Saturday, February 18, 2017

Random thoughts on a Saturday afternoon


  • I have such a feeling of deja vu these days. It's like I've seen so much of what's going on in the news before. I guess either Americans naturally go through cycles or the powers that  be manipulate us into the same thing over and over again. Right now, fools seem to want to relive the 70s. I was a little kid in the 70s but I know I don't want to go through all that again. As I recall, many of the college kids seemed to be crazy, the clothes were hideous, and the women outside of my church and family all seemed to be mad all the time. Back in the 70s my father could shake his head, turn off the TV and tell me that the people in New York and California were nuts (sorry, if you live there) but that everything was going to be okay as soon as Carter* left and that I should'n't worry. Today, you can't even shield your children by turning off the TV.



  • Rest in peace, Norma.




  • I was very moved by the introit at Mass this week : The sorrows of death surrounded me, the sorrow of hell encompassed me : and in my affliction I called upon the Lord, and He heard my voice from His holy Temple.   I will love Thee, o Lord, my strength : the Lord is my firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. v. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. 


  • Every single time I've read something by Ann Barnhardt and said to myself, "Oh no, Ann, that can't be right," I've been wrong and she's been right.  This latest post of hers explains everything.

  • India, like Pakistan and Turkey is, once you get past the tourist section and hit the villages, a pretty horrible place. May God have mercy on this poor man who was killed like the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste 

  • Several years ago an man went out to dinner at a well known restaurant. Six weeks later he became sick. His lab work showed that the poor man had typhoid. After an investigation it was discovered that the salad prep boy at the fancy restaurant was a typhoid carrier. The man sued but lost because the strain of typhoid the salad prepper had did not match what the victim had. The restaurant owners saved money in hiring an illegal alien but they lost in bad publicity and in the money it cost to defend themselves in court. One of the major problems with illegals is that they have not had a physical proving that they aren't carrying a dread disease.

I'm cutting this out and taping it to the inside cover of my 2017 planner


  • As rich as Melinda Gates is, she still is not happy. A happy woman does not spend all her time going around meddling in the lives of other women and telling them to kill their children. 






* My father was a straight ticket Democrat but even he was sick of Jimmy Carter  and since he couldn't bring himself to vote for Teddy Kennedy because of the disgusting Chappaquiddick affair he was happy to see Reagan. 

8 comments:

newguy40 said...

Several years ago, when there was a TLM that I could attend, I always was deeply struck by the introit prayers.

That fella better put on some gauntlets or he is in for nasty cut once he gets to fighting.
I cannot stand watching movies like Kingdom of Heaven wear all the soldiers around without helms. I mean it's a siege and things fall from the sky, right. Alot of things wrong with that movie. It is useful image tho. Men need to pick up that sword and fight. I too often feel enervated by the crud going on in the Church today.

Mark Docherty said...

If only I had a nickle for every time I thought, "Oh no, Ann, that can't be right," I'd be retired. And then she is right every time. I have such a spiritual debt to her, I could never repay it.

However, I do wish she had coined it "The Barnhardt Theory", instead of stating it as fact, because at present with evidence publicly available, it's not provable. When dealing with matters of this gravity, it must be shown to be demonstrably true in order to declare it so. My opinion, which I've shared with her.

That being said, I hope she is right. It would be a very satisfying way to expunge Francis from the history books. But at the same time, Francis is only the natural result of where we've been heading for 55 years and more. Francis is actually part of the solution, in an awful and terrifying way.

Sal Sal said...

"Back in the 70s my father could shake his head, turn off the TV and tell me that the people in New York and California were nuts (sorry, if you live there)"

I've lived here (NY) all my life and I'm NOT sorry, you're absolutely correct. All the craziness seems to spread from here like a cancer. If it were not for my parents I would have left. It's totally bottom of the barrel.

Anita Moore said...

I have concluded that Barnhardt should be approached with extreme caution, if at all. A couple of years ago, in a post about the "Abomination of Desolation," she said: "To be present at such a Mass, where Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist was being knowingly desecrated by the priest at the distribution of Holy Communion, would be a grave, grave sin." Now we are not responsible for the sinfulness of a priest celebrant at Mass, and our obligation to attend Mass on days of precept stands, even where there is no TLM, and the only Masses we can attend are badly and irreverently celebrated. But she comes dangerously close to asserting that if the priest is sinful enough, we are excused from our Sunday obligation. She may be right about the widespread corruption in the hierarchy, but not even Cardinal Burke is Catholic enough for her. Then, without any training or authority as a canonist, she takes it upon herself categorically to declare Pope Francis an antipope. Yes, she has an out from being a sedevacantist because Benedict XVI is still living; but still, these kinds of cogitations are how people get to be too "holy" for the Catholic Church.

Let us also not forget that her predictions about the 2016 presidential election were wrong. She asserted that Trump was never a serious candidate and that in any case he would never be permitted to win, or that he would throw the election or otherwise weasel out of assuming the presidency. None of this proved to be true. Deuteronomy 18:22: "Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him."

pjm said...

I have to agree with Anita Moore here. Barnhardt also mistakenly believes that the theory of Limbo, as a place for those children who die before being baptized go to, is an actual Dogmatic teaching of the Church. It is not, and Pope BXVI made that clear recently. She then went on to claim that's why PBXVI is one of the worst pope's in history. Jeeez give me a break already. I wish she was right about the anti-pope conspiracy theory, but it's highly unlikely.

TLM said...

With Ann Barnhardt I do believe you have to do some heavy 'discerning'. Some things she is right on about and others not so much. As far as Bergoglio being an 'Anti Pope' she has some excellent evidence pointing in that direction, but we have no solid proof. My take is the 'jury is still out' on that one. You cannot claim something as serious as that without absolute, SOLID DOCUMENTED PROOF. I differ with pjm, however, and think it's highly possible that she is correct, but no dice if there's no PROOF. We have no choice but to wait for the powers that be to declare him such, unfortunately, and it probably would not happen in my lifetime. Absolutely, however, he is a heretic if not formal, a material heretic, (of which the Bishops' hands are tied) and you can pretty much take THAT ONE to the bank. As to the invalid abdication of Benedict and the same invalid election of Bergoglio, however, we have red flags that indicate things were amiss, but we have no solid proof. Some day, God willing, we will know the true story, but in the meantime we must continue to defend the true faith openly, courageously, and unambiguously even if we must confront Priests, Bishops, or the Pope himself. Charitably, of course, but UNAFRAID. Some day, we, the Church Militant, will have to give an account to God Himself as to 'why we did not' defend Him if we fail. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm not willing to put myself in league with our COWARDLY EFFEMINATE BISHOPS AND CARDINALS WHO WOULD NO MORE FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH OF CHRIST THAN FLY TO THE MOON! Unless they stand up for the truth of Christ against the heretics and change their cowardly, self centered ways, they will have a terrible eternal price to pay.

Dymphna said...

Thanks Anita, PJM and TLM for your soothing, well reasoned thoughts!

Unknown said...

As several sober folks have intimated, Pope Francis (plumbing the "God of surprises) may declare for an *ecumenical council" (a Vat. 3). If this is in the making the question of "is he, or isn't he" should be answered.

The dread even the anticipation of such an event - now that Francis has been raised as the world leader of the global left. It wold not take much sleuthing to dig up the bare bones of said council's agenda. When Pope Francis promulgates its opening - entering it,trailing all his troubling and puzzling statements and deeds, let alone his confusing (and Christ body blow) encyclicals - I piety the generations. to follow, who will be tasked to grapple with its rip-tearing threats of schism and it wounds upon the much battered Bride of Christ.

Let us pray.