A collection of quotes from the тαℓмυdic shill Michael Hoffman. This is only a small sample. I'll continue to update this thread.

On the Papacy and the popes:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.de/2013/08/questions-for-hoffman-concerning-his.html

Ergo, despite whatever pious, nostalgic or sentimental feelings one may have for any pope from Leo X onward, it grieves me to say that whatever good those popes may have done cannot override their condonation of the worst of all sins

Moreover, in the wake of the exposure of the child molestation rings in the Catholic hierarchy, which predate Vatican II, we must wonder about the extent to which even supposed "hero" popes of the past may have shielded malefactors by means of the terrible secrecy in which the Vatican bureaucracy and curia have dwelled these many centuries. Many questions are now being raised of the extent of sodomy in the hierarchy of Rome long before Vatican II. The true history of the papacy from the Renaissance onward, has yet to be written.

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.de/2012/07/judaizing-of-catholicism-proceeds-apace.html

What began with the Vatican II docuмent Nostra Aetate was the public accommodation and blending of the Roman Catholic Church with Pharisaic Judaism. The sub-rosa hybrid process itself has a long history, beginning in the Renaissance era with Judaizing popes such as Leo X, Sixtus V and Clement VIII. One surmises that this secret truth forms the processing of Vatican initiates who are very likely told in private that traditional Catholicism is hopelessly compromised and double-minded, in that it claims to oppose Pharisaic Judaism and yet ignorantly pledges allegiance to all popes previous to Vatican II, when in fact some of these pontiffs were as much in league with the тαℓмυdic/Kabbalistic order as John Paul II or Benedict XVI.

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.de/2013/07/vicar-of-christ-on-earth-asks-who-am-i.html

It's no wonder that millions of Latin American Christians are fleeing Rome for the chapels of Protestant churches that do not deviate from bedrock Biblical, Apostolic and Patristic Christianity. They don't have an "infallible" pope over them to misdirect them into losing their eternal salvation. They are free to choose to adhere to Biblical Truth and defy the sodomite movement...

Catholics who are not brain dead need to begin to dare to think deeply and with the fear of God, about the deception and destruction that has been wrought by popes of Rome since 1515...

For the past 498 years, God’s eternal law has not been the guide or rule for papal situation ethicists...

Within the Renaissance papacy, situation ethics trumped God’s law, and popery will see to it that by the time self-described Catholics finally begin to grasp that the absolute authority given to a pope bears within it the seeds of catastrophe, the catastrophe will be upon us

On the Immaculate Conception, from his book "Usury in Christendom", page 224

Puritan haters fail to engage in a basic obligation incuмbent on the unbiased historian: to trace the theological distance traveled from Puritan origins to late 18th and early 19th century post-Puritan New England Protestantism. Roman Catholics who undertake this study should ask themselves whether they would accept the proposition that Vatican Council II came about due to a congruence of rigid papal authoritarianism and a history of developing Catholic theology, of which the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is most striking. To Protestants the connection must seem patent. Consequently, before Catholics sneer that Puritanism was only a stage in a process of decay that inevitably devolved into modern buccaneer capitalism, they ought to consider whether they will entertain the likelihood that an inordinate obedience to papal authority and a history of promulgating as infallible doctrine claims for which there is no Biblical or patristic basis, fomented obedient subservience to Vatican II and post-Conciliar modernism.

On Saint Thomas More:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.de/2013/04/conspiracy-against-king-michael-hoffman.html

As part of the rot that the Renaissance-Catholic degeneracy entailed, St. Thomas More, early in his career, was a committed Neoplatonist; and make no mistake, that network was synonymous with the Cryptocracy

On St. Alphonsus Liguori

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/questions-for-hoffman-concerning-his.html

As for the infallibility of canonizations, I wonder. Alphonsus Liguori argued for the rights of those who charge interest on loans, and advocated a most devious form of lying, and he is esteemed by "traditionalists" as one of the most eminent and holy of all Catholic saints.

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.de/2012/12/debate-online-over-usury-in-christendom.html

Another argument used by opponents is that if I dare to say that St. Alphonsus Liguori permitted certain forms of interest on debt, thereby overthrowing the magisterial dogma prohibiting it, I am “a snake.” There is no arguing with a mindset that proceeds a priori from the conviction that Alphonsus Liguori could not possibly have advocated mortal sin. Alas, he did. Am I a “snake" for retailing a truth from the docuмentary record? What sort of totalitarian mentality proclaims it so? Was this not the mentality that St. Paul faced when he asked of the Galatians, “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?”

Does anybody seriously believe that a practising Catholic, which Hoffman purports to be, would say or believe any of the above? Would any practicing Catholic use the word "popery" to describe Catholicism?

Does anybody seriously believe that a practising Catholic, which Hoffman purports to be, would say or believe any of the above? Would any practicing Catholic use the word "popery" to describe Catholicism?

I don't like it either. Not one bit. But, if the evidentiary record indicates that these things were said by these individuals, it is research that deserves to be heard and considered by those who wish to engage in it.

