Barnhardt's error on Substantial Error

Catholic Dictionary

Term

SUBSTANTIAL ERROR

Definition

In contractual matters, ignorance or misjudgment about the essential nature, main terms, or principal motive of the object of a  contract

Apparently Ms. Ann thinks Francis signed a contract to be Pope.

Here is a copy and paste from Novus Ordo Watch which illustrates Ms Ann's error on substantial error:

 Error prevents a valid resignation from office only if the error is the substantial reason for the resignation, such that the Pope in question would not have resigned if he did not hold this error. Barnhardt would have seen as much if she had simply consulted an authoritative commentary on the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, which explains: “Substantial error is a mistaken judgment that is not of minor importance and is truly a cause of the consequent resignation. This would be the case in which the officeholder judged that he or she had caused serious injury to someone when this was not objectively correct” (James A. Coriden et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985] p. 109; underlining added).

In other words, for Barnhardt’s argument to have any merit even in theory, she would have to prove — not merely suspect but prove — that Benedict XVI abdicated his putative pontificate because he believes in a bifurcated Papacy. But of course this is sheer nonsense and has never been asserted by anyone, least of all by Ratzinger himself.

The official reason given for the resignation was an inability or, at any rate, an unwillingness to continue to exercise the office. In his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict spoke of the “strength of mind and body” he believed he no longer had “to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me”. One may speculate that the true reason was a different one — whether fear of a real or imagined evil, the desire to cause great confusion among Novus Ordos, the intent to enable Jorge Bergoglio to succeed him, succumbing to undue pressue by secret powers, etc. — but it was most certainly not his belief that the Papacy can be abdicated in a partial way.

If one wanted to argue invalidity of resignation due to substantial error that actually caused the resignation, one would have to show that Benedict was mistaken regarding his “strength of mind and body”, that he was in error about his “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.” That would constitute substantial error that was causative of the resignation.

However, we will humor Miss Barnhardt and assume for the moment that Ratzinger was incapable of resigning from the Papacy because he was in substantial error about what the Papacy is. If that were so, then, by the same token, Ratzinger could never have validly accepted the Papacy either, back in 2005; for if one cannot validly resign an office one does not know or believe in, neither can one validly accept it in the first place.

The reason for this is that any juridical act is rendered invalid by substantial error, not just a resignation. Hence Canon 126 of the Novus Ordo Code says: “An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid.” (The corresponding canon in the Catholic Code is 104.) What’s good for the goose is good for the gander here — and the same Novus Ordo canon law commentary we used earlier backs this up: “Ignorance or error about the essential elements of a juridic act, such as what marriage is or which rights are being transferred by a contract, of its nature invalidates the act — which must always be an informed action” (Coriden et al., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 90).

Therefore, if Barnhardt wishes to argue that Benedict’s act of abdication was invalid because he was in substantial error about what the Papacy is, then she must likewise admit that his acceptance of the office to which he had putatively been elected seven years before was likewise invalid. Therefore, this is a pyrrhic victory for Barnhardt at best: Even if she wins, she loses.

++++++++++++++++++

Her whole effort fails not only here but also in the way she first accepted Francis as Pope but one can see her becoming ever more irked over time about Pope Francis and his behavior and statements and so she only later invented a reason for her to try and ditch him as her Pope.

Of course, Ms. Ann would object to hearing someone saying to her - Ann, Francis is still your Pope - but she has no problem telling Benedict XVI - You are still Pope.

Sauce, Goose, Gander, Lady

That is, had Francis acted in a way she personally approved of she would never have been forced to search to find what she personally considered a valid reason to say he is an Anti-Pope which means she would have been perfectly fine with what she now say is a Bifurcated Papacy.

It's all about her feelings about Francis and ABS will illustrate how that is so by some copy + pastes from her blog.

On Francis  (March 2013)

Let me start with a positive comment. Remember, this is the best I could come up with:

If we had gotten the pope we DESERVE, we would now have Pope Snoop Dogg.

