I'm at a loss. Perhaps this could be described as the deformed offspring of a liaison between Hieronymous Bosch and the Eurovision Song Contest. These are our 'shepherds': https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/
You're more savvy at posting these things than me. All this is so bizarre. Are they all trying to be 'Father Trendy'?
She scares me. Am I one of those Trad miscreants? I have actually said that figuring out this Pope is way above my paygrade. I felt at the time that Nacho-mama was indeed the abomination of desolation. Are we watching the ugly birth of the antichurch. I think we are. "And what great beast....its hour come round at last...slouched toward Bethlehem to be born" (Yeats)
I don't like her eyes. She has a nice sinecure as the director of the UN Food Programme. Given the meaning of words such as 'health' and 'reproductive health', I would imagine she is the Czarina for Famine. That demon she presented to Bergoglio, which he cheerfully accepted, is a demon of Death, an enemy of life, a consumer of children.
That information about Saint Faustina's suffering on the day this pope was born is staggering. It is also instructional. For all his errors, Pope St John Paul II was a devotee of St Faustina and Fatima and was obviously a Catholic and a saint. Pope Benedict's theology became saner in proportion to his age and there's no doubt about his Catholicity. The rest of the Vatican II popes seem increasingly dodgy to me. This Council itself, given its fruits, doesn't strike me as one that ought to be preserved any longer. I'm not saying it's a bad Council, but it was of the nineteen sixties and we're now closer to the twenty sixties. Since it was merely a 'pastoral' council, of no doctrinal significance, according to Pope Paul VI himself, and things have changed so radically since, it's time to ditch it and erase it from memory.
Very compelling. I have always wondered if a bad council was part of the hidden third secret--thus JXXIII did not want to recognize it. It is said he fainted when he first read it fearing he was the pope being described but who knows. Could just be one of those apocryphal stories that make the rounds.
Tbh, I was prepared to be scandalised by the circus performance but in the end I wasn’t. It wasn’t sinister new age stuff and it wasn’t at a Mass. Pachamama was infinitely worse. The song was upbeat and cheerful. My Italian isn’t that good but I surmised that it was about smiling and radiating happiness. Juggling and acrobatics aren’t sinful. They are totally out of place at a Mass but here they were in Paul VI hall. Archbishop Gaenswein seemed fairly chilled. I’m not saying it’s my preferred entertainment and it may not be entirely suitable for a Pope but we have seen much worse from this pontificate
That we certainly have seen 'much worse', speaks volumes. For myself, I found this event quite disturbing. Perhaps it would have been more innocent if performed before, for example, St John Paul II, but given what we know about this pope, it is hard for me to see the innocence in anything he is associated with; and that hall is inescapably sinister-almost as if the designers were 'gaslighting' us, to use a term that didn't exist when they built it. At best, it's a pathetic attempt by eminent churchmen to seek some kind of shallow popularity.
I believe Ann Barnhardt has the right as a Catholic to use her mind to critically bring to light, to examine, and to discuss the shenanigans in the Church. One of the good things about being Catholic is that we are encouraged to use our God given reason. It is part of natural law. A lot of other religions, even other Christians, do not believe in natural law and are not encouraged to use reason. She is also one of the very, very few boldly speaking out . Virtually NO Catholic leaders are even discussing the Vatican goings on, most especially the bishops, priests, and well known laity who make a fine living as Catholic experts. If they do, they are defending him as pope or saying that what he does really doesn't matter to our faith or us as Catholics. Ann, Dr. Mazza, et al. have done very thorough analysis of canon law ( which isn't that complicated and NOT above our ability to understand) that indicates Benedict never validly resigned. They did about a 3 hour discussion that was excellent IMO. Archbishop Vigano in his latest talk recognized this possibility when he said it is not possible to have more that one pope or to split the papacy. If as Archbishop Vigano is saying, the supposed occupier of the Chair of Peter is actually the false prophet who introduces the anti-Christ, then we have a huge crisis of cowardliness among our leaders. Honestly, listening to Ann's information and arguments has given me great hope that God would never allow such a man to be the real pope. Virtually no one else besides her and Archbishop Vigano have been willing to address this. YET.
I haven't been convinced, yet, but we ought not close our minds to what seems a coherent possibility.
If you are seeking to know the truth about what's happening to our Church, I recommend the latest Barnhardt podcast below with Ann, non veni Mark, and Dr. Mazza logically discussing current events relative to the papacy, Bishop Strickland, Archbishop Vigano, etc. It's the views you won't hear listening to Catholic mainstream media. https://www.barnhardt.biz/2023/10/04/barnhardt-podcast-198-supercalafragalistichyperpapalistic/
I think we are definitely watching the birth of the Anti Church. What a time to be alive. We must remain steadfast in our devotion and love. I am awaiting our Lord’s purpose for being born at a time such as this.
