Barnhardt’s Thesis of Hate

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

If we are to plumb the depths of a controversy, we need to stick to principles and not pick and chose only the facts we want, crafting them to the narrative or interpretation that we support. Yet, Ann Barnhardt continues to want to imply that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally and maliciously resigned the ministry not the munus, because he believes the Papacy can be held by two persons at the same time.

Indeed, Barnhardt has gone over the edge of propriety when in her recent posts she claims to tell us what the dreams of the Holy Father are!

In her blog post from May 29, 2022, she quotes again the talk by Archbishop Georg Ganswein from May 20, 2016 — the very talk which launched Barnhardt upon the path of declaring the Renunciation invalid.  A position that she has not altered or changed. But along with that a presumption, that Pope Benedict XVI acted out of error and/or with malice of aforethought — the latter she implies at least.

But Barnhardt forgets her principles, namely, that no one speaking except Pope Benedict XVI is Pope Benedict XVI speaking.  She reads Ganswein as if he were another person sharing the Papal Office with Benedict. And she seems to think that Pope Benedict XVI, in being asked by Ganswein to say something about his action on Feb. 11, 2013, was thereby endorsing everything he said.

I won’t even get into the fact that she is reading the English translation, not the German original of Ganswein’s talk.  A thing which he repudiated after the fact as faulty.

And indeed, Ganswein himself gets angry if anyone brings up his talk in German on May 20, 2016, precisely because, as he says, it has been misunderstood badly.

Barnhardt is one of those who has misunderstood it badly.

Archbishop Ganswein has ever held that Benedict XVI abdicated and that Bergoglio is the only Pope.  I have a recorded phone call from him, to me personally, affirming that. He was extremely angry with me for implying that Benedict XVI is still the pope.  Regardless what anyone else thinks he might have meant by what he said to me, I have to take him at his word. He even changed his coat of arms to add those of Bergoglio, AFTER this speech which Barnhardt quotes as scripture.

But it is not scripture. And Gänswein is not a faithful expositor of Benedict’s thought.

I remind the readers, here:

Let’s keep in mind the 3 things: the office conferred by the munus, the ministry which is an obligation of that and can be shared, and the dignity which is only legitimately held by the one with the munus and office.

Indeed, as a principle, you cannot quote a secretary’s talk as a key to interpret the published writings and interviews of his boss.  Gänswein, shows that he is attempting to play both sides by sending out letters with different stationary headings, some with Benedict’s some with Bergoglio’s.  To trust this man as a witness to what the Holy Father means or intends is folly, in any book of the sane.

So to return to Gänswein’s talk.  It is clear that he is trying to expound a thesis which would justify him claiming dignity and authority for both Bergoglio and Pope Benedict XVI.  He is clearly proposing a solution to the dilemma of two persons in the Vatican claiming the title “Pope”. But he is NOT claiming that Benedict is still the Vicar of Christ. He holds that Bergoglio alone is the Pope in that sense of the word.

The Archbishop can invent any thesis he wants to explain what two men are called Pope, but he cannot change what Benedict XVI says or means.  Cionci has clearly established by dozens of citations that Benedict XVI by his own words, in interviews, biographies, writings, letters, always holds the same position. There is one human person who is the pope. He alone is legitimate. The other is a pretender.

Thus, both Benedict XVI and Gänswein agree. There are not two popes. Only one is the Vicar of Christ. But Benedict XVi identifies himself as such, and Gänswein identifies Bergoglio as such.  Gänswein also claims that both, however, have a papal dignity.

In her post of May 31, 2022, Barnhardt double downs on her position. She claims that another Archbishop, Miller by name, in his book proves that Benedict XVI wants an expanded Petrine Ministry. But her proof is merely an interpretation based upon her assertion and will that Ratzinger in a book was employing the Overton Window technique for verbal dissimulation.

She never proves that he dissimulated.

So she has proven nothing, but what Docherty recently claimed:  Benedict XVI is a sinner and you who claim he is not, must prove it!

This is a ridiculous way of arguing. And it’s Calvinistic, not Catholic.

But Barnhardt has in her rush to condemn the Holy Father fallen into the same error of those modernists she condemns rightly for reading munus, when Benedict writes ministerium.