And thus ends the positivity…

Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome….Benedict thought that between the “Natural Solution” (the passage of time yielding the death or retirement of the bad guys) and the appointments he was able to make over the last eight years that he had set up the College of Cardinals to elect a successor that was very much in the Ratzingerian camp. Benedict was wrong. Not only did they not elect a Ratzingerian, they elected the anti-Ratzinger. In the 2005 conclave Francis came in second to Ratzinger, which is to say that Francis was the “opposition”

People, no matter who is elected pope, no matter what happens, none of this is going to be resolved in any way, shape, manner or form unless and

This isn’t going to end well in an earthly sense. There exists no cardinal who can fix this as pope… 

Here’s the next Pope.

Angelo Bagnasco. Pope Leo XIV…

On the same day the Vicar of Jesus Christ declined to reverence the Consecrated Host in any way at his inaugural Mass…

From 2011, Pope Francis, then Cardinal Bergoglio,…

Here is the full video of Pope Francis’ first Mass in the Sistine Chapel.

.

The Pope DID NOT GENUFLECT after either consecration…never occurred to me that my desire to do penance in reparation to Our Lord for the sacrileges of the world would include the consecration rubrics of THE POPE.

(On to May 2013…Unpleasant but Necessary Piece on Pope Francis 1

In the continued spirit of fulfilling my apparent vocation of being the person who faces and then clearly explains the unpleasantries of life, let’s have a little talk about Pope Francis.

Unpleasant but Necessary Piece on Pope Francis 2

Does this all mean that everything Pope Francis says is wrong? Of course not! But, it does mean that we should expect more of these types of incidents, and be able to parse them accordingly. Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and face facts. He isn’t a Ratzinger and never will be. Not even close. Thus, these sermonettes must not be assigned the kind of gravity that even the most casual of Ratzinger’s remarks merited.

Onto June 2013 Yeah, it is pretty sad that the Pope has to be rhetorically frontrun, but, as I have been saying 

Pope Francis, Man-Years and Punishment

We need to cover a concept relating to Pope Francis and economics. Pope Francis stuck his papal foot in his papal mouth YET again last week when he basically mocked people who had sent him what is referred to as a “spiritual bouquet”….God is angry. Pope Francis is indeed the Pope of our Punishment.

On to July 2013

On Francis the Chastisement 1 of 2

Now, on to the Pope. It is a sad state when one wakes up every day filled with dread as to what horrific thing the Pope is going to say today

Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ and is a chastisement….

On to August  2013   We have a pope who in his heart rejects the papacy itself…Yes, some foolish people are probably going to apostasize over Francis (Ah, a prophecy)

On to October 2013 

Pope Francis’ statement even MILDLY conform to, er, CATHOLICISM, then the problem is his, and it isn’t a problem of being “too smart”.  It is exactly the opposite.  Pope Francis is a theological and rhetorical idiot.

Hey!  So let’s take these Fruits of Francis and make a smoothie…

On to November 2013 (Remember Francis was elected in March 2013)

Unpacking the Latest Hot Mess from Pope Francis

She goes on to repeatedly call him Pope Francis

ABS tired of reading her Blog but note that for 8 months - EIGHT MONTHS - she not only accepted Francis as Pope but repeatedly called him Pope.

It was only after he had personally irked her past her ability to tolerate him that she began - (Not sure what date) searching for some Canonical reason to reject him.

Ms. Ann is a convert who has never studied Canon Law, never took a degree in Canon Law, never professionally applied Canon Law to any situation but this is the woman a certain type of man lets her lead them around by their nose.

That, dear reader, is a symptom of diabolical disorientation.

The former Pope considers him Pope.

Every single Cardinal alive who participated in the Conclave that elected Francis considers him Pope.

Every single member of the Episcopacy considers him Pope.

Every single Priest considers him Pope.

Every single Religious considers him Pope.

There are roughly 1.2 Billion Catholics and the number of nominal Catholics who agree with Ms. Ann that it is Benedict XVI who is still Pope is so small as to be invisible.

So why is she and The D.O.A. (Disciples of Ann) so insistent she is right and The entire Catholic Church is wrong?

It is the failure of her prophecy which has resulted in an increased fervor she is right and The entire Catholic Church is wrong.

