Tag Archives: Ann Barnhardt

The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled Was To Convince The World He Didn’t Exist (Easter 2018 AD)

“Pope Declares No Hell?”

So ran the riveting headline on the Drudge Report of Holy Thursday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-03-30_5-47-19.jpg?itok=D31j8VzE

Drudge quoted this exchange, published in La Repubblica, between Pope Francis and his atheist friend, journalist Eugenio Scalfari.

Scalfari: “What about bad souls? Where are they punished?”

Bad souls “are not punished,” Pope Francis is quoted, “those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”

On the first Holy Thursday, Judas betrayed Christ. And of Judas the Lord said, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed; it were better for him if that man had never been born.”

Did the soul of Judas, and those of the monstrous evildoers of history, “just fade away,” as General MacArthur said of old soldiers? If there is no hell, is not the greatest deterrent to the worst of sins removed?

What did Christ die on the cross to save us from?

If Francis made such a statement, it would be rank heresy.

Had the pope been speaking ex cathedra, as the vicar of Christ on earth, he would be contradicting 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine, rooted in the teachings of Christ himself. He would be calling into question papal infallibility, as defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council of Pius IX.

Questions would arise as to whether Francis is a true pope.

The Vatican swiftly issued a statement saying the pope had had a private conversation, not a formal interview, with his friend Scalfari.

The Vatican added:

“The textual words pronounced by the pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.”

Sorry, but this will not do. This does not answer the questions the pope raised in his chat. Does hell exist? Are souls that die in mortal sin damned to hell for all eternity? Does the pope accept this belief? Is this still the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

However one may applaud Francis’ stance on social justice, on matters of faith and morals he has called defined doctrine into question and created confusion throughout the Church he heads.

In his letter Amoris Laetitia, “The Joy of Love,” the pope seemed to give approval to the receiving of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics, whose previous marriages had not been annulled, and whom the Church holds to be living in adultery.

Relying on the pope’s letter, German bishops have begun to authorize the distribution of Communion to divorced and remarried couples.

Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former prefect of the Vatican office for the Doctrine of the Faith, the position once held by Pope Benedict XVI, says this contradicts Catholic doctrine as enunciated by Pope John Paul II.

Said Cardinal Muller, “No power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, not a council, nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to change it.”

Four cardinals, including Raymond Burke of the United States, in a formal letter, asked the pope to clarify Amoris Laetitia. The pope did not, nor has he addressed the cardinals’ concerns.

Indeed, when asked early in his papacy about the immorality of homosexuality, the pope parried the question, “Who am I to judge?”

But if not thee, who? Is not the judging of right and wrong part of the job description?

Nor is it only in the realm of doctrine that the pope has sown confusion among the faithful.

To legalize the underground Catholic Church in China, the pope and the Vatican have agreed to ask Catholic bishops to stand aside for bishops approved by the Communist Party that seeks tighter control of Christian faiths.

The Vatican has also agreed to approve the consecration of a bishop named by Beijing, whom Rome previously regarded as illegitimate.

The capitulation is necessary for the Catholic Church in China to survive and prosper, argues the Vatican. But what kind of church will it become, asks retired Archbishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong.

The Vatican is “selling out” the Church in China, says the archbishop: “Some say that all the effort to reach an agreement is to avoid the ecclesial schism. How ridiculous! The schism is there, in the Independent Church!”

Archbishop Zen concedes his criticism of the Communist Party and the Vatican’s diplomatic efforts are causing problems in closing the rift between the underground Church and the Communist Party-sanctioned church, but makes no apology: “Am I the major obstacle in the process of reaching a deal between the Vatican and China? If that is a bad deal, I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.”

There is a division inside Catholicism that is widening, between a Third World and traditional church that are growing, and a mainstream Church in Europe and here that is taking on aspects of the Anglican Church of the 20th century.

And how did that turn out, Your Holiness?

Happy Easter!

Source: ZeroHedge |  Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Barnhardt

Likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist and Antipope Denies Hell (again), Christ’s Divinity (again) and God’s Love For Humanity (again)… Just in Time for the Triduum!

