Ann Barnhardt’s error and how she just proved Sedeprivationism is correct

My imagined conversation with Ann Barnhardt after her podcast number 101:

“It’s funny how you spent several minutes shouting how if Ratzinger died and Bergoglio didn’t for 45 minutes that is “COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE 1958 SEDVACANTISTS!”

Why Ann? How?”

“Well… well… they are saying it’s 62 years!!”

“Yes, and?
Can you show me anything that puts a time limit on it?”

“No. But…..” (Sits down looking shell-shocked)

“Hmmm-hm. Thought so.
Welcome to SedePrivationsim Ann.

Would you like a glass of water to make you handle the shock?
Perhaps something stronger?

I have some awesome good tequila.”

“Shots you say?”

In her 101st podcast here, Ann (infuriatingly I might add) admits that Canon Law is what determines what the current situation of the Papacy is. This is true and correct. She goes on to bless St. Raymond of Penyafort, for having written the first draft sometime in the 13^th Century and sing the praises of it since it lasted until 1917 and the Pio-Benedictine code, so far still so good. Then she also goes on to admit that the “code” of 1983 is a dumpster fire with flammable juice in it, again, so far so good, and then… then comes the infuriating part, she says that despite this the code of 1983 is the one we must use because “it’s the one we are under”.

No Ann. We are not.

Because if the Code of 1917 was true and valid (it was) it tells us that every fake Pope from Roncalli on was a fake Pope. There is simply no way around that. Either Canon Law is real, the creation of the Magisterium of the Church and as such the correct way to apply the dogma of the Catholic Church or it means nothing and is a pile of legalese of no consequence that we can change at will.

She is even more infuriating because she makes the example that if Bergoglio disappears tomorrow, and Ratzinger remains alive and yet another “Pope” is elected, they would be an antipope (because Ann mistakenly clings to the obvious error that Ratzinger is a valid Pope). So in effect she is precisely mirroring the situation where Angelo Roncalli Ascended (illegitimately by all accounts) to the Papal Throne, then (in case his invalid election wasn’t enough to prove it) apostatized by producing the entirely heretical Vatican 2.

The first session of Vatican 2 started on 11^th October 1962 and the whole of Vatican 2 was a creation of Roncalli. Given that every one of the 16 documents produced under his guidance until his death on 3^rdJune 1963 contain obvious heresy, Catholic Dogma, out of prudence, makes it our duty to not accept anything suspect, therefore the entire Papacy of Roncalli has to be at the most charitable ignored if not absolutely condemned as the work of an infiltrator and destroyer of the Church. Especially since he had absolutely and finally approved the first two documents published, under Vatican 2 before his death. His actions in respect of the Church certainly made it clear he did all he could to enact the heretical spirit of these documents throughout the Catholic world.

But even if you ignore his invalid election, which was so scandalous it rocked the Catholic world at the time, and assume mere incompetence and/or that he had good intentions but his successors then totally perverted and changed the documents of Vatican 2 and you accept Roncalli as a valid Pope, (I and everyone who has a normal appreciation of facts does not, because he was a Freemason which disqualified him instantly from Catholicism as a whole, never mind the papacy, and because recent documents released from the FBI state that Siri was voted in twice but made to not accept because of the danger to Bishops in the east. Any election that is coerced by blackmail or force, etc is invalid by Canon Law) you must absolutely consider that the next antipope, Giovanni Montini, certainly became an absolute apostate, and we can calculate the exact date of his apostasy (in case you consider him a valid Pope at all to begin with, which I do not, but in any case the matter is moot because once he falls foul of Canon 188 part 4 anything and everything he did is to be considered invalid, as per Canon Law and the PERENNIAL AND IMMUTABLE Papal Encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul the IV on which Canon 188.4 is based. 

