CathInfo.com

I just finished reading that article about Fr. Hoopes in full length, and I'm 99% convinced this TomGubbinsKimmage IS INDEED Fr. Hoopes. First of all, he ran away from the SAJM seminary, and Bp. Zendejas warned against ordaining him. And he was the one who talked about how the SAJM is bad and the regular Resistance is good. Second of all, his name was TomGubbinsKimmage, which AI confirmed to be a VERY Irish name. The reason he used this name? To sound like a fake name to conceal his identity. And I already know from my experience with the "Catholic Resistance" Telegram and Discord that he likes to use different personaes. Third of all, he's well-known for his tricks. Bp. Zendejas reports:


Well, he sure made stories and stories with us!

Fourth of all, I could tell by the way he dealt with Bill and also the two mentions of the way he used "literally" in his sentences that it sounded like Tom. Fifth of all, he does "white magic", and his explanation in the article didn't explain anything about the fact that he had a forbidden astrological book, which we have definitively demonstrated is definitely a forbidden book. Fifth of all, he mentioned "Fr. Hoopes in Michigan" to me on Telegram in his list of Resistance priests. Sixth of all, he kept insisting that he "has a life" and we know he had Christus radio, which could've been a way to help finance St. Charles Borromeo Church. When asked four times what he did, he refused to answer. Seventh of all, I suspect that the reason why Tom's arguments were so shallow is that he actually didn't have that much time. His sentences were short, shallow, and angry. I could tell by his posting times that he would sort of hop around every several hours to post some short and meaningless stuff. That might coincide with praying the Breviary. Another thing I noticed was that he posted a link to his Discord server on his Telegram sometime at3 AM, which would be 2 AM in Michigan. That may have something to do with the Breviary schedule as well. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like May was when Tom started becoming even more angry. Perhaps he was releasing and venting his built-up stress on CathInfo as a coping mechanism. That would explain why they were so shallow and so angry. And seeing that he got upset with Bill because he was a "dogmatic sede", there may be a personal vendetta involved that explains why he was so angry about dogmatic sedevacantism and the +Thuc-line. And, to top it all off, he once said "I literally have Resistance priests promoting my posts." Seeing that he encouraged me to travel across the country and meet with various Resistance priests, this might mean that he talked to some priests about how he persuades people about certain moral and doctrinal dangers on CathInfo and so they agreed with him since they didn't know what his actual posts looked like. He was certainly a crusader type. When I asked him about why he thought it was okay to neglect the Sunday obligation if the only option was an SSPX Mass, he replied with this in my messages:
(Since I can't really put text below the image)
Well, the conclusion is that I do believe that a failing priest known for scams and tricks would want to vent his rage on CathInfo. He didn't really spend THAT much time on CathInfo, because you can tell his posts were made in haste, and they were always pretty short and shallow. And after all, he said "You beat me to it...!" So there you go then.

P.S. Found this person who suddenly went online called Fr. Sretenovic. His account was registered on February 12 of this year but for some reason he is online now. https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Fr%2BSretenovic/. He hasn't posted anything at all. However, he has spent a total time online of 2 days and 25 minutes, and has cast two votes.

Let's put this astrology theory into pastoral practice (just for kicks):

Would anyone here argue that a particular sin committed by a person would be diminished by the placement of the planets at the time the sin was committed? A natural cause affecting one's inclinations would certainly impact imputability and decrease culpability. "Fr., it would have been a mortal sin, but I was inclined to do so on this date. To avoid the occasion of sin, I will remain indoors when Mars is near to avoid my passions." Would a priest reading judicial astrology help him advise his flock as to when to avoid planetary situations which could contribute to passionate activity, and lead to sin? Icarlytradcath would consider this equivalent to avoiding the rain.

Again, not a true image (created with AI) - but I believe it would stun the senses to see a traditional priest advising a penitent to pay more attention to the planets to avoid the near occasion of sin.








Here is a historical answer addressing icarlytradcath once again.. as to why we don't use astrology as Catholics:




It would be too strong to say that Pope Sixtus V formally declared St. Thomas Aquinas’ position “untenable” or condemned Aquinas as erroneous.