Because, as we see through history — if your read the history of the Church in detail from the beginning to the present day — you would notice that whereas the man who is the Pope has always been one human person holding the munus, he has at different times in history sometimes alone exercised the ministerium, sometimes associated others to help him.

The Petrine Ministry is not what the Pope does only by himself. It has never been.  But it is what the Pope does when he formally associates another with him to help him by a canonical juridical act, such as appointing a Cardinal to head the Holy Office of the Inquisition, rather than heading it himself.

Thus, Ratzinger is correct that in history this ministry can change and be shared. But no where does he imply that it is shared by equals!

And no where does anyone claim that by renouncing the ministerium instead of the munus, a canonical approval has been given to an institution of Pope emeritus or an election by the Cardinals in-a-Conclave-to confer-the-munus for the purpose of confering the Petrine Mininstry.

To claim otherwise, would be to imply that the Holy Father is a raving madman, idiot and canonical loony, who believes a declaration establishes and removes, alters and replaces established canon law. — A fact which is totally unsupportable when you consider that just 7 days later he signs an alteration of the Papal Law for Conclaves, without any mention whatsoever of an abdication or diarchic alteration of the Petrine Ministry.  — Barnhardt is implying that Benedict has split personalities or is psychotic. Failing that, that he is totally irrational and inconsistent.

So thus, the entire hypothetical interpretation of Barnhardt falls to dust. It is nothing more than her personal assertion based on her obsession that the Holy Father be in error and be mislead by error. And it is totally sequestered from all other historical facts or events in the Church or in his pontificate.

Moreover, her prejudice against the Holy Father is simply another repackaging of the hate directed at him after his resignation of ministry.  It cleverly puts all the fault on him and provides an excuse for Bergoglio.

As such, I reject it as demonically inspired, and as what it is, another calumny launched against an innocent man by a woman who finds fault where it does not exist, and refuses to see fault in what her bathroom mirror shows her every morning.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

17 thoughts on “Barnhardt’s Thesis of Hate”

  1. We are living in a time of confusion where nothing in the church is clear anymore. All we can do is pray, learn the scriptures very well, so we will not be confused when the anti-Christ comes. It seems to be around the corner.
    Even more important we need to pray to God for clarity, and for his divine intervention.

    1. Thanks Alfredo. Yes, and remember to promote the greatest devotional prayer: the Rosary. Our Lady is most powerful. I have found Brother Alexis’ spiritual conferences and programs the best sources of clarity along with Radio Domina Nostra. By going to OMC Radio and TV and searching both for topics and conferences on the authentic Christian life and buying Brothers book, A Testimony of Peace The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi, more clarity has come – the kind of clarity that gives me joy and peace born of resolving lingering doubts about who the good and who the bad are andvwhat good and bad are.

      I love his apostolates not because they are comforting but because here i find access to the narrow gate, the desire to stay on it based on compunction of the gravity of my own sinful past life. This site has a moral integrity that I think Brother would not in any way exclusively attribute to his own strength and willpower, buy he certainly is an inspiring tool of grace. Here the fullness and gratuitousness of Christ’s charity reign. It is, therefore, not surprising one might easily associate both the Litany of Humility and the Beatitudes with Brother. Woe to anyone, though, who pertinaceously disagrees with Brother by lightly dismissing the substance of the content he transmits and the charity with which he does it.

  2. Reading Benedict through Ganswein doesn’t work. No one knows what the archbishop’s motivations may have been or even if he was being honest. Maybe he gave that speech to score political points with both sides. Benedict is too intelligent to have made “substantial error” but could have attempted a maneuver to save the Church by enacting an Impeded See. But even if that were the case, the canon law which states that forced resignations are invalid is the real issue here. The fact that Pope Benedict has been imprisoned in the Vatican, is closely monitored, and not allowed to speak freely is proof that he really was forced to flee for fear of the wolves.

  3. One correction: “ Archbishop Ganswein has ever held…” should be “never”?

    Isn’t it as simple as Benedict XVI did nothing? How can he be in substantial error when on the 28th, he did nothing? Am I oversimplifying the facts that he said he would do something on the 11th then 17 days later did nothing except stay in the Vatican? Is 17 another sign of triumph over the errors of 1517, 1717, and 1917?

