Br. Bugnolo: I want to distance myself entirely from Ann Barnhardt’s horrendus modus operandi which poses as Catholic

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I used to admire Ann Barnhardt a great deal, for her cold logic. But as the years have passed, I realized that there was a lot more coldness than logic. Barnhardt showed this the other day with her vicious personal attack on Andrea Cionci, who has ever been the perfect gentleman calling her to give her reasons why she thinks Benedict XVI is the infallible pope but in total error, so obvious that Ann Barnhardt alone, without any knowledge of what is going on in the Vatican, and with no knowledge at all of Pope Benedict XVI’s statements in German — a language which she cannot even read — can see it, and she alone.

I am reminded of the Lollards of medieval England who hated us religious for taking vows and believed that the Catholic notion of just war was bunk.  That is, some people pretend to be Catholic, but really advance their own prejudices.

I am also reminded of the words of Ann Barnhardt that those who support Bergoglio cannot respond to the data-set. And I wonder what she sees in the morning when she looks into the mirror of her soul…

Cionci has gathered together a huge data set, which shows that Benedict XVI knows he is the only pope, that he knows there are not two legitimate popes. Barnhardt insists that he, Pope Benedict XVI, believes there are two legitimate popes.

To respond to Cionci’s invitations and open letters by insulting his masculinity is the sign of a true feminist and a fake Catholic. It is also the most vile form of ad hominem from a woman who cannot face the data-set, let alone rationally respond to the evidence that her accusation against the person of the Roman Pontiff is made entirely of the straw of her own prejudice.  And evidently it is a deeply seated prejudice against  Catholic men.

Ann, you have to recognize some day, that you are not the infallible Popess of the Catholic Church and that if you did convert to our Holy Religion it was not at all valid unless you recognized that you were in error, rather than that you were being enthroned as our Oracle of Truth. —  Unless you recognized that you were in error, and thus, that you can err. The grace of being a Catholic does not wipe away that possibility, of being in error.

I therefore wish to publicly distance myself from Barnhardt’s vile comments and perverse spirit of mind, which no Catholic who is honest could ever tolerate.  And I call upon Catholics everywhere to publicly remonstrate and denounce her for it.

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

15 thoughts on “Br. Bugnolo: I want to distance myself entirely from Ann Barnhardt’s horrendus modus operandi which poses as Catholic”

  1. As the expression goes, she’s a “mixed bag,” but then who among even the baptized is not?

    With respect to the evaluation of her “Substantial Error” proposition’s being a contradiction of infallibility: the norms of that charism’s applicability are very narrow indeed. One would have to argue that B16 sought to proclaim as a truth binding on the Universal Church for salvation’s sake some proposition contained within his Declaratio. Let’s be honest: the whole world is at odds over what that document did or didn’t say/do, so the argument that it is somehow “infallible,” stretches credibility beyond any reasonable entertainment.

    I had believed Barnhardt to have produced evidence that Ratzinger himself had once backed the theory of a “split/shared” papacy. The claim did not seem unreasonable, especially in view of his Dominus Jesus document of 2000 (which denied in one part what had been admitted in another) when he was yet Prefect of the SCDF. It seemed an Ockham-like argument that he was far more apt to be personally mistaken than that he had undertaken the rôle of Teutonic Chess Master, à propos the Ratzinger Code proponents. Did this “Code”, after all, adhere to the dominical admonition, concerning one’s “yes” meaning “yes, ” etc.?

    It has since been demonstrated to me that Bernhardt played a tad coy with that claim of “evidence,” leaving me to stick to one essential fact: for all his verbiage in the matter, Benedict has never renounced the munus.

    The man has left us to the mercy of “those whose authority it is” to handle these matters. The question remains: do these themselves know themselves to be such to the exclusion of others? Ought they not act NOW, insisting to His Holiness that he must either abdicate rightly or end the nightmare of the Bergoglian charade? Given their failing to have done so, lo these past 9+ yrs, what leads anyone to suspect they’ll know to stop sitting on their hands when Christ shall summon His current Vicar to eternity?

    In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

    1. Infallibility is the continual protection of the Vicar of Christ from error in his official acts which would deprive the Church of right doctrine in Faith by imposing that error. Indefectibility is the grace given to the Church so that She never cease to be what She is. Therefore, it cannot happen that the Holy Spirit approve of or leave in the dark the Vicar of Christ’s desire to split the papacy without reproving him directly and through others. To hold that He keeps the pope from doctrinal error and yet allows the most henious error against the unicity of the very office which guarantees protection and care for Christ’s is a theological absurdity. What I have argued is that since the Holy Spirit permitted this, the act must be theologically unoffensive to Him. If we fail to see what really happened that is our fault, not Pope Benedict XVI. Cionci’s research arrives as a perfect theological harmony of interprettion and observance of St. Paul’s counsel about how to practice charity. .. And if there is any Catholic who refuses to examine the evidence which Cionci has long ago and now in book publishes, that is their sin, not his fault. And to impugn his masculinity or motives for it, is devilry not honestly.