The more accurate point is that Sixtus V imposed a stricter legal rule on judicial astrology than the latitude one might infer from St. Thomas’ earlier discussion.

St. Thomas allowed the philosophical possibility that celestial bodies could affect the body, temperament, and passions, while insisting that they could never directly determine the intellect or free will.
He also condemned the use of astrology to claim certain knowledge of future free human actions as unlawful divination.

But in Coeli et Terrae Creator (1586), Pope Sixtus V went further in practice.

The bull was aimed at the use of supposed celestial influences or “inclinations” to prognosticate future human actions and contingent events.

So after Sixtus V, an astrologer could not simply argue:

That use of celestial “inclination” as a method of predicting future human conduct is precisely the sort of judicial astrology the stricter papal legislation was aimed at.

That does not mean Sixtus V condemned St. Thomas himself.

Nor did Sixtus V necessarily deny every theoretical possibility of celestial influence on the human body or temperament.

The distinction is this:

Possible natural influence on bodily temperament is one question.

Using planetary positions to predict future human choices, dispositions, or contingent events is another.

The latter is where the Church drew the practical legal line much more strictly.

And that matters directly to the Bonatti discussion.

A person cannot defend judicial astrology merely by saying:

That may sound Thomistic, but the later Church did not permit that principle to be used as a justification for prognosticating future human behavior from planetary configurations.

Pope Urban VIII later reaffirmed the earlier prohibition in Inscrutabilis iudiciorum Dei (1631), again condemning astrological and divinatory attempts to predict future events.
So the historically careful formulation is:

St. Thomas was not formally condemned. But Sixtus V adopted a stricter legal discipline that prevented Catholics from using the Thomistic concept of celestial “inclination” as a justification for judicial astrology predicting future human actions. Urban VIII later reaffirmed that prohibition.

That is why the example:
is not saved simply by saying “Mars inclines but does not compel.”

The problem is the use of the planetary configuration itself as a means of predicting future human conduct and guiding action accordingly.
Sources

• St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.95, a.5
  On divination by the stars, celestial influence on bodily passions, and the limits imposed by free will.
  https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3095.htm
• Pope Sixtus V, Coeli et Terrae Creator (1586)
  Papal legislation against judicial astrology and divinatory prediction concerning contingent future events and human affairs.
• Scholarly discussion of Sixtus V and judicial astrology
  Notes that the Sistine prohibition tightened the earlier Thomistic framework and targeted predictive uses of celestial “inclinations.”
  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033790.2020.1714286
• Further historical discussion of Catholic censorship and astrological prediction
  On the continued distinction between theoretical celestial influence and prohibited prediction of free human acts.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32250205/
• Pope Urban VIII, Inscrutabilis iudiciorum Dei (1631)
  Reaffirmed prohibitions against astrological and divinatory prediction of future events.
  https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/DE/bgc.htm

“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

Hi Simeon, long time no see! Seems like we came full circle haha

This is the first forum in my life I've really posted on regularly and I must say it's fun. It's also a great window into human psychology. That even if someone is very smart they have these blindspots

Lad, from what I hear, was a seminarian at some point and has written articles, yet he didn't really set out any evidence like Sanskrit, he just decided that Tom was Fr. Hoopes and ran with it.

Simeon I think is a mom or a grandma, which takes a lot of skill and smarts, but she had a disagreement with me once on Neo-Aristotelianism vs. Neo-Platonism, so now she's convinced I'm a secret agent that's part of some Neo-Platonist occult mafia sent to lead the users of CathInfo astray

Someone who's name I forgot thought I was Tom because I defended forum free speech and found both sides of the Thuc war uninteresting and annoying.

Guys, y'all don't live in a James Bond flick, I promise.

I'm just a regular guy from Spain, and Tom was very likely just a regular guy from USA that went to the Resistance and was a dumb and annoying poster.

Maybe some of the new users are actually Erika Kirk or Chris Chan I'm sure that one can find tenuous connections between any two people if they set their mind to it. Texas sharp shooter innit