    In regards to Barnhardt, I am grateful for her research and intro, but can no longer trust her blog. Accusations of larceny, fraud, and jail cross the line. Hyperbole like “15-dimensional underwater chess” is textbook gaslighting.

  4. Re Abp. Ganswein:
    “No one is able to serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and he will love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and he will despise/ignore the other. . . . ” Matthew 6: 24

    I concluded a long time ago that the devil decided to twist the truth and divide supporters of B16 by deceiving discrediting Ann Barnhardt after her original, true observation that B16’s “resignation” was invalid. She needs prayer. Meanwhile, let other serious theologians and canon lawyers keep discussing this matter in the public forum to alert good but clueless Catholics of what is happening to the papacy.
    Benedict XVI appears to be the “katechon” keeping the antichrist at bay.
    Did you know that a major “sign in the sky” in the second half of June will line up all the classical planets with the crescent moon on 24 June?
    To the Maji, (or their modern equivalents) this sign in the heavens would classically have indicated a major world change. . . . also note that “planet 9” enters our solar system this September, with gravitational and electromagnetic effects on planetary orbits and, perhaps, pole-shift on earth.
    This “wandering planet” might be the cause of the prophecied “3 days of darkness” which are predicted to be in “Springtime.” (Northern hemisphere). Time will tell.

    1. Thank you R Wenner. Don Minutella encourages Catholics to not let secularists take over the use of the organic world in its ability to edify us. Your post is encouraging. Was it St. Thomas who said the stars impel but do not compel? It would be interesting to learn more about these things. I think Br. mentions St. Hildegard von Bingen as a worthy example. I have the impression the satanists have isolated such knowledge by techniques designed to get the majority of Christians to dismiss them as “satanic” when perhaps in reality there is a rich Christian understanding of them that would weaken satanism.

  5. Blast from the past, check out time stamp 1:06:00:

    Almost 2 years ago when Dr Mazza burst onto the scene, Br Bugnolo recognized the facts of Miss B’s refusal to engage or acknowledge his own work that continues to charitably involve objective facts and principles.

    My prayer these last 2 years has been: Dear God, please soften the heart of Miss Ann Barnhardt that she may most faithfully execute Your Holy Will with both truth AND charity. Amen.

  6. Benedict is the pope- the ONLY pope. Yes, his resignation is invalid. The Holy See is impeded by Bergoglio and all of his traitorous henchmen. It is also true that the Church is in eclipse. Our Lady of Fatima said as much. Let us all pray the Rosary every single day, do penance, and reparation for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    1. David, you are a convert from protestantism. At some point you have to recognize that it is only cradle Catholics who have the sense of the faith in their blood. We instintively recognize hatred of the Pope in even the most obstuse theories. Barnhardts thesis is one of hate, because it presupposes that Benedict is a sinner for having embraced a ruinous error. But her theory does not explain his consistent rational behavior. Nor does she even suppose that God asked the Holy Father to do what he did. WE know from history that the Lord Jesus has sent His Vicar many saint to counsel and forewarn him. So I am not being too strong in what I have said in print thus far. I could be much stronger. Just read Unam Sanctam. Also, stop embracing Russian Propaganda. Christ is your savior, not Putin.

      Regarding the charge of anti-papism. As Chesterton once remarked, the last dogma of Protestantism to die is the one which says that the Pope is the Antichrist, sitting on the whore of Babylon. And having discussed with hundreds of protestants and ex protestants I find this to be true, since nearly all of them are taught to fear the Roman Pontiff and to hate him. To suspect him of sin and to classify him as a demon in the flesh. Anti-papism is the habit of mind which tends to think the pope is evil. Catholicism is the habit of mind to think the Pope is honest and holy. Masons want you to transfer your catholic sense to Bergoglio and adopt a protestant sense for Pope Benedict. It’s emotional manipulation and it is one of the goals of the CIA’s war against Catholicism of which AJ and I have spoken at length at OMC Radio TV.

