this was all meant to be "revealed" once the public had been sufficiently dulled to the "Method."
I'm glad you're revisiting Hoffman's book, it's worth reading for trads as far as I'm concerned. Definitely "black pill" as you say, as he pulls no punches and backs all of it up with hundreds of footnotes and citations.

The relief, for me, when it came to the author (I sent you a PM on it), is that Mr. Hoffman is not some sort of apostate, Protestant or pseudo-Catholic/sedevacantist. He full-well accepts the current Pontificate, albeit as a result of what he expounds in his book, and takes a position with the Church that a lot of Trads tend to implicitly take.
I haven't checked my PM's lately. That being said I'm glad you got some clarity on Hoffman. He's certainly got a "no holds barred" interesting take.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 2 users Like formerbuddhist's post:
  • Augustinian, LionHippo
Reply
#25
(06-07-2020, 03:47 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I haven't checked my PM's lately. That being said I'm glad you got some clarity on Hoffman. He's certainly got a "no holds barred" interesting take.

Yeah, it's definitely interesting. I don't agree with everything he teaches so far (just finished the first, lengthy, chapter), as he tends to try and implicate every single pope since the Renaissance in the hierarchical corruption without much recourse to simple human ignorance. For example, he criticizes Pope St. Pius X (writing "saint"; which is...a little upsetting) as failing to do anything about usury in the Church with the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but doesn't really give any break on whether the Pope was even aware of it constituting usury. The same can be said of his criticism of Leo XIII's condemnation of freemasonry without exposing the Talmudic-Kabbalistic roots of the society; again, Pope Leo may not have had knowledge of these origins, I know I didn't until I took the time to research it.

That said, his critical take on modern "traditionalism" and the hypocrisies present within it, is very welcome.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#26
(06-07-2020, 03:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 09:38 PM)Paul Wrote: What about the situation where one spouse insists on sex despite the other believing it's adultery, and gets violent if refused, or threatens to take the children away, or kick the Catholic spouse out of the house and she doesn't have anywhere else to go? Seems like most Catholics think that lessens culpability, but I wouldn't think those things justify mortal sin. If it did, then the early martyrs should have just offered the incense.

I'm not sure I understand your scenario and how one could think it is adultery and the other not. Perhaps you could explain. Is this an adulterous union after civil divorce? What is the basis for the one thinking this is adultery?

One or both is divorced and 'remarried'; perhaps the woman has started practising the faith again and refusing to have sex while the man doesn't care about what the Church says.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)