At 1:50, she uses the term ARSH on her slides, to which I have already explained my objection.
Starting at 3:13, says that the answer says answer "to this entire question" lies in Canon Law. Asserts that the papacy is a "juridical office", failing to mentiont that the Papacy is of divine institution and is above juridical anything, and the juridical reality of the Church derives from the Papacy.
Of course, she bases it all on the 1983 Code, begging the question that it's the legitimate Canon Law of the Church (which she admits).
At 4:30, she says that the entire first half of her 1 hour 45 minute video "completely revolves around Canon Law".
Around 7:00, she says --
The plain sense of the term ["essential error"] is meaningful. Don't kid yourself and don't allow yourself to be tricked or deluded by people who tell you that just mere lay people cannot ... cannot ... understand the law. Of course you can. But if you want to delve into what exactly this term "substantial error" means, I've got you covered.
And this is where I turned it off. So people who question whether we fully understand Canon Law are being "tricked or deluded", but in case you want to delve into EXACTLY what this term means (vs. some vague plain sennse), "I've got you covered." So here she's posturing as some kind of expert on Canon Law who will set everything straight by mansplaining to us lay folk what Canon Law really means.
She's entitled to her opinion about what it means, of course, as much as anyone else is, but it's this tone and posture of setting herself up as an expert in Canon Law to explain this to the "mere lay folk" (other than herself?) is where she crossed a very obvious line. One can argue or make a case for her interpretation, which then others can attempt to refute, but to claim to be teaching people what it means?
Topic: Ann Barnhardt : Narcissist (Read 14018 times)