Start about 4:45 into her presentation. This woman is a convert from protestantism and does not appear know that Vix Pervenit exists
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14vixpe.htm
More of her radical, dangerous, illegal and horrible advice:
https://www.garynorth.com/public/10310.cfm
Accusing others of lying:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html
This is the sedevacantist women whom many effeminate men let her lead them around by the nose.
She speaks about Substantial Error without knowing what it means but that fact does not deter the DOA Cult (Disciples of Ann) from treating her irrational and ignorant claims as Gospel.
Ms. B never studied Canon Law, never took a degree in Canon law and never practiced Canon Law.
This woman has done all of those things and she understands what substantial error is:
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/
More Canon Law experts:
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/lighter-fare-can-bad-latin-save-a-papacy/
Even the sedevacantist Blog Novus Order Watch knows she is wrong about substantial error:
...But is this what is meant by the “substantial error” in Novus Ordo canon law that would prevent a valid resignation from office?
No, it is not. Error prevents a valid resignation from office only if the error is the substantial reason for the resignation, such that the Pope in question would not have resigned if he did not hold this error.
Barnhardt would have seen as much if she had simply consulted an authoritative commentary on the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, which explains: “Substantial error is a mistaken judgment that is not of minor importance and is truly a cause of the consequent resignation. This would be the case in which the officeholder judged that he or she had caused serious injury to someone when this was not objectively correct” (James A. Coriden et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary[New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985] p. 109; underlining added).
In other words, for Barnhardt’s argument to have any merit even in theory, she would have to prove — not merely suspect but prove — that Benedict XVI abdicated his putative pontificate because he believes in a bifurcated Papacy. But of course this is sheer nonsense and has never been asserted by anyone, least of all by Ratzinger himself.
The official reason given for the resignation was an inability or, at any rate, an unwillingness to continue to exercise the office. In his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict spoke of the “strength of mind and body” he believed he no longer had “to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me”. One may speculate that the true reason was a different one — whether fear of a real or imagined evil, the desire to cause great confusion among Novus Ordos, the intent to enable Jorge Bergoglio to succeed him, succumbing to undue pressue by secret powers, etc. — but it was most certainly not his belief that the Papacy can be abdicated in a partial way.
If one wanted to argue invalidity of resignation due to substantial error that actually caused the resignation, one would have to show that Benedict was mistaken regarding his “strength of mind and body”, that he was in error about his “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.” That would constitute substantial error that was causative of the resignation.
However, we will humor Miss Barnhardt and assume for the moment that Ratzinger was incapable of resigning from the Papacy because he was in substantial error about what the Papacy is. If that were so, then, by the same token, Ratzinger could never have validly accepted the Papacy either, back in 2005; for if one cannot validly resign an office one does not know or believe in, neither can one validly acceptit in the first place.
The reason for this is that any juridical act is rendered invalid by substantial error, not just a resignation. Hence Canon 126 of the Novus Ordo Code says: “An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid.” (The corresponding canon in the Catholic Code is 104.) What’s good for the goose is good for the gander here — and the same Novus Ordo canon law commentary we used earlier backs this up: “Ignorance or error about the essential elements of a juridic act, such as what marriage is or which rights are being transferred by a contract, of its nature invalidates the act — which must always be an informed action” (Coriden et al., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 90).
Therefore, if Barnhardt wishes to argue that Benedict’s act of abdication was invalid because he was in substantial error about what the Papacy is, then she must likewise admit that his acceptance of the office to which he had putatively been elected seven years before was likewise invalid. Therefore, this is a pyrrhic victory for Barnhardt at best: Even if she wins, she loses.
However, let’s also keep in mind that in his actual declaration of resignation, Ratzinger stated rather plainly: “…I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant…” (underlining added). Whatever ideas he may entertain about the Papacy, he declared that he was resigning “in such a way that” the office he claimed to hold would “be vacant.”
A final consideration we must not forget is that of course Ratzinger’s bizarre idea about a two-member expanded Papacy can hardly be said to be a mistake in judgment in the first place. If anything, it is a deliberate denial of the truth about the Papacy, not a genuine “mistake"...
Finally, in the vid she refers to Jesus supporting Usury.
Lord have Mercy. Well, what does one expect from a protestant convert who thinks opposition to usury is anti semitic?
Here is Cornelius a Lapide on Matt 25:
Vers. 26, 27. His lord answered and said unto him, &c. This likewise is an emblem, and only signifies how we ought by all means to increase the grace of God. Observe that they are called money-changers, who make gain by exchange, and by lending and borrowing. This gain is lawful in the way of exchange and merchandise. It is unlawful in the way of lending upon interest, and is the sin of usury. Wherefore the Lord in this place does not speak so much according to the abstract right of the matter, as parabolically, partly because of the common practice of nations (for usury was allowed in many nations, especially among the Jews, who think that God permitted them to exact it from the Gentiles, in Deut. xxiii. 19), partly as a deduction from the words of the slothful servant, who attributed to his master the avarice of extorting money, by fair means or foul, from himself or others. This passage may, however, be accommodated to what is signified by the parable in the following manner-that God requires of us interest, as it were, for His gifts and graces, but that He will render us far greater interest of glory in Heaven. Hence the saying, “If thou wilt lend, lend unto God.” Also it is said in Prov. (xix. 17), “He that hath mercy upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and what he layeth out it shall be paid him again.”
This is the woman who is leading effeminate Catholic men to perdition for she is a Sedevacantist Siren calling them to join her outside of the Church;
Lumen Gentium;
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
No comments:
Post a Comment