Anti-pope Bergoglio has denied the existence of hell and preached the lie of soul annihilation before today.  But consider the spite that he has to have for Jesus Christ and His Holy Church to make sure that this latest salvo gets published just as the Triduum begins. Top headline on Drudge for HOURS.

Folks, it really is important to understand that when I say how truly malignant and spiteful these people are, and desperately try to inform as many people as I can that these people LITERALLY HATE GOD, and thus are in a state of WAR AGAINST HIM AND HIS HOLY CHURCH, AND THUS EVERY HUMAN BEING BY EXTENSION, I’m not engaging in hyperbole.  I’m dead, dead serious.

The next thing to remember in all of this is that Antipope Bergoglio is not an Antipope because he is an arch-heretic.  Antipope Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope because of Pope Benedict XVI’s INVALID RESIGNATION, made in the SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS belief that Pope Benedict could fundamentally transform the papacy by bifurcating and expanding the Petrine Office into a “synodal, collegial” office, containing both “active” and “contemplative” participants.  Wrong.  And thus per Canon 188, Pope Benedict never ceased being the Pope, BY THE LAW ITSELF, and is the one and only living Pope to this day.

Antipope Bergoglio’s heresy is a CONFIRMING DATASET, but it is NOT germane to the question of Pope Benedict’s invalid attempted abdication, which predated the Bergoglian Antipapacy by fully two weeks.  ANTIPOPE BERGOGLIO CAN’T BE DEPOSED, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT OCCUPY THE PETRINE SEE.  Only a person who is validly occupying a given office can be deposed from said office.  They only path forward IN TRUTH is that Antipope Bergoglio be PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS AN ANTIPOPE, AND SENT PACKING ACCORDINGLY. If this is done while Pope Benedict XVI is still living, NO CONCLAVE CAN BE CALLED, BECAUSE IF POPE BENEDICT IS ALIVE, AND HAS NOT VALIDLY RESIGNED, THEN THE SEE IS OCCUPIED, AND IT IS THEREFORE ONTOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ELECT A POPE – ONLY ANOTHER ANTIPOPE.

Next, given that we know that Antipope Bergoglio is an Antipope and arch-heretic, and also doing pretty much everything one could expect the Anti-John the Baptist, aka False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, to do, what we should do is take his vile heresy and actually use it as a point of departure for examining ourselves.  In particular, we need to all do some serious soul-searching on the question of if WE believe in hell.  Do we secretly harbor in the deep, or even not-so-deep corners of our minds the belief that the worst that can possibly happen to anyone is “lights out”?  Do we not realize that these whispers and assumptions of soul annihilation are the Serpent in the Garden whispering, “No, you shall not die the death….” Do we deny the existence of hell in order to acquire or maintain HUMAN RESPECT? Do we stay silent on hell in order to maintain earthly relationships and avoid all possibility of “uncomfortable conversations”?

The truth is, ONE OF THE BEST THINGS YOU CAN DO FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS IS THINK ABOUT AND PREACH HELL.

Further, the existence of hell and eternal damnation is a proofset of God’s love and RESPECT for us.  If God didn’t really love us, if He didn’t respect us AS RATIONAL INTELLECTS that are free to choose our actions, then soul annihilation is EXACTLY what He would do.  The fact is that the “god” Antipope Bergoglio is describing is a being DEVOID OF LOVE, who has less than zero respect for humanity.  Antipope Bergoglio is trying to convince the world that satan is God, and that satan in his “mercy” will just snuff you out of existence if “things don’t work out”.  No harm, no foul.

If God just started snuffing beings out of existence when they made a choice that wasn’t in accord with His will, wouldn’t that cheapen all life and existence to the point of meaninglessness? Wouldn’t all rational beings just be mere object-playthings at that point? Yep.