Conditions for increased fervour after disconfirmation

Condition	Effect
"1. A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves."	Makes the belief resistant to change.
"2. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief."	Makes the belief resistant to change.
"3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief."	Exposes believers to the possibility of their belief being disproved.
"4. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief."	Exerts pressure on believers to abandon their belief.
"5. The individual believer must have social support."	While an individual might be unable to resist the pressure to abandon their belief in the face of disconfirming facts, a group might be able to support each other to maintain the belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

She has dug so deep and so hard that she and The D.O.A. could only rise out of that hole by climbing the ladder of humility by admitting Ms. Ann is wrong.

Will she do that; will they do that?

ABS doubts that will happen but he prays it does.

Friday Fun

 

JFK Conspiracy proved.

In going out to get the newspaper today it suddenly dawned

on ABS that most researchers had missed this subtle key that unlocks the conspiracy vault wherein lay hidden from your average lunatic the facts proving there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

We at ABE * Ministry are not long-winded about these matters and so we will simply produce the facts and let the reader decide for his own self whether Amateur Brain Surgeon is a genius or in serious need of hospitalisation and anti-psychotic medication.

And off we go...


Item A. This was the number one song in Country and Western Music on November 23 1963, the day after JFK was murdered.

The reference to I'm leaving it all up to you, was just the establishment's sly message to Lee Harvey Oswald that he had already been framed as the patsy and that it was too late for him to do anything about it...

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1963

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the Billboard Hot 100 number one hits of 1963.

		Nino Tempo and April Stevens
November 23	"I'm Leaving It Up to You"	Dale & Grace
November 30
December 7	"Dominique"	The Singing Nun
December 14
December 21
December 28

Item B.  LBJ was the vice president and he was born in the country in Texas

Item C.  JFK was visiting a western town - Dallas, Texas -  when he was assassinated

Country and Western...the link is too obvious to deny!!!

Thus, this song was the establishment sending a dog whistle message to the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, that this was the day (Nov 22, 1963) they had designated for him to shoot JFK - even though it was the establishment which iced him and, so, it is obvious they were not leaving it all to him but they were just playing him as a patsy.

Lee Harvey was a big country and western fan and he received the "I'm leaving it all up to you" 45 record in the US Mail the very morning - Nov 22, 1963 - as a "go" message that he must kill the POTUS.

Item DJ The FBI and the CIA both were involved in the radio DJ payola scam that brought down Alan Freed but Dick Clark skated because he became a snitch and so the government gave him special pills that for over fifty years that prevented him from aging. This really had nothing at all to do with the conspiracy to ice JFK but the opportunity to gratuitously reference Alan Freed and Dick Clark was just too much to resist; and, this crummy post would have been too short without it.

Anyways, back to the evidence...

The song rose to Number one on Nov 23rd, the day after the assassination, as a sly way for the establishment to triumphantly tout its own sinister black ops capabilities.

If there exists better proof of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK then Amateur Brain Surgeon has yet to make it up.

* Against Basically Everything

Barnhardt before Brother Bugnolo

Here is a link to the Holy See website with the former Pope’s resignation in English.

Yeah, he resigned entirely and did not retain any part of the Papacy

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

Here is an explanation of how Ms. Ann is mistaken in her claim of substantial error.  She made the error because she (she is a convert right ?) never studied Latin, reads Latin or writes Latin whereas Pope Benedict XVI does all of those things and has for scores of year.

In any event, Ms. An errs on her claims of substantial error because she does not know what that means.

Here is a correction of her from a man at The Novus Ordo Watch Blog:

Error prevents a valid resignation from office only if the error is the substantial reason for the resignation, such that the Pope in question would not have resigned if he did not hold this error. 

Barnhardt would have seen as much if she had simply consulted an authoritative commentary on the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, which explains: “Substantial error is a mistaken judgment that is not of minor importance and is truly a cause of the consequent resignation. This would be the case in which the officeholder judged that he or she had caused serious injury to someone when this was not objectively correct” (James A. Coriden et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985] p. 109; underlining added).

In other words, for Barnhardt’s argument to have any merit even in theory, she would have to prove — not merely suspect but prove — that Benedict XVI abdicated his putative pontificate because he believes in a bifurcated Papacy. But of course this is sheer nonsense and has never been asserted by anyone, least of all by Ratzinger himself.

