https://endtimes.video/leo-xiv-not-pope/

The video we all some of us have been waiting for 

Good video, but it's hardly shocking ... since everyone knows he's just Francis 2.0 who's also making a nod to Ratzinger, playing the old Hegelian Dialectic.

Thesis (Ratzinger) + AntiThesis (Bergoglio) -> Synthesis (Prevost).

What I find more shocking is that Trad, Inc are all pushing the same talking points about how this guy's basically a Traditionalist.  There's no explanation for that other than that they were told to by their handlers.

What's up with Peter Dimond's MODERNIST and effeminate image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at 3:10? I'm surprised the Dimond's would have that image on their wall.

That picture is rather ubiquitous for some reason ... my parents had that also.

Do you any of you who toss around the word "Modernist" have any earthly clue about what it means?  It's the same blunder that Kwaknowski made when accusing St. Pius X of being a "Modernist".

As for effeminate, yeah ... but then I've only seen maybe 2-3 depictions of the Sacred Heart of Jesus that weren't effeminate, probably because most artistic types tend to be that way to being with.

The triglycerides in your brain from your vulture diet have warped your sense of modernism. That image is notoriously modernist.

You're retarded.  Define Modernist and explain how the picture if Modernist.

You're retarded.  Define Modernist and explain how the picture if Modernist.

You’re assessment is correct in so many ways 

"His clothing is traditional..." 

Get behind me Satan. You're the same fool who says "God isn't a Catholic God", thereby, rejecting ontological reality and the Logos.

Brilliant.

So, let me help you.  Something that's new, modern, etc. ... including what you could refer to as "modern art" IS NOT MODERNISM.  It's the same reason Kwaknowski was wrong in referring to St. Pius X as a Modernist because he updated a few things in the Divine Office and the Mass Calendar.  Modernism, when applied to doctrine, and where it becomes heretical, refers to a subjectivization of truth, the progress and development (aka change) of doctrine.  Please explain how that picutre of the Sacred Heart captures that.

Just because it's a bad (and relatively modern) rendering of the Sacred Heart that makes Him look somewhat effeminate ... does not make it MODERNIST art.  Was it created by someone who also happened to be a Modernist?  Perhaps, but I don't know, and neither do you ... and that still wouldn't make the picture itself Modernist.

I never affirmed the proposition "God isn't a Catholic God", since in fact God isn't ANYTHING.  God simply IS.  He's beyond terms like Catholic.  Catholic isn't a term properly applied to God anyway, even if you wanted to do it by way of analogy ... but more a property of the true Church (as distinct from those sects that split off from the whole).  I doubt Bergoglio meant it that way, but likely in the same way you interpret it, but there's a strict sense in which it's true.  What you mean is that God isn't what the Catholic Church understand Him to be, and that's how you're interpreting Bergoglio's meaning as well.  That is in fact heresy.  But TECHNICALLY it's true that the adjective "Catholic" cannot be applied to God.  This is where in a normally-functioning Church, a theologian who made that statement would be interrogated with regard to his meaning, and then even if he understood it in an orthodox sense would be forbidden from publishing that proposition.