Cionci asks Barnhardt why 9 years after her conversion, she remained an anti-Papist

English Translation:

“I have learned that Miss Ann Barnhardt until 2007 was a protestant. Using her method of substantial error I would be able to say that ‘She attacks B16 because she is still a crypto-antiPapist” — Do you see the absurdity of the substantial error and of these slanders about the presumed modernism of B16?”

I would add myself, that Protestants hate nothing more than consecrated chastity. For this reason the father of their revolt, whom Bergoglio lauds, fornicated with a nun after breaking with Rome. If you espouse crypto-antiPapism and crypto-hatred for the religious life, one can rightly ask if you are a Catholic or a Protestant infiltrating the Catholic Church for the purpose of teaching the errors of Luther.  In fact, the CIA has promoted fake conversions like this as part of the War against the Catholic Church declared in 1953.

Catholics on the other hand love the Pope, presume he is not a sinner in all that he does and have a sacred respect for the life of sanctification taught by our greatest saints.


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

6 thoughts on “Cionci asks Barnhardt why 9 years after her conversion, she remained an anti-Papist”

    1. Cionci has already argued the facts. Barnhardt has refused the data set. So Cionci asks her to personally reflect on the prejudices in which she lived most of her life. And you know, he is right. Cionci and I are cradle Roman Catholics. Barnhardt is a cradle prot. A lot of prots have a hard time unprotting themselves after they convert to the Catholic Faith. So what Cionci is doing is not an ad hominem, its an attempt to bring a proud woman back to her senses. Scripture says women should not open their mouths in Church, because women often let their mouths run out of emotion not reason. And we men lament to one another week after week about this and it is nearly insufferable. Only occasionally we will mention it.

  1. Especially as lay people, will we not make more progress by sticking to the non-dividing points like the ones that Fr Gruner publicly put out in 2014 (here with Cionci’s more precise language):

    ~ The papacy in under siege;
    ~ There is only ever one legitimate Pope at a time;
    ~ Whatever Benedict did in his Declaratio, he did not abdicate;
    ~ An official investigation and conclusion by those in authority must be made;
    ~ I have the right and duty by my baptism to demand this investigation which will include the revelation of the Third
    Secret in full.

    It seems to me that to wander away from these non-divisive, non-negotiable points puts us squarely in the CIA “distraction-zone” where we inevitably and actively participate in the Globalist’s Luciferian strategy of divide and conquer.

  2. Ecclesiastical Freemasonry, as warned by the Virgin of Fatima, will reach the Vertex (P. Gobbi)

    Ecclesiastical Freemasonry is dominating many positions of modernist and traditionalist bishops…so they try to ensure that the Church breaks down either by leading many believers to conform to the world or by leading believers who do not want to conform to the world to reject the Holy Spirit, making believers they separate themselves from the Church, making them believe that it is contaminated with malefic CVII and that their last Pope’s have betrayed them.

    Thus, their bishops remain faithful to a political team and defying God.

    This time they are terrified of the true Vicar of Christ Beneficent xvi, whom God keeps alive against all his expectations.

    Blaming BVXI Vigano himself .. or other Traditionalist websites further confirm the fear that the True Vicar of Christ BXVI may continue to be the stone of the true Church and that the division they provoke is revealed today and we know that their traditionalist leaders are part of the same team ..linked to the eclesiastic masonery ..idolatry as the Old Testament .. to make the People of God take distance of the True or from the Holly Spirit of the True Church.

  3. I’m afraid I have to stand with Ann on this one.

    Ann is far from a “crypto-antiPapist” – her entire point is that: (1) the papacy is infused with infallibility; and (2) in order to “square” that infallibility with the events of recent history, one must correctly identify the pope. B16 is the one and only. This is an outcome that reverences the papacy and the infallibility it enjoys.

    That Ann points out that B16’s resignation was made in “substantial error” does not in any way inject a novel theory that a papal resignation could possibly be in error. Canon law would not contain provisions relating to “substantial error” invalidating a resignation if it were not possible. Ann is not suggesting anything that Canon law does not, itself, acknowledge.

    Good grief. It’s not that hard.

    I stand with Ann.

    1. If the papacy is infused with infallibility then how can the pope err in a renunciation of the papacy? And since that would be impossible, then the canon regards not the pope, but how we can know when he is truly or not truly resigning.

      If you study the history of the canon you will see immediatey that the position of Barnhardt is wrong, precisely because she failed to. The canon originates from the controversies which arose over the abdication of Pope St. Celestine V, since many believed his successor imposed upon him to do it. When his successor was pope, he published a rescript, which I have commented upon and translated here at FromRome.Info, in which he declared the renunication valid on the basis of the principle that a pope has the power to do it. The language in that decree entered into Canon Law and is reflected to this day in canon 322.2. There is ABSOLUTELY no implication that a pope can err in a renunication. It is beyond the Catholic mind to say such a thing.

Comments are closed.