The official reason given for the resignation was an inability or, at any rate, an unwillingness to continue to exercise the office. In his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict spoke of the “strength of mind and body” he believed he no longer had “to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me”. One may speculate that the true reason was a different one — whether fear of a real or imagined evil, the desire to cause great confusion among Novus Ordos, the intent to enable Jorge Bergoglio to succeed him, succumbing to undue pressue by secret powers, etc. — but it was most certainly not his belief that the Papacy can be abdicated in a partial way.

If one wanted to argue invalidity of resignation due to substantial error that actually caused the resignation, one would have to show that Benedict was mistaken regarding his “strength of mind and body”, that he was in error about his “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.” That would constitute substantial error that was causative of the resignation.

Even though the former Pope, quite recently,  continues to publicly correct his “supporters” (with supporters like Ann who needs enemies?)….

March 2021: In the interview, which took place in the Vatican’s monastery of Mater Ecclesiae, where he lives, Benedict smacked down “fanatics” who failed to accept the legitimacy of Francis and believe that there are two pontiffs who are opposed on church policy.

“There aren’t two popes,” Benedict told Italian reporters, “the pope is only one.”

…The D.O.A Gang  (Disciples of Ann) insists he is Pope .

Here is the testimony of a former member of The D.O.A. Gang testifying as to why he is ex D.O.A.

https://romalocutaest.com/2019/05/03/the-testimony-of-a-former-benevacantist/

It was Ms. Ann who first began the Francis ain't Pope Fiasco, Benedict is, not Brother Bugnolo 

https://gloria.tv/post/bNyYtxaX3q8B29KcC7RkRhqYg

The following links have to do with both Barnhardt and Bugnolo and how they are leading others into serious and substantial error that are quite consequential.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/br-bugnolos-attempt-to-redefine.html

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/more-spin-from-br-bugnolo.html  

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/aresponse-to-ann-barnhardt-by-paul.html

 http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html  

 https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/

https://onepeterfive.com/objection-answer-francis-pope/

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/cardinal-ratzinger-benevacantists-are.html

ABS thinks real Catholics will read the links and conclude that Barnhardt and Bugnolo are the battalion leaders of an tiny cohort of crazies...

(He doesn't mean that in a churlish way) 

O, some additions:

Dr Peters. "In light of the law"

....What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11). Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope. 

+++++++++++++++

“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)


It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

+++++++++++++++

These explanations will be gainsaid by The D.O.A. because that Occult Cult is possessed of a shared delusion and delusions are not correctable by reason or fact.

Prayer and fasting is what is needed to cast out this diabolical delusion.

+++++++++++++++++=

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The essence of the Occult Cult's argument is that Universal Acceptance is nugatory owing to five or six canonists claiming the Latin Text of the resignation/abdication contained technical inaccuracies even though the Universal Acceptance accounts for their existence and claims.

Well, so what if over 1.2 billion catholics - all Bishops and virtually all the lay Catholic faithful -accepted Francis as Pope ?

The sedevacantists (they don't have communion with Pope Francis whom they claim aint Pope) says that because a handful of Canonists don't accept him that means he aint pope.

They want a debate about this.

Good Lord, it takes all of thirteen seconds to see how extreme and unreasonable this claim is and what would result would be if these claims were to be adjudicated in a Canonical Court.

NO papal election in the future would be accepted if just a handful of canon lawyers could be found to propose a lawyerly objection to the election.

Talk about legalism run amuck.

What about the far more numerous clans of sedevacantists, ought not they first get a shot at having a canonical court adjudicate their claims first because they are far more numerous and have been in existence far longer?

Once the claims of The Occult Cult have been responded to - and they have been -the best thing to do is ignore them.

But, ABS, that is not what you are doing.

Good point pretend interlocutor. BUT, ABS is Irish-Algonquin and, thus, predisposed to take on impossible tasks and missions doomed to failure.

This is what Cardinal Ratzinger taught as Prefect of the CDF in 1998:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.

Do us Catholics wish to add endless litigation to the error of Conciliairsm?

 

The point that the D.O.A. Gang * refuses to accept is that Benedict XVI was the Supreme Legislator when he resigned which means it was him, not Ann Barnhardt or any other person, who had the authority to decide that his resignation was legitimate and, thus, in sync with any and all canons pertaining to his resignation.

