Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Friday, January 30, 2015

Sedevacantist buncombe

On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:48, “S." recommended this sedevacantist web page:


Dear S.

Yes, I know the sedevacantist line  — no heretic popes other than questionable Honorarius, until John 23rd. 

My book on usury (Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not — avoided by every sedevacantist publication) shows that there have been popes who derogated (Leo X) and then later abolished (Pius VIII) the Dogmatic law against usury — by abolishing its as a mortal sin and declaring the mortal sin itself as an act “not to be disturbed”! This was heresy. Pope Pius X signed off on this in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (compiled under him and published after his death).

My forthcoming book on the "Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" will offer evidence of the occult popes of Kabbalism.

The sedevacantist thesis was invented by those who seek to maintain ridiculous and in many cases pernicious myths about the pre-Vatican II Church and its popes. It is worse than nonsensical. 

We can’t understand how the post-Conciliar Church came to be unless we investigate the pre-Vatican II popes of sodomy, usury and occult demonism who predate the Enlightenment and arose beginning in the Renaissance.

Michael Hoffman


Anonymous said...

This reminds me of someone holding up a protest sign "Still against the French Revolution".

Northsider said...

Michael Hoffman's comments on Sedevacantism are a bit baffling. He condemns it, but simultaneously argues for it. Does he believe the term Sedevacantism describes only those who think the last true pope was Pius XII? Some Sedevacantists certainly believe this, but some go back much further in identifying allegedly heretical popes. Therefore, assuming that Michael Hoffman still considers himself a Catholic (I'm never quite sure on this question), he qualifies as a veritable super-Sedevacantist. In fact he goes much further than most "Seds" in attributing, not only heresy, but occultism, to Renaissance and post-Renaissance popes.

Another point I'm curious about is how far Michael Hoffman takes his absolutist anti-usury stance. Does he, for example, believe that anyone who allows his wages or salary to be paid into an account held by a usurious financial institution is therefore in a state of mortal sin? Does he believe that anyone who purchases products, books flights, hotels, etc., or makes donations to causes, using the credit or debit cards of usurious financial institutions, is in a state of mortal sin?

Personally, I believe the Catholic Church made very imprudent compromises with usury (just as I believe it made very imprudent compromises with Protestant and Masonic powers such as Britain) but I fail to see how such compromises differ in principle from the approach of both St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas to prostitution - both of whom argued that it should be tolerated in preference to more general licentiousness.

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Northside

The difficulty with contending on the usury issue with those who have not read my book on the subject is that I am impelled to try and encapsulate 416 pages of data in a few paragraphs, which I am loathe to do given the degree to which the matter has been subjected to misunderstanding and misdirection on the part of those who possess a confirmation bias which forbids them from accepting that certain pre-Vatican II popes demolished, for all practical purposes, the dogmatic ban on interest on loans and its mortal sinfulness.

...I am not any kind of sedevacantist, “super” or otherwise. I believe the Catholic Church when it decreed that no one can judge the pope. No parish priest in Tennessee or Timbuktu can degree that the pope of Rome is not the pope. If the pontiff is a formal heretic by our lights it does not cause him to forfeit the Keys of Peter. If it did we would have a kind of Catholic Lutheranism where sedevacantist Calvins and Luthers somehow possessed the power to declare a pope to be a non-pope.

We could debate the sede stuff ‘till the cows come home, but I mention all this by way of saying that neither you nor this writer, nor anyone else, has any authority to declare that Paul VI or any subsequent pope was not or is not the pope. The declaration is wholly Protestant. One would have to depart from the faith in order to make the proclamation.

Northsider said...

Dear Mr Hoffman: Fair enough - I'll try and read your book before proceeding with this argument (I'm not a Sedevacantist by the way). I sent you a more or less identical comment today - as I had assumed that you hadn't received this one. Thanks for replying.

Robert Gregory said...

Dear Pope Hoffman,
Thank you so much for giving us the real skinny on the sede-vacantist issue. It's so hard to understand it unless you are thoroughly steeped in pre-Conciliar Catholic history and doctrine, which you must be, since you have cleared the air with your expert opinion. BTW, Fr. Cekada has been exposed as a son of perdition, despite his excellent theological work.
From here on, any Catholic who presumes to say that it is heresy to deny sede-vacantism is definitively refuted.
Keep up the brave fight against Catholic revisionists! Pope Francis I needs you!
Robert C. Gregory

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Mr. Gregory

How is the priest that you malign (“Fr. Cekada”) a “son of perdition” just because he is a sede vacantist?

If this is his honest belief then he is entitled to it and should not be treated with calumny.

I strongly disagree with him, but who in these crazy times has the authority to condemn sede vacantists with the demoniacal label of Antichrist?

One reason I am not a “traditional” Catholic is the lack of charity in the ranks. Each one seems to anathematize whoever deviates one iota from the belief of the other.

We end up with many laymen and some parish priests behaving as if they were the pope. God help us.

Robert Gregory said...

Dear Michael,
I apologize. I did not make myself clear. I was being mostly tongue in cheek, or frankly, sarcastic. I am definitely one who accepts that all the popes since 1958 have been no more than frauds, and no popes.
This is because this conclusion is dictated by Catholic law and Catholic theology. I have no authority, nor do I need any. I am simply stating the obvious truth, based on the Catholic religion. These man have usurped power.
In regards to Fr. Cekada, his infamy was unearthed in 2010 by the intrepid Dr. Thomas Droleskey. This man is trustworthy and competent, I believe, and I have personal experience with the Fr. Cekada group. Very sad.
In regard to revisionism, the sedevacantists are engaged in uncovering something greater than the "holo-hoax". We see that Vatican Council II was a hellish fraud, swallowed by the entire Catholic world. It dwarfs the holocaust story, which I am inclined to disbelieve.
Robert Gregory

Jonny said...

Perhaps this will help explain. The Sedevacantists are very right... and simultaneously very wrong. The reason is that Catholics on both sides of the divide must argue from a false premise. See this recently published book "THE SEDEVACANTIST DELUSION: WHY VATICAN II'S CLASH WITH SEDEVACANTISM SUPPORTS EASTERN ORTHODOXY" for explanations of how Vatican II happened and why the Sedevacantist movement exists.

Anonymous said...

To M. Hoffman: I agree that charity is lacking among sedes and trads alike. Yet that is no reason for shunning truth--as you well-know!

Regarding Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: (08-25-2015) "We think these translations will help provide much-needed perspective into why Paul IV's bull is the only real answer to resolving the problems facing us today." "...The Church gives no quarter where heretics and schismatics are concerned." http://betrayedcatholics.com/long-awaited-disandro-commentary-on-cum-ex-3/

...and "Thank You!" Michael for your engaging pursuits of truths.

I beg you to reconsider your (Protestant) argument, however: "We end up with many laymen and some parish priests behaving as if they were the pope. God help us."

Catholics have the Deposit of Faith via the valid Magisterium. Only approved Commentary is allowed to Catholics, such as Orchard's here: https://app.box.com/s/2expbrjv6dk4gm4lv7pd0lppbpfgj7lz

I invite you to provide such Commentary if/when you publish critiques of the Catholic Magisterium, such as in "Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not"