Cionci disappointed at Barnhardt for refusal to engage the dataset

9 thoughts on “Cionci disappointed at Barnhardt for refusal to engage the dataset”

  1. https://sfero.me/article/monsignor-ganswein-explains-the-extended-ministry-in-ratzinger-code-the-real-meaning-of-pope-emeritus
    “The Pope Theologian’s historic resignation basically stands for a step forward, given that on February 11, 2013, he, speaking in Latin before a gathering of surprised cardinals, introduced the new institution of “pope emeritus” into the Catholic Church, declaring that his strength wasn’t enough to carry out the Petrine ministry adequately, any more.”
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strength
    “force as measured in numbers : effective numbers of any body or organization”
    strength | Etymology, origin and meaning of strength by etymonline
    STRENGTH Meaning: “bodily power, force, vigor, firmness, fortitude, manhood, violence, moral resistance,” from… …
    strong | Etymology, origin and meaning of strong by etymonline
    STRONG Meaning: “physically powerful, powerful in effect; forceful, severe, firm, bold, brave; constant, resolut…

    1. The kind of analysis you are attempting is not valid, since you have to look at the original languages used.

  2. It seems to me that Ms Barnhardt has concluded there to be no point diving into a discussion that, of necessity, would require a mindset eager to ferret out intrigue & equivocation, coming to conclusions which could only, in the end, be substantiated by one who has held silence on them for the best part of a decade, with no perceptible intention of altering strategy prior to his going to the grave.

    Her MO sticks to a visible text & holds it accountable to the law governing the entire matter, prescinding from positing, subjectively, a hidden strategy. On that basis, I find hers to be the far more credible argument.

    Signor Cionci seems never — to my awareness, at least — to address the evidence Ms Barnhardt uncovered, namely, the published Ratzinger thesis from years back which demonstrated a mindset willing to entertain a “splitting” of the papacy among multiple persons. As anyone discovered a “retraction” on the part of the latter-day, Bavarian Augustine-scholar addressing the “substantial error” of said thesis?

    1. Benedict never advocated splitting the papacy. The source she quotes as proof is no proof at all, since no where in it does Ratzinger appear as one sustaing such an opinion.

      1. If it be true that she has put words in Ratzinger’s mouth, then we have an entirely different motive on her part to abstain from discussion. It seems very late in the day that this accusation rises but now.

      2. She has not put words in his mouth, because she never claimed that he said it. She is a clever calumniator. She just claims that agrees with it.

      3. True, and yet why are we not able to move Pope Benedict XVI to a safe location and ask him directly.

      4. The Vatican has several hundreds security guards all pledged to serve Bergoglio…

  3. ‘The source she quotes as proof…’ Ann quotes multiple sources. See her post on May 30th.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.