The D.O.A. Gang wants to force the resigned/abdicated Pope into a canonical trial so they can put him on record as to what he really intended when he resigned- - they accuse him of creating an expanded Papacy.

But, this is crazy. Who thinks treating a Pope the way lawyers treated Trump will improve Catholicism? Shall Robert Mueller be appointed as a special prosecutor of the Pope?

There is simply no way around that simple Catholic Truth unless you desire to add to the error of Conciliarism**the error of subjecting a Pope to potentially endless litigation.

* The Disciples of Ann Barnhardt

** CONCILIARISM

Definition

The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council's superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world." He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but "all the fullness of this supreme power." Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope's authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063). 

In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a "magisterium of theologians" or "consensus of the people of God" against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)

Bullets Barnhardt and BenedictXVI

The results of a new poll on whether or not Barnhart is right in her personal opinion that Bergoglio ain’t Pope but Benedict XVI is illustrates the diabolical confusion modernity has cultivated.

The four cardinals who submitted The Dubia to POPE Francis includes Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke who was what Catholics might call the Ecclesiastical version of the Chief Justice of the Catholic Church’s Supreme Court, The Apostolic Signatura.

Cardinal Burke has a degree in Canon Law, he has had a long and distinguished career as a practitioner of Canon Law, including acting as the Prefect of The Supreme Tribunal of The Apostolic Signatura and he knows that Bergoglio is Pope whereas the woman who has her own disciples saying he ain’t Pope has never studied Canon Law, never practiced Canon Law and has never been responsible for applying Canon Law to any situation but she used to trade Cattle Futures, hectored Christians they were not real christians unless they stopped paying income taxes, and pontificated that any Catholic opposed to Usury is anti semitic so, of course, she is now considered a reliable source to settle consequential matters of made-up putative Canon Law controversies.

Here is what the Four Dubia Cardinals had to say about the claims made by Ann Barnhardt and her disciples (D.O.A. Disciples of Ann):

We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus

If one takes the Four Cardinals who submitted The Dubia to Pope Francis and added to that four the other Cardinals and Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church then one would realise that the vast vast vast majority of Catholics – well over 99% – accept that Bergoglio is Pope where as a teensy tiny number of Catholics claim he isn’t Pope.

What does the Bible teach us Catholics to do if there is a controversy amongst our own selves ?

Well, the Bible teaches us to being the controversy/dispute to the Church and let it adjudicate it.

Well, the tiny few who do not accept that Bergoglio is Pope can not do that because they know the Catholic Church has accepted that Bergoglio is Pope since his election and acceptance of the Papacy.

Further, it is of Tradition (and old Canonists can be cited on this) that when the Church accepts so and so is Pope, he is Pope.

Well, one can just go back to the posts of Ms. Barnhardt when Bergoglio was elected and discover that she too accepted him as Pope and called him Pope and, irony or irony, she was part of the virtually unanimous number of Catholics accepting him as Pope which means he is Pope; perhaps she was like John Kerry in that she was for him before she was against him.

The idea that the personal opinion of Canon Law by a laywoman about who is and isn’t Pope is worthy of anything at all is a sign of the diabolical confusion of modernity.

Yes, Virginia. Catholic Tradition teaches nobody can judge the Pope.

Here is one last attempt to cast a light on the diabolical darkness of the novelty that Catholic laity should engage in AgitProp to judge a Pope guilty over some putative canonical irregularity and then demand he be tried.

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

God perchance has willed to terminate the causes of other men by means of men; but the prelate of that [Roman] See He has reserved, without question, to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of the most severe Judge [God]. Do you answer; such will be the condition of all souls in that scrutiny? I retort, that to one was said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, and again, that by the voice of holy pontiffs, the dignity of his See has been made venerable in the whole world, since all the faithful everywhere are submitted to it, and it is marked out as the head of the whole body”

Ppg 92-96 

https://archive.org/details/TheSeeOfStPeter/page/n117/mode/2up

Oncet, Catholics were aware of and adhered to this Catholic Tradition but, more and more, the spread of diabolical delusion has reached into some parts of the soi disant traditionalist movement to the point where some members of that cohort are advancing bizarre claims and making irrational demands and which situation is encapsulated by a line from the popular movie, Animal House:

Otter:  I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.