I’m interested in this book study, Hall. Thanks for doing this and all you do for the Church. I’ve heard the SSPX audiobook of this and the Monsignor’s definition of modernism as liberalism+Catholicism=modernism greatly simplified things for me. I’d be interested, in the course of this study, to see how the argument of how liberalism undermines and does away with duty and obligation when the emphasis is on license of the will. When all we hear about is rights and unlimited license to do what one wants is quite demonic once some though is put into it.
So "liberalism" and "freedom" are topics for discussion this Independence Day 2024.
Father Chad Ripperberger said in one of his interviews, in sort of a matter-of-fact way, that it would be best if we did not focus much on "free speech" because the Church has always held doctrine that is contrary to that concept.
I searched for more explanation so I requested help and links on that subject from the Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Reading Pennsylvania.
Here is the reply I received, which I posted as a reply in another substack.
" I tried to better understand my Church's doctrine regarding "free speech" and I received this communication...
'If I am not mistaken Leo XIII in an encyclical condemned this notion of "Free Speech." I am pretty sure it is in Libertas:
I read the encyclical but did not feel that I was really completely understanding.
To me, Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden to be a free independent thinker and that was the beginning of all the evil brought about in our souls and in our world by our free-spoken word.
Genesis , Chapter 3 verse 1
Douay-Rheims Bible
Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
________
English Revised Version
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?
I have a family member who firmly disagrees with the story of Adam and Eve. The person does not accept the biblical story of Eve trespassing God’s law in the garden. I think the person sees the story as blame being placed on the woman and consequently choices and right to liberty being taken away. Do you have any suggestions about how to reply and converts with a person with a “Liberal” mindset, essentially a secular humanism. Man not God, etc
" I think the person sees the story as blame being placed on the woman and consequently choices and right to liberty being taken away. "
I believe the traditional consistent teaching of the Church is that Adam is the one to be held responsible for Eve's action because he went right along with Eve's leading in this matter.
I also have been understanding that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is to be taken literally and is not to be "reinterpreted" or given some highly symbolic interpretation.
Maybe Mr. Hall could give his insights.
I think I was born an independent thinker and speaker and have a hard time with blindly submitting to all authority figures.
Hey there, these are great points. I wouldn't say that the Eve's mistake is that she "thought independently" but what I gather from the Church Fathers is that she had perfectly infused knowledge due to her state of perfection, and made the decision to disobey God with full understanding and no temptation from her lower passions, which were rightly ordered because she had no concupiscence until after the Fall. We will definitely touch on some of these points throughout the study, I am sure
That is definitely an interesting viewpoint, but it does seem to require a deeper meditation and understanding of the Genesis bible verses relating to the Creation and the Fall.
It sounds like the rules for husbands ruling over their wives did not exist before the Fall but was made necessary by the Fall.
I read several times, in Catholic writings, that Adam is to receive the blame for the Fall. Maybe the reason for that teaching is that Eve has a most special relationship to Adam since they were setting the pattern for the whole world forever.
I have an idea that "special relationship" has something to do with these verses.
"23And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
24Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. 25And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.
Definitely signing up for this study! Thank you so much for doing this for us. I have the book on my shelf but haven’t gotten around to reading it. This is the incentive I need. God bless you and your family, Kennedy! Any chance you’ll be at the Angelus Press Conference in the fall? 🙂
Excellent podcast, Kennedy! And a fascinating project using Abp. LeFevre's book as a focal point. The problems with liberalism, it seems, will also extend to democracy, and even a republic. If all citizens are not of the same faith and thereby acknowledge their unanimity in Christ, then it seems like the optimal form of government has to be monarchical. If all citizens will not work as one for the Kingship of Christ, then there needs to be a king who in himself will exercise that unanimity.
These are great points, yes, Lefebvre addresses the notion of Republics in the book, which we will go over. Short answer; you could have a republic with the Kingship of Christ, it has happened, but practically speaking it is difficult
This is a wonderful project, thank you for starting it.
I am so excited about the book study on this book, I have not read it before and have wanted to. Thank you!
I’m interested in this book study, Hall. Thanks for doing this and all you do for the Church. I’ve heard the SSPX audiobook of this and the Monsignor’s definition of modernism as liberalism+Catholicism=modernism greatly simplified things for me. I’d be interested, in the course of this study, to see how the argument of how liberalism undermines and does away with duty and obligation when the emphasis is on license of the will. When all we hear about is rights and unlimited license to do what one wants is quite demonic once some though is put into it.
Great points, I bet these things will come up during our study
Thank you, Hall.