Love means putting up with the periodic insufferable behavior of the beloved. Most ESPECIALLY for God.  The corollary to this is the following fact:  No matter what you do, you will always, always, always exist.  God loved you into existence, and loves you because you exist, and will never stop loving you, and will never, ever snuff you out of existence, no matter what.  If you reject Him, that is your free choice, but understand, you will continue to exist FOREVER after you have rejected God.  Every one of us will exist and exist forever – either in Heaven (inside of the Trinity, the Beatific Vision), or completely cut off from Him.  F.O.R.E.V.E.R.  That’s hell.  There is no “snuffed out of existence feeling neither happiness nor pain” option.  So disabuse yourself of that lie right now.

Finally, remember that Antipope Bergoglio’s denials of hell are also by ONE LOGICAL STEP a denial of the Divinity of Christ.  Our Lord spoke early and often of hell and eternal damnation in the Gospels. If there is no hell, then Christ was either mistaken or a liar.  Either way, according to Antipope Bergoglio, Jesus Christ is NOT God.  And thus, if Jesus is not God, then we are not saved, and The Church is an ontological joke and needs to be removed from the face of the earth. Or, perhaps REPLACED…. After all, it would be a shame to not keep all of that real estate, fundraising capability and political power under one roof.

As the Passion of Christ’s Holy Church plays out before our very eyes, here is the Responsory after the Ninth Lesson (third Nocturn of Matins) in tonight’s Office of Tenebrae.

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, Man of Sorrows, have mercy on us.

**************************

Latin Lyrics:

Caligaverunt oculi mei a fletu meo,
Quia elongatus est a me,
Qui consolabatur me.

Videte, omnes populi,
Si est dolor similis sicut dolor meus.

O vos omnes, qui transitis per viam,
Attendite et videte,
Si est dolor similis sicut dolor meus.

Translation:

My eyes are blinded from My tears,
Because far from Me is,
Anyone who will comfort Me.

See, all ye people,
If there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow.

O, all ye who pass by the road,
Stop and see,
If there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow.

***

Pope Francis Declares Himself The Anti-Christ

 

Report From Ash Wednesday Eve

https://i0.wp.com/www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cropped-eyes.jpg

So I Went Out To Eat Last Night and A Group of Champagne Communists Sat Down at the Next Table…

Last night being the last night before Lent, I went out to dinner for one last round of my favorite yum-yums and slurp-slurps.  As I walked in, I saw a very well-dressed middle aged man who projected anger and misery from every pore sitting alone.  I was seated at the table directly adjacent.  Sure enough, he was extremely nasty to the staff, as they offered him something while he waited for the rest of his party to arrive.

A few minutes later, in walk three more well-dressed middle-aged men, one of which was a flaming queen.  The other two men, I could hear, were not American. I overheard later that one was Swiss and the other German. A few minutes later, a middle-aged Jew, well-dressed and wearing a yarmulke, walks in carrying a plastic bag filled with Ziplock plastic containers.  I sat there thinking, “Oh no.  No, no, no.  He didn’t bring his own FOOD up in here, did he?”  Yup. He gave the bag to the manager and sniffed instructions about heating it up.  So, let me get this straight.  You are SUCH a pious, devout Jew that you can’t eat ANYTHING except your own super-special “ritually pure” food, but you can sit at table with a flaming sodomite?  Sorry, gotta call bullshit on that bullshit right there.

So the party has now arrived.  It turns out there had been some sort of a symposium for lawyers to discuss “international law” (read “power politics”) at a nearby university.  All five were law school professors and presenters at the symposium.  Mister Miserable, it turns out, is a law professor at Columbia who lives in – his words here – “gentrified Harlem, VERY close to the Clinton Offices on 125th Street…” (The other four ooohed and ahhhhed at this.)

At this point I took out my phone and started taking notes, because what was sitting next to me was a table of Champagne Communist “thought leaders”, three American and two European. Ho ho ho. This should be FASCINATING.

The faggot did something that I have never before heard.  He referred to his sodomite partner as his “wife”, but referred to him as “he” and “him”.  I guess at this point, it is all about removing all possible meaning from language for these wretches.

So, let’s get started.  Everything below is paraphrase.  It was all I could do to keep up the note-taking without it being obvious that I was taking notes on their conversation and not “chatting” with someone on my phone.