  7. Br. Alexis, if your view is that a valid pope can never err in judgment or compromise the truth out of fear or fall into actual personal sin then how do you explain Paul’s public rebuke of Peter for “denying the Gospel”, when at Antioch he withdrew from the Gentile Christians out of fear of what the erring Jewish Christians would think? Peter did not openly advocate his denial of the Gospel but compromised the faith by his actions. All the popes, clearly lacking “Catholic sense” after Fatima seriously failed to obey Heaven’s wishes and the misjudgments and errors in administration of John XXIII, and JP II are obvious, though in the case of JP II one has every reason to believe his poor decisions were made under threat and likely mind control. I understand there were also Valid popes in the past who actually lived immorally though never denying the faith publically. Popes have often been in need of correction. You seem to be saying everyone who had to correct a pope beginning with St. Paul had a Protestant / Masonic sense of the papacy!
    Your charge of hate and “anti-papacy” for Anne Barnhardt for her not understanding the motive for Benedict’s “resignation” when this has similarly puzzled many good Catholics simply is unjust and to me vindictive. You talk about a “Catholic sense” as if converts lack this because they were not raised in the Church. That seems to be another contradiction because the vast majority of Catholics raised up in the Church are massively deceived on numerous matters including most priests and bishops! I’m sorry my brother, but one thing I am sure of is accusing one of hate who has perhaps misjudged a pope’s motives (whose actions did cause great confusion!), who has stood alone for years denouncing fake Francis and insisting Benedict is the pope is one who really shows lacks a true “Catholic sense.”

    1. Here, David, you are failing to distinguish between a pope not doing something and a pope doing something. Benedict renounced the ministerium and retained the papal dignity and title and munus, while not fighting about the theft of authority, office, power and administration. You cannot fault him for renouncing the ministry as that is perfectly licit, nor can you fault him for not fighting when he has no allies. But if you say he did so out of error or a love of error, then you are saying a very learned man is an irrational ignoramus. And if you say that and you yourself are a convert to protestantism, who have never read the code of canon law before 2016, or a book of theology, or have a degree, or have neglected a historical study of the papacy in recent times, and do not read German the language of the Holy Father, and WHEN YOU ARE SHOWN ALL THESE THINGS you persist in saying he is at fault, then YOUR THESIS IS A THESIS OF HATE, since it will accept no rational argument which would cause you to stop judging him and faulting him and condemning him.

  8. Br. Alexis, what I think this gets down to is that you are claiming to know for a certainty that Anne Barnhardt, even though she accepts and defends Benedict as the true pope, is willfully and knowingly rejecting what she knows as the truth of Benedict’s perfectly legal and justifiable “non resignation.” And that she is thus a deceitful person in saying Benedict made a serious mistake in his “non-resignation.”
    On this account all of us who have called out the disobedience of every pope since 1923 for not consecrating Russia are Protestant haters of the papacy according to those who justify this inaction by claiming this call for consecration was “only” a request not an order. Catholic Pharisees can easily obscure the obvious here issue by a comprehensive study of the words “I request,” like they do on most everything else they wish to justify, like Super Traditionalist Cardinal Angelo Sodano who had the revelations of Maria Valtorta condemned as soon as pope Pius XII died, who had actually ordered her revelation to be published, the only “so-called” private revelations ever to be ordered to be published by any pope! So its not only Modernists (apostates) on the left have been enemies of the Catholic Faith but Holy Spiritless Pharisee Traditionalists and conservative Catholics who all share in various degrees one common fault, as did the Pharisees and Sadducee in Jesus’ day, maintaining their own human authority over the sheep. Without the Holy Spirit that’s all you have left.

    1. No one can judge the heart of another, so no one can claim that another did something out of error or malice without evidence. When the only evidence, as Cionci has established, shows that Benedict did it neither out of error nor out of malice but to oppose the errors and maneuvers of Modernists, to persist in saying B16 is in error or in malice can have no other explanation but malice of aforethought, that is, malice which is a principle of thought and goes before the consideration of facts or at least remains latent and ignores the facts. That is not a personal judgement upon the intentions of Barnhardt, that is only an evident observation of the rationale of her line of reasoning.

Comments are closed.