1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

Signs in the sun, moon, and stars

Discussion in 'The mystical and Paranormal' started by Leo, Feb 18, 2015.

  1. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    In a flight aboard a plane Pope Francis let slip his personal opinion that 'the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null'.

    I think this tells us a lot about what is happening in the Church. Novel ideas like this are accepted as having validity but there is no proof produced to substantiate the viewpoint. It is merely an opinion based on subjective feelings and speculation.

    This novel idea that many marriages are null was the principle behind Amoris Letitia and we know the confusion that has caused in the church!
    Don_D and Carmel333 like this.
  2. AED

    AED Powers

    I would be loathe to stake my soul on such untried innovations. The criteria for annulments in the original teachings of the Magisterium were pretty strict. Most marriages ARE valid perhaps. Now what? This is what St Pius X warned of. As Horatio said in Hamlet: there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
    Carmel333 likes this.
  3. Carmel333

    Carmel333 Archangels

    Yes I too would definitely NOT stake my soul on this. Not worth eternity away from Christ. Not to mention if one is in mortal sin the Holy Spirit must flee your temple (body) because He can't abide in sin. So if this happens you are wide open to demonic entities either entering you or influencing you. That would be literally hell on earth...
    AED likes this.
  4. Don_D

    Don_D Powers

    I don't understand how this could be? Was there something else he said regarding this that I am missing? Why would sacramental marriages be null? How could he say this?
  5. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    Really interesting video....probably the best observation I've seen and best analysis:

    Planet X Nibiru Has Arrived

    Over the course of three consecutive days, the 8th, 9th, and 10th of September 2017, Amber Williamson of Clarksburg, West Virginia videographed Nibiru at the sun’s 11 o’clock position relative to the horizon.

    Her observations with an iPhone 7 smartphone were conducted near sunset on each of the three days. In the four videos shown in this report, the object is consistent. The fact that she first observed Nibiru with her own eyes before shooting a corroborating video on the 8th establishes a firm foundation of credibility for her observations.

  6. Fiat

    Fiat The Good Shepherd

    ETA, with all due respect, I addressed this phenomena after having duplicated the exact same thing on my cell phone. Dean concurs with me. This is nothing but a common lens flare. After trying to photograph the eclipse last August, I also got a 2nd eclipsed sun right next to the actual sun. Lens flare. Amber Williamson thinks it is Nibiru because she wants it to be Nibiru. She is naive. Let's put this to rest!
  7. Adoremus

    Adoremus Archangels

    I have to agree with you also. This is a photo of a sunset that I took as a kid, c.1984, so unless Nibiru has been hanging around since then...

    Attached Files:

  8. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    Well, with the same due respect for your opinion, this image was compared to the actual lens flares occurring at the same time and there is no comparison....that was pretty plain to see. And it is amazing how this stable image (your lens flare) could disappear behind the sun's own brightness at the various angles shown. A lens flare would not have disappeared...it would have stayed with the lens n0 matter the difference in approaches to the image. This has also been noted in other similar images that are effected by things like hills or clouds behind which portions of the image disappear. Again, lens flares are not effected by same. They remain in front of arriving clouds or hills or other naturally occurring changes within the view. This individual also states that at the time of day (can only be naturally observed around sunset...possibly sunrise as well....since it does not give off its own light but like our moon its image is more settled in appearance since it's lit by the sun which itself is not a settled clean edged image) she was able to initially see this exact image in exact position without the camera. In fact that is what initially caused her to attempt to use the camera for an even better approach. And this image, your "lens flare", no matter the angle of the phone camera always remains in the same 11 o'clock position in relation to the sun....and it is only visible at the correctly held position of the phone camera. When the camera went to right or left, up or down relational position, the image stayed in same position to the sun.....it didn't bounce all over the place as the actual flares were seen to do. And these were separately made videos with the frozen analyses as well. More complicated than the easy excuse of lens flares. That is why, in this particular example, I found the analysis and positioning and separated attempts as much more convincing than so many others that are not in the same category of purposeful examination and with truly actual lens flares. Marshall Masters has seen tons of those and dismisses them easily from the start. He's been involved with such studies now for years.
  9. Pray4peace

    Pray4peace Ave Maria

    I'm not sure where I stand on the whole Niburu issue, but it seems plausible to me that there is something else "out there". I agree with ETA on this video. The light next to the sun remains in the same place regardless of where the videographer moves her camera, therefore debunking the theory of lens flare.
  10. Dean

    Dean Archangels

    So we can't see it but she can?
  11. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    Is that the royal "we"? The "it" has been the focus of your points so obviously you as well as others who are also focusing upon the same image "can" see "it". Perhaps that's the trouble....you aren't in sync with the viewer.

Share This Page