Of course that brings up a very big question. Who is properly tooled to evaluate such research? It is certainly above and beyond my ability.

I have tried to read his book on usury. I say "tried" because while I understand the words, I do not think he has made the case sufficiently and I am also getting very cautious of him. The reason I do not understand it is because he has not taken the time to put all of his findings in proper context that most non-experts would need to make sense of the data.

Here is one example of a fact that I can understand. He claims that King Edward, the heir of Henry VIII abolished usury. This is presented as a Protestant doing the right thing while many Catholics, including popes were doing the wrong thing. However, what he does not explore are the reasons Edward took such an action. I was left with many questions concerning this fact. The most obvious ones being the following; 1) Was he in debt that he wanted to restructure?, 2) Were his friends in such a situation?, 3) Did he have enemies who were on the receiving end of some debt that he needed to taken care of and insure that in the future the right people, whoever they may be, would become the lenders with interest after they got rid of their existing debts?

Now the preceding was a fact I was fully capable of understanding. Too much of the book merely glosses over very big subjects with no evidence. There are many reasons this could have happened. It could be simply a poorly written book. Or, it could be done this way on purpose. Many people will simply nod their heads and accept his larger premises being afraid to say they do not understand. It then becomes a fact.

I am not afraid to say I do not understand. If anyone read that book, I would be interested to hear their feedback.

In the meantime, Hoffman has managed to give me the idea that much trouble was happening in the Church at the time of the Renaissance. And that is not hard to swallow as a basic premise. It was, after all, the same time period that resulted in the Reformation.

But it is a slippery slope that should probably be avoided by the 99.9% of us. Some here may say the 1962 Missal is suspect. Then there are others that will mention changes in 1955. From there one might start questioning Pius X's Divino Afflatu. Before you know it one might start questioning Trent!

It does not take a genius to realize that eventually this same kind of person might be questioning the way Jesus consecrated his own body and blood at the Last Supper.

So, thanks for bringing up the subject. I think it is important.

Now getting back to the New Mass, we may have to look at it with less emotion and try and work out a reasonable solution as I hope I have pointed out how far this rabbit hole can travel. Because it is never ending. And many people, no insult intended to anyone, don't think past the current problem and do not have the knowledge to realize where the questioning of one thing leads to the questioning of other things.

Wait, I oppose the man responsible for the calumny and blasphemy in the opening post of this thread, therefore I am a Jєωιѕн infilrator? How do you infer that? Should we all embrace the vile creature Hoffman simply because he opposes Jєωιѕн enemies of the Church, even though he promotes a thoroughly anti-Catholic cause himself and therefore is willingly or unwillingly a servant of the Jєωιѕн agenda?

I "obsess" over Hoffman because he's a heretic, a blasphemer, and an anti-Catholic who is masquerading as a Catholic in order to corrupt minds, create division and poison people against the Church. He needs to be opposed because he has a large following of people who claim to be Catholics.

What I want to know is, why are you so utterly infatuated with this heretic, blasphemer, and anti-Catholic? What is your agenda, hollingsworth? This man Hoffman claims that Saints and Popes of the last 500 years have willingly endorsed grave sins contrary to Christ's teaching, even to the point of insinuating that they have protected child abusers. Are you on board with all of that?

I've never posted on IA.

Hoffman gets Fatima exactly right. And while I question where his research has taken him, I do not in anyway consider him vile. Of course many popes have been corrupt to the hilt. Many had sons who were appointed to plush Sees. Luther had much to complain about, but he didn't have to leave the Church.

Which brings up Bishop Williamson, now doesn't it? And please tell me what does his lack of criticism on Hoffman mean at all? Not saying that Hoffman is someone that has to be placed on an index of forbidden books. But has the Bishop that promotes the reading of The Poem of the Man God even have an index?

And what was JPII supposed to do about the pedophile filth in the priesthood? I see much criticism but I have never seen any actual propositions of what he should have done. Was he supposed to go to each diocese in the world and interview each and every bishop?

Do you think that the same bishops and his own curia may have chosen not to give him the full extent of the situation? Further, do you think that those closer to the ground, so to speak, actually had a clear picture themselves?

Finally, why do you guys keep bringing up Iowa? I thought Hoffman is from Idaho.

  You're not a Jєω, are you, knight? :confused1:

   Oh, please Hollingsworth!

What did Michaell Hoffman say about Fatima?

I'm not sure he has stated officially, i.e. in writing, what his position is.  But in a few converstations we've had in the past, he seems to indicate that Lucy may not have had her story straight, and that the consecration of Russia may be an issue over which Catholics ought not to concern themselves.  In other words, according to my impression anyway, Fatima is not cutting edge with Michael.

Hoffman has the same position on Fatima as his fellow blasphemer "Maurice Pinay", who oddly holds identical beliefs to Hoffman on almost every topic.

"Maurice Pinay" is a blasphemer? I did not know that. I never read his works.