THIS^^

I was also surprised to say the least, how they acted just based on these minor externals. 

You make a great point of emphasis, MINOR externals.  I've never seen anything so trivial be given so much emphasis and importance.

I'm becoming convinced that Trad, Inc. are actually deliberate / conscious / paid gatekeepers.  There's some speculation out there that these "influencers" were "met with" by their "conservative" ringleaders, in Rome (one of them actually hinted at this) and were told to get behind Leo.

Taylor Marshall deleted a pre-conclave video where he was criticizing Prevost ... thankfully someone kept a copy and posted it on X.

But, to your point, how much more MINOR and TRIVIAL can these externals get.

Look ... he took the name Leo, and it's not John, Paul, John Paul, or Francis.  OK, so?  He's already stated that he's fully behind Vatican II and also the directions Bergoglio took the Church.  That's the substance of why people might care about the name.  Oh, Prevost also explained the reason for his choice of Leo, and it wasn't because Leo was a Traditionalist, but due to his emphasis on social / economic justice issues.

Look, he's wearing Traditional vestments (Ratzinger's) ... while carrying that blasphemous / grotesque carictature of Our Lord crucified that clearly has been meant to be reminiscent of a witch's stang (Bergoglio actually got caught using a full stang one time).

Look, he had some chant at his papal "Mass" ... as he sat there listening to female lectors.

Look, he muttered a few words of Latin ... while speaking of synodal Church.

So the Modernists are perfectly happy with letting you have a bit of Latin, some smells, some bells, etc. ... if that's what it takes for you to accept their false doctrine.  In fact, even Hollywood likes the smells and bells of Traditional Catholicism, and sodomites (with their "queer eye") are in fact very much attached to these things, simply recognizing their aesthetic superiority (that's why some sodomites get into Tradition).

But I'm shocked and stunned that so many Trads to whom it had been preached for DECADES that it's not primarily about the Mass, and certainly not about the smells and bells ... but about DOCTRINE.

I actually got into an argument with a SEDEVACANTIST relative this past weekend about Leo, where I was rebuked for not being "chawitable" and ... "don't you believe that the Holy Ghost could change a man?" etc. etc.

That demonstrates how far-reaching this propaganda and talking points have gone.

Well, the more then try to shut me down with fake appeals to "cha-wity", the more I'm going to shout.

Bergoglio, extending the wolf metaphor, just crashed into the sheep's pen wearing the cheap Walmart mask of a sheep that almost anyone with eyesight (of faith) could see right through.  Leo's putting on a slightly better costume ... went to one of those specialty costume stores.  So it's precisely BECAUSE he's more subtle and stealthy that we need to be LOUDER in denouncing him.  "Look.  That's a wolf.  Wake up.  He's a wolf."

I also had to explain to this SV Trad that judging their actions and their theology has absolutely NOTHING to do with "cha-wity" and "nitheness".  I pray for Prevost, that he convert, and of course the Holy Ghost can change a man.  That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH what he has NOW and what he stands for NOW and whether it's to be praised or condemned.  If next week he decides to abolish the Vatican II religion, then glory to God.  But in the meantime, not only has he said that he's fully committed to V2 and going "forward" (codeward for rejecting any notion of returning to Tradition), but he's also fully endorsed the direction that Bergoglio has set.  EXPLICITLY.  IN HIS WORDS.

So, anyone who's at least slightly conservative might say, "Well, I fully support Vatican II" but then remain silent about Bergoglio's legacy while planning to make some course corrections, realizing that Berg had veered off somewhat too far to the Left.

Make no mistake about it.  Jorge would NOT have promoted this guy to being one of the most powerful men in the Church (selecting bishops) if he had not been 1000% in lockstep with Bergoglio's agenda.

It truly is shocking how naive some people can be. I have spoken with relatives who seemed delighted with Prevost for such superficial reasons that he's American or is from the Chicago area or likes baseball. Then when I explain that he pushed the clot shot, is for open borders/infinity immigration, promotes pro sodomite bishops, covered for kid touchers,  they pretend like they didn't hear me. 
Immediately after Prevost appeared on the balcony the local news was interviewing his brother, followed by a whitewashed background story on his upbringing along with statements from top clerics praising him. It was a little like the prepared story the media had on Lee Harvey Oswald but in reverse. 
I think the elites know that for most of the public first impressions become fixed impressions because very few people
bother to look beneath the surface of things. And why should that surprise us, so many people today get married or have children with individuals whom they hardly bother to get to know. 

Make no mistake about it.  Jorge would NOT have promoted this guy to being one of the most powerful men in the Church (selecting bishops) if he had not been 1000% in lockstep with Bergoglio's agenda.

No doubt about it. It was a rapid rise, seemingly out of nowhere, as we always see with CIA plants. 

The CIA stole the election in 1958. They have, ever since, placed their agents in the usurped offices of the universal Church worldwide. Have we come full circle? 

Yoichi Shimatsu weighs in: 

https://rense.com/general98/Questionable-American-Priest.php

A compendium of Prevost’s woke tweets: 

https://protestia.com/2025/05/08/a-compendium-of-the-new-popes-woke-tweets-2015-2025/

However much one might disagree with his stances as expressed in these tweets, these are all debatable secular matters which do not touch on the deposit of faith.  Nothing he says in these tweets is contra fidem.

I'm not so sure about that. 

However much one might disagree with his stances as expressed in these tweets, these are all debatable secular matters which do not touch on the deposit of faith.  Nothing he says in these tweets is contra fidem.

I would agree with this mostly.  However, there is one tweet that states JD Vance is wrong about ranking our love.  I seem to recall a thread about this here (or somewhere else).  Theologians teach that there is a hierarchy of love.  We are not expected to love the immigrant as we are to love our mother (for example).