Attorney Acosta: The Myth of Ann Barnhardt’s Theory of Substantial Error, part II

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

9 thoughts on “Attorney Acosta: The Myth of Ann Barnhardt’s Theory of Substantial Error, part II”

  1. I cannot believe that Catholics still have doubts about who THE REAL POPE IS!! In light of all the anti-Christ, anti-Church, anti-Mary, anti-Magisterium, anti-Gospel synods and motu proprios promulgated at the Vatican, by the ‘merciful’ Pacha-Papa, by now it should be crystal CLEAR!! This should actually be the time that all REAL CATHOLICS stand up for a modern day Lepanto!!

    Br. Alexis if you feel that this last comment might be too much.. please don’t post. Your discretion.

  2. Dear Br Bugnolo and readers,

    On a separate, but related front, I put up an initially very brief, two-bit defence of Pope Benedict XVI against the erroneous “substantial error” position at Mark Docherty’s Non Veni Pacem blog.

    Mark was kind and courteous enough to engage with me and posted all of my responses.

    My last one ended up including (I believe) some original work, regarding a video he posted for me as evidence that Pope Benedict XVI had publicly verbally acknowledged Bergoglio as “Holy Father”.

    In fact, careful listening to and transcription of the word translated as “Father” indicates that the word uttered was probably anything but “Padre”.

    Is this important?

    I sincerely believe so, but honestly, I don’t know.

    I’ve spent some hours on it now, including gathering others’ opinions on the words actually stated using an untitled audio only MP3 extract of the sentence which allegedly contains the words translated as “Holy Father”.

    By far the majority of the respondents so far are neither Italian speakers, nor Catholics, nor aware of the speaker and subject, which means they have no preconceived idea what they “should” have heard.

    Please see my last comment little below the video Mark posted for more details here:

    I would be very happy to share the unnamed 3 second audio file with and/or Ordo Militaris Catholicus for the administrator(s) of either of these websites to canvas a poll to get wider opinions.

    1. Let’s hear the audio file. But let’s not fall for a straw man. There is absolutely NO legal basis for restricting the phrase, “holy father” to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, Saint Francis calls God the Father, Holy Father, Pater sancte, in his commentary on the Pater Noster. I know this because I am the translator of the critical edition of his writings. Are we to suppose then that St. Francis though God the Father was the Pope? Even in monasteries, a friar can call a priest friar, holy father, as a term of respect for any friar who is a priest. It’s like the term papa, pope in Italian. The Roman Pontiffs call the Coptic Patriarch by this title, and the Ukrainians call the Roman Pontiff by this title. It certainly does not mean that the speakers recognize that the one named is the Vicar of Jesus Christ. This is why canon 332.2 does not determine the validity of a renuniciation by titles of address employed after the act, but zeros in on the very nature of the act itself, which must renounce the petrine munus.

      1. Indeed.
        And I noted that Pope Benedict XVI could have been addressing our Most Holy Father of the Blessed Trinity, following Jesus’ example.
        However, it was Mark Docherty that thought he had dealt a death blow to my argument with video evidence.
        As a media distribution technology person, I am hard to sway with video evidence unless I can be 100% sure of its provenance and handling.
        In fact, Mark’s video evidence backfired badly if you listen to what Pope Benedict XVI actually said.

  3. Paul Jackson – The video Mark posted isn’t the full speech that Pope Benedict made. If you watch it beginning at the 33:00 mark here:
    he does indeed says “Santo Padre” three times. The speech is also on the Vatican website, properly translated.

    However, from the article you posted from Andrea Cionci, he explains:
    “The problem – according to the disputes – would lie in the fact that Benedict XVI addressed Bergoglio as the “Holy Father”.

    First of all, some general considerations: since Pope Benedict is formally impeded and in the presence of his impeder, the fact that he has called him “Holy Father” has no canonical, testimonial or circumstantial value, as a person would not have, who, under threat from a kidnapper, addressed him respectfully calling him ” Mr. Owner”. Moreover, as we have already seen HERE , the fact that Pope Benedict XVI addresses Bergoglio with a generic papal title does not prove anything, because he could address in a similar way to the current Pope Theodore II, Patriarch of Alexandria and Africa , which is Coptic Orthodox and is not neither Catholic nor Roman.

    What is needed is his univocal pronouncement: “the pope is one (that is, the Roman one) … and he is Francis”, and this second sentence has not arrived FOR EIGHT YEARS.”

    1. Thank you, Charmaine, for this link. — As an anthropologist, I am immediately shocked by seeing this video. Because, in a moment commemorating the 65th anniversary of his priesthood, he is relegated to the corner of the room, when, all humanity and respect would require that he be placed in a chair on the center of one side. Bergoglio is looking at him with pure hate and annoyance. The body language is all wrong. The eye of the Holy Father on the left side of his body is strangely worried and off position. This is clearly a discourse contrived, like a soviet stage trial, around the ego of Bergoglio. To focus in on the words, Holy Father, in such an event, is to practice the worse sort of searching for a pin in a pile of hay, to prove its not a haystack….

  4. Crisis Magazine currently (14 July) has a lightweight and trivial discussion ( as podcast and transcript of same) of Benepapalists and the grounds for their thinking people who so think are not to be trusted, though history might prove them correct.
    They’re not even acquainted with the best books in English on the topic! No reference to the fact that Canon Law itself states how Latin words are to be interpreted; that there is no need for Latin dictionaries which permit “Munus” to be the equivalent of “Ministerium”. Fairly makes my blood boil.

Comments are closed.