Yeah, that ARSH thing has rubbed me the wrong way for years now.  "Anno Domini" is what the Church has always used.

Year of our Lord (Anno Domini). 

What does ARsh mean?

Abstrahentium non est mendacium et responso accepto in somnis, ne redirent ad Herodym, per aliam viam regressi sunt in regionem suam.

This is accidental, sort of trivial along the pilgrim way, to the Ann Barnhardt topic. Just to see a little survey of what's out there. He's a priest, and I guess Novus Ordo, free and accepted rite, etc. ?   His temperament and intelligence seem good, but V2 per second per second I guess. When Elijah comes back he'll be going 32 feet per second per second to agree with Galileo and Newton and so forth.

V2 32 feet per second per second toolaroo toolaroo, and later to fly at the speed of thought as it's thunk

I really can't think of any others, and I think your reference to her (and also most of the males) as "personalities" is really the right term.

While everyone is entitled to opine on the Crisis, I really don't care for all these lay personalities out there, most of whom do not have proper training in Catholic theology, setting up these quasi-"apostolates" ... and it reflects the grave disorder due to the stricken Papacy.  In normal times, generally only priests, and generally only priests with advanced degrees or licentiates in theology, would be permitted by Catholic bishops to become "celebrities", i.e.. to have various Youtube shows and podcasts where they're attempting to lead the faithful.

I recall an elderly pre-Vatican-II priest who visited Winona when I was at STAS.  He was a very humble man, and the seminarians flocked to him, trying to glean from him a sense for the true spirit of the priesthood, from someone who had been formed in normal times.  He complained about all the Traditional PRIESTS who posture as theologians these days, saying that back in the day, the 6-year seminary program was considered enough just to function as an associate pastor, and you would not be considered qualified to pretend to be a theologian or canon lawyer without obtaining advanced degrees (usually in Rome).  I couldn't imagine what he'd say about all these lay people who haven't taken even a course in Traditional Catholic logic, philosophy, and theology leading large groups of faithful on these various shows.  That phenomenon didn't really exist yet because, when I was at STAS, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the internet consisted of nothing more than a set of mostly static web pages ... and various videos and podcasts were unknown.  You had EWTN gradually having more and more lay people hosting various shows, but the internet is what permitted all these things to flourish.

How many of those "apostolates" out there are actually legit, you think?

On the other hand, credentials do not define reality, though we would not usually accept the same from secular laymen talking about medical or scientific matters.

Can laymen attend seminary? Even if they don't go into it trying to be priests?

The Lord is our salvation. He is our rock.

Year of our Lord is every year. 

We pray for Ann and others online.  Sometimes, being on line is a distraction to one’s own salvation.  

St. Paul was right
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." [1 Timothy 2:12]

She does make me think of this verse as well.  Then again, there are a lot of us here who post, but I'd like to think it's not nearly the same.

It's not the same thing. This is just open conversation, what Ann is doing is putting herself out there as some NovoCon leader which is what St. Paul condemns. If she were teaching privately, like nuns do, then there's no problem.

Yes, that's my feeling as well.  We're all peers here on a discussion forum, sharing our views and opinions, no different than we might do over a coffee and donuts in the church hall after Mass.  To extend that analogy, this would be like having someone get up in the church hall and deliver a talk ... a far different situation, because the individual is posturing as some kind of "thought leader".

Some of it is a bit relative though, and depends on the size of the audience.  If I were to put up a blog post about some subject, it still presents as if I'm just posting my opinion.  But when you get a large audience following your videos or blogs, it takes on a different aspect, and some of it has to do with the delivery.  If two or three Catholics had a podcast in debate format, where people had a discussion or argument about various topics, I think that too would be OK.  But when you set yourself up on a platform where you unilaterally broadcast your speeches, there's a different sense about it that's like someone delivering a lecture vs. just having a discussion.  I also feel there's a difference between writing and delivering "speeches" (whether audio or video) about various subjects.

It's about whether you're presuming to write with some kind of authority.  When you have a +Vigano or a Traditional Catholic bishop talk about a subject, their state and often their tone can convey a sense of speaking with authority, from a legitimate leadership position.  Bishops have a certain authority (even if not full ordinary jurisdiction) where they can take that kind of tone, and basically deliver a sermon, and "lecture" people about a subject ... in a manner and tone that a layman or laywoman should never dare to assume.

Here's kindof a hiearchy ...

1) Posting on a Forum -- very egalitarian, low authority (only as good as your argument is) ... unless the poster is a bishop or priest
2) Posting a Blog -- slightly elevated level of authority due to its unilateral nature (vs. being on equal footing with others in the discussion)
3) Podcasting -- slightly higher than blogging because it's oral vs. merely written
4) Videos -- even higher authority, making yourself into a personality with some pretentions of being a "thought leader" due perhaps to the size of your audience

So, basically, the more unilateral it gets, and the more the individual is posturing as if having some elevated authority (even if it's just due to the size of their audience), the more it begins to resemble "teaching" the faithful, which no layman or laywoman should ever presume to do.  It has to do with the extent to which you put yourself in an elevated position above others, and have an attitude of "talking down" to those beneath you.

Regarding Benevacantism, I don't see why it's a big deal that Catholics adhere to the idea. I've never believed that Benedict was still the true Pope, but given the Crisis in the Church, I can understand why some Catholics adhere to the idea. They are just looking for a reasonable explanation, and Benevacantism seems to help with that. In the colorful world of traditionalism, Benevacantism is just another theory. So what if some Catholics adhere to it. It's not the end of the world.

The problem I have with it is that many Traditional minded Catholics have been deceived by tradcasters to believe that Benedict was a lover of the Church and Tradition.

They all peddle the idea that he was liberal in his youth but became "traditional" in his maturity.

That's a blatant lie.

Why they all do this, I don't know.  

It doesn't seem natural that they all came to have the same false narrative talking points.

It has served the purpose of keeping Trads tethered to the Concilliar Church.  

Catholics deserve to know the truth so they can form their opinions and make decisions based on reality, not some false narrative peddled by fake "experts".

They deserve to know these tradcasters are liars so they stop trusting them on other issues as well.