 

The first documents published under Vatican 2 were Sacrosanctum Concillium  (Consitution on the Sacred Council) and Inter Mirifica (Decree on the Instruments of Social Communcation) both issued on December 4^th1963. Since Montini was “elected” as (anti)Pope on 21^st June 1963, these documents were published under his reign. And Canon 2315 tells us that if someone publicly defects from the Catholic faith and does not make amends within 6 months, they then fall foul of Canon 188 part 4. So we can say with absolute precision, that regardless of whatever went on before, as of the 4^th of June 1964, Montini, along with any cleric of the Catholic Church who did not reject these documents became a public defector from the Faith and automatically vacated their office, with no pronouncement required by anyone. The Law itself convicts in the absolute. And the Law is of course absolutely valid and infallible because created by the Magisterium of the Church at the behest and approval of valid Popes as ex-cathedra pronouncements and as such becoming immutable and perennial in its validity and application.

Since June 4^th 1964, any supposed Cleric of the Church that did not reject Vatican 2 has vacated their office. The last documents of Vatican 2 were all published on the 7^th December 1965, so even if you become absurdly generous and say that, well… we were waiting until the final publication of the last documents in case they told us to reject the other heresies previously printed… the fact remains that at its absolutely most charitable in the extreme (and to the point of wilful stupidity in my view) by the 7^th of June of 1966 every single supposed Cleric of the Catholic Church who did not reject Vatican 2 in toto had vacated their office.

Now, it may be possible that some cowardly types of clerics did reject Vatican 2 and never taught it and never said a Mass mentioning any of the Antipopes as though they were Popes, and they would remain valid, but we could certainly accuse them of at least cowardice if not heresy. Then again, by Catholic (and common sense) standards as well as generally by Roman and Canon Law, remaining silent is equivalent to assent, that is, tacit agreement with what is going on.

In any case, Ann is going to get a rude shock when Ratzinger dies, which he will soon since he’s in his 90s and Bergoglio survives him. Because she will then be PRECISELY in the same situation that actual Catholics were after Montini died. That is, an Antipope died and every one of the cardinals now voting for who the next one should be were all apostates themselves who had not followed Canon Law and had not rejected the Apostate/Heretical/Satanic (and homosexual) Montini. Meaning they themselves became apostates too.

The only logical situation that can be valid is the Sede Privationist or Sedevacantist one, and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you can re-join the true and actual Catholic Church and help continue to expand and support it until it once again is larger than the impostor’s usurped ground. After which, an action of eviction of the fraudsters can be undertaken in earnest, by whatever means required.

Ann’s position regarding Sedevacantist/Privationists has certainly shifted since she also admits that the intellectual logic and rigour of our argument is honest and correct up to what she believes is our “error”.

Her stated —and, as far as I know, only— objection to what she calls the “1958 sedevacantist position” is what she calls the visibility of the Church.

It is a more subtle argument than the utterly debunked Jay Dyer position on which I have torn every “fake” point apart, but it is essentially the same at heart in its flaw.

Though Ann is in my opinion absolutely honest and has genuine and truly good intentions, unlike Dyer, who is a demonstrable liar, the root cause is an emotional fragility at facing the facts.

It is a little sad/funny that she accuses (rightly) the nominal “Catholics” of accusing her of using secret knowledge because they simply refuse to look at the facts. She is basically saying the remnant of the Church is invisible on identical grounds.

I’m standing right here Ann. And so are a bunch of valid Bishops and Priests and over 300 physical brick and mortar Churches around the world. There is nothing invisible about any of us. So while we may be only a few million today, numbers are not the issue.

After all, the whole of Christianity started out with 4 women and a bit later 11 scared men.

What is Ann’s only argument then?

Time.

She says the seat could NOT possibly have been filled by a succession of impostors since 1958 because… well… well… it’s just too long!

Ok Ann, where is it written in Canon Law that there is a time limit on an interregnum (the time between valid Popes)?

Nowhere.

And what EXACTLY is the time limit according to you? I want you to be specific, so that when Ratzinger dies and Bergoglio carries on you are on a clock.

So what is it Ann? Be specific.

PS: I do Love Ann Barnhardt, she’s awesome and her error is based purely in her feminine sense of duty and loyalty to our Lord, but in error she is nevertheless.

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.