Topic 1: Nationalism is bad and must be completely purged from humanity.

The Swiss law professor went on a rant about how “deeply engrained” the scourge of Nationalism is in the human mind, citing Switzerland as his example.  Switzerland contains four separate groups: German, French, Italian and Romansh. And even though it is a tiny country, very politically and socially liberal, with four discreet cultural groups with DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, all the Swiss people STILL, he lamented bitterly, identify as SWISS.  If the Swiss all still have this deep Nationalistic pride and identity, imagine how much harder it will be to purge Nationalism from the Germans, or, THE FRENCH!

Topic 2: Typical woman…

They then started talking about the speakers at the conference.  One was a Dutch female law professor.  “Is she straight?” “Yeah, she’s straight. And she expects to be submitted to because of her gender!”

I laughed out loud.

Topic 3:  Law by Stealth

The fag then began to hold forth on how much appreciated the presentation of the Swiss guy, particularly the tactic of “Law By Stealth”, and how well that concept “fits in with our project”.  Indeed.  Also with Bergoglio’s project.  Law By Stealth.  It’s their own term, kids.  Start using it.  That is what all of this crap is.

Topic 4: Was he a threat?

The fag then asked the table who “the man in the back, with the long hair, that asked the questions” was.  Someone answered, “He’s English”. The fag then asked, “Is he a threat?”  Because people who ask substantive questions are “a threat”.

Topic 5: The Goal Is Global Fascism

The Swiss lawyer, it turns out, also has a private practice. When the Fag started talking about how all “private law” is really just a subset of the “imperial governmental” paradigm, and cited ICANN as his example, the Swiss came right out and said that the only possible model is total global control of all trade and businesses. Global Fascism.  He said the “biggest player” is the “OMNIPOTENT REGULATOR”, which can be the “good company”, that is a company that is fully controlled by and submissive to the state, “that is so powerful” that it becomes the de facto regulator.  His example?  You guessed it: Apple.

Topic 6: Human rights – Fascist style

The Swiss then, in the context of Apple, assured the table that with regards to human rights, “they only do it for the public perception”.  The point being, since Apple is “omnipotent”, they are their own regulator, and they decide what their human rights regulations will be.  Then the grumpy Columbia professor chimed in: Apple absolutely breaks the law in Asia, but we (the former U.S.) are fine with that, because it is all “handled between friends”.  Apple is for the “greater good” – that is the globalist-fascist agenda – so “why not let them flex their power?”

Feeling nauseated yet?

Topic 7: Something minor…

I missed the context of this quote, but I darn sure recorded the punchline.  Someone said, “What are they protecting?” The Swiss replied, “Their sovereignty or something.  Something minor.” And it wasn’t a joke.  He was dead serious.

Topic 8: The flaw in the current EU system is…

The German said, “In terms of the EU, WE DECIDE.”  Yeah, we noticed, Franz.

Then Columbia said, “In joining the EU, didn’t the Danes give legal supremacy to the EU?”

Then the Swiss said, “The Parliament is technically supreme, so the flaw is that there is no supreme EU norm.  Denmark has a constitution, yes, de jure, but it is meaningless, de facto.

Topic 9: Free market competition should only be allowed if I benefit from it personally…

Columbia Commie then started talking about how it cost his $100 to take a cab from JFK airport to Harlem, but if he used Uber, it only cost $35, and thus “I always take Uber.” The Fag then said, “I always take the bus.” Columbia Commie then replied, dripping with sarcasm, “Don’t worry.  I won’t tell. It’s your contribution to the “fight against global warming”. At this, the table exploded into laughter.

Topic 10: We Must Make Our Own State…

The Swiss said, “The solution to all of this is to separate.  We must make our own state.”  At this, the Jew piped up and said, “So, the “Two State Solution?” At which the table again ERUPTED into uproarious laughter. That was the biggest laugh of the night, by far.

Well, that’s Part 1.  Check back for Part 2….

By Ann Barnhardt