      1. Can we assume then, that the simony attributed to Gregory VI was “inoffensive” to the Holy Spirit?
        It may come to pass that the arguments of Signor Cionci & like-minded researchers are relied upon to serve competent authority as St Bernard’s conclusion served the Church in 1130; I have no way of knowing; I know of no reliable prophet who does. As to accusing Ms Barnhardt of playing the shrew: anyone offended by her behavior would do well to offer the Divine Praises in honor of his/her Guardian Angel that that heavenly aide assist Anne’s own to form better her conscience with respect to charitable conduct.

      2. Gregory VI knew that Benedict IX was morally perverse, held public orgies with men and women. He wanted to end the shame of the Church so when Benedict IX offered to name anyone his successor for a price and resign, Gregory VI who was wealthy offered him the price and the resignation followed. The clergy of Rome then duly elected Gregory VI, because he had the daring to use his money to put an end to the shameful pontificate of B9. This is not strictly simony and clearly the intentions were good. But nevertheless in an age of simony, it was a public scandal to the rest of Europe. So Gregory called the Synod of Sutri and resigned there to remove all scandal and open the Church to reform. There never was a canon excluding a simoniac from being elected, and no canon was violated. Moreover, this act was a moral deviation not an intellectual deviation. Gregory VI never taught anything which wasn an error

  2. I agree that Ann is very intelligent, but it’s her way or the highway. Anyone who disagrees with her is consigned to the grifter out to make a buck camp. She won’t debate anyone and will only talk to sycophants. She won’t even allow comments on her blog which indicates her insecurity and fear of criticism. I still try to listen to her podcasts because she does have a lot of insights to offer, but she has a mean steak a mile wide and eventually I have to turn her off.

  3. Yes. Keep on making it so difficult that no matter what. You will never be a catholic unless you are grown into it for many generations and unless you clean the toilets of cradles catholics who were there before.

    For God’s sake. Stop this nonsense.. Barnardt does not believe there are 2 popes. And has the full right to her own interpretation of things.

    1. You are terribly confused. No one said she believes there are 2 popes. She says that Benedict wanted two popes and believes there are two popes.

  4. Pope Benedict is the last Vicar of Christ ,Francis has consigned that title to history ,making himself simply the Bishop of Rome .It seems obvious he is the Bishop dressed in white in the Fatima vision walking among ruins.Whats your opinion Br Alexis.I know nothing of theology or canon law but my instinct is Benedict is the Pope.

    1. The last Vicar of Christ will be when Christ comes. Saint Hildegard says a lot has to happen before that and I do not see it happening soon enough for a natural lifespan, but as Don Minutella points out, B16 could live to be 180 if God wills it, to counfound His enemies.

      1. On that “preservation” score, there exists among the Copts an apt legend: amongst the LXX translators, the one assigned the Isaian passage “a virgin will give birth to a son” (7:14), wrote the Greek “parthenos” for the Hebrew “alma.” He then second-guessed his choice & was about to soften its strength by use of another word when he received an interior locution: “Leave what you have written & you will not taste death until you have seen the Anointed of the Lord.” Remember that the Septuagint predates our Lord’s birth by about 200 yrs.
        That translator, it is said, was Simeon, whose canticle we sing/recite each night at Compline.

  5. In all charity, at least readers of From Rome and Ms. Barnhardt all agree that Benedict is the pope, and Bergoglio is the antipope of the antichurch.

    1. @AL, motivated by fraternal charity I have many, many times via email asked Miss B to refrain from tagging her pieces with derogatory comments and opinions about Pope Benedict XVI, things like “worst pope ever” or “the one and only living pope whether he likes it or not”.

      Where is the charity in maligning him in such a way that, in my opinion, only brings scandal to the faithful? She continues to insist that her cold, hard position IS charitable in this instance and so far she will not budge.

      I will take Paul F’s suggestion in an earlier comment to heart:
      “anyone offended by her behavior would do well to offer the Divine Praises in honor of his/her Guardian Angel that that heavenly aide assist Anne’s own to form better her conscience with respect to charitable conduct.”

  6. I listened to Ann’s last podcast and l find her to be so extreme in some of her statements and deep down l think she has alot of anger sadly, l personally think she is lacking piety and softess , lf l wasn’t already a devout Catholic myself, listening to her l would no way want to become one. Just my opinion of course.
    Br Alex keep up all the great work you do and God Bless.

  7. I was just appalled by what AB said about Mr Cionci. Just really appalled. That’s about all I want to say. Nothing else will be good to say.

Comments are closed.