Very excited for this bookstudy! Thanks.
Definitely going to get the book and follow along. Thanks
Thankyou for all you do!!!!!!!!! Your my favorite podcaster!
I’m interested in the book study. Looking forward to more information.
Where and how do we sign up for the study? Thanks
Hey there, as long as you are a paid sub, you will get every instalment, no need to sign up for anything else
Thank you Kennedy. I found the Audio Book on the SSPX Podcast site. For now I am going to listen to the audio book. Is there a free copy available?
So "liberalism" and "freedom" are topics for discussion this Independence Day 2024.
Father Chad Ripperberger said in one of his interviews, in sort of a matter-of-fact way, that it would be best if we did not focus much on "free speech" because the Church has always held doctrine that is contrary to that concept.
I searched for more explanation so I requested help and links on that subject from the Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Reading Pennsylvania.
Here is the reply I received, which I posted as a reply in another substack.
" I tried to better understand my Church's doctrine regarding "free speech" and I received this communication...
'If I am not mistaken Leo XIII in an encyclical condemned this notion of "Free Speech." I am pretty sure it is in Libertas:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13liber.htm
Sincerely, Fr. Tobias Bayer, I.C.R. Secretary Most Holy Trinity
Seminary https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/ '_
I read the encyclical but did not feel that I was really completely understanding.
To me, Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden to be a free independent thinker and that was the beginning of all the evil brought about in our souls and in our world by our free-spoken word.
Genesis , Chapter 3 verse 1
Douay-Rheims Bible
Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
________
English Revised Version
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?
I have a family member who firmly disagrees with the story of Adam and Eve. The person does not accept the biblical story of Eve trespassing God’s law in the garden. I think the person sees the story as blame being placed on the woman and consequently choices and right to liberty being taken away. Do you have any suggestions about how to reply and converts with a person with a “Liberal” mindset, essentially a secular humanism. Man not God, etc
" I think the person sees the story as blame being placed on the woman and consequently choices and right to liberty being taken away. "
I believe the traditional consistent teaching of the Church is that Adam is the one to be held responsible for Eve's action because he went right along with Eve's leading in this matter.
I also have been understanding that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is to be taken literally and is not to be "reinterpreted" or given some highly symbolic interpretation.
Maybe Mr. Hall could give his insights.
I think I was born an independent thinker and speaker and have a hard time with blindly submitting to all authority figures.
Hey there, these are great points. I wouldn't say that the Eve's mistake is that she "thought independently" but what I gather from the Church Fathers is that she had perfectly infused knowledge due to her state of perfection, and made the decision to disobey God with full understanding and no temptation from her lower passions, which were rightly ordered because she had no concupiscence until after the Fall. We will definitely touch on some of these points throughout the study, I am sure
That is definitely an interesting viewpoint, but it does seem to require a deeper meditation and understanding of the Genesis bible verses relating to the Creation and the Fall.
It sounds like the rules for husbands ruling over their wives did not exist before the Fall but was made necessary by the Fall.
I read several times, in Catholic writings, that Adam is to receive the blame for the Fall. Maybe the reason for that teaching is that Eve has a most special relationship to Adam since they were setting the pattern for the whole world forever.
I have an idea that "special relationship" has something to do with these verses.
"23And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
24Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. 25And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.
Genesis 2:23-25 Douay-Rheims
Yes, thank you
Great idea! Keep up the Good work, hope to join soon+
I'm all in for the book study.
The pledge of allegiance was written by a communist, and "under God" was added later. At least to my recollection
I just ordered the book, I can hardly wait to read it!
Definitely signing up for this study! Thank you so much for doing this for us. I have the book on my shelf but haven’t gotten around to reading it. This is the incentive I need. God bless you and your family, Kennedy! Any chance you’ll be at the Angelus Press Conference in the fall? 🙂
Thank you, Kennedy. Awaiting book arrival, hopefully here in Australia by the time you start. May God bless your and your family.
Excellent podcast, Kennedy! And a fascinating project using Abp. LeFevre's book as a focal point. The problems with liberalism, it seems, will also extend to democracy, and even a republic. If all citizens are not of the same faith and thereby acknowledge their unanimity in Christ, then it seems like the optimal form of government has to be monarchical. If all citizens will not work as one for the Kingship of Christ, then there needs to be a king who in himself will exercise that unanimity.
These are great points, yes, Lefebvre addresses the notion of Republics in the book, which we will go over. Short answer; you could have a republic with the Kingship of Christ, it has happened, but practically speaking it is difficult