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.