Patrick Coffin Proves That Traditionalists Never Get Tired of The Same Old Worn Out Lies

When I started this blog over 10 years ago, I was a radical traditionalist.  I believed that the Traditional Latin Mass was the salvation not only of the Church but of the whole world.  Like other rad trads, I had little use for the post conciliar Church, believing that we needed to reverse all the reforms instituted post Vatican II.

Quite unintentionally, this blog became a record of my journey out of that cult.  I believe my journey began when I consecrated my life to the Blessed Mother in 2011.  Through her guidance and protection, I attended my last TLM in June 2014 and have never looked back except in gratitude that I am no longer a part of that world of anger, hate, rebellion and deception.  

I have, of course, followed the Traditionalist cult and have written many posts about their lies and rebellion against the Magesterium of the Church.  Pope Francis has finally started to bring down the curtain on this schismatic movement with Traditionis Custodes and, as expected, this has only hardened the hearts of the Traditionalists even more.

The ire of the Traditionalists is almost completely centered on Pope Francis, whom they label a heretic. Many claim he is not the legitimate pope.  Patrick Coffin, who ironically was the host at one time of "Catholic Answers", has released a video entitled, "Top Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is An Antipope."  If you really want to subject yourself to this garbage, you can view it HERE.  

I am going to dissect this video because I think it is an excellent example of the absolute necessity for Traditionis Custodes and of the lies Trads tell themselves and anyone else foolish enough to listen.

Throughout this video, there is suspenseful music playing the background, trying to give the viewer a feeling of something great and profound being exposed.  Not too manipulative.

Coffin starts the video with this statement. This opening statement, like the rest of the video, is filled with innuendo, accusations and outright lies:

I try to live my life like a juror at a trial. . .examine evidence that is put in front of me. . . The goal is to rationally sift through the evidence, weighing out the arguments in your mind, thinking the things through for yourself.

In this video I present seven pieces of evidence that Jorge Mario Bergolgio, the former cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, who is now called Pope Francis, is an  anti pope. . . . I don't mean "bad pope", although there is lots of bad to be had, and I don't mean anti-christ, although him being a remote dress rehearsal for the anti-christ makes a lot of sense.  

An anti pope is a  man falsely believed to be the pope but is not duly and validly elected to the Chair of Peter while the real pope is on the throne.  

I would like to point out that one thing Patrick Coffin does not do when "examining evidence" is bring it in prayer to God, nor does he suggest the viewer do this.  Coffin uses only his faulty corrupt human reasoning to "rationally sift through the evidence."  This method can only lead to disaster and explains why his video is trash.

Coffin also states his first verifiable lie. An antipope is not one whom OTHERS believe is the pope, but as EWTN tells us, "An antipope is a person claiming to be Pope who was not duly elected or proclaimed while a duly elected Pope was still in office."  The distinction between Coffin's statement and the actual definition of antipope may seem small and insignificant, but it is vital.  And Coffin knows it, which is why he very carefully chose his words.

New Advent.org echoes this definition of an antipope:  "A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.  At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. "

In Church history, whenever an antipope has arisen, there has always been a struggle between the real pope and the pretender to the papacy.  The real pope has NEVER accepted the antipope.  I can think of only one case where the antipope did ultimately accept the valid pope. There has always been conflict between a duly elected pope and an antipope.

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict warmly greet
each other in June 2017

However, Pope Benedict XVI has said time and time again that he supports Pope Francis.  This is from as recently as March 2021:

Pope emeritus says some who are unhappy with successor Pope Francis have refused to believe he willingly stepped down

Former pope Benedict has chided conservative Roman Catholics who have not accepted his decision to resign, calling them “fanatical” and reminding them there is only one pope and it is Francis.

Benedict, now 93, became the first pope in more than 600 years to resign instead of ruling for life, saying he no longer had the strength to govern the 1.3 billion-member church.

Some hardline conservatives unhappy with the more liberal pope Francis have often voiced doubts about whether Benedict stepped down willingly in 2013, even though he has said several times in the past eight years that he did.

“It was a difficult decision. But it was a fully conscious choice and I think I did well [to resign],” he told Italy’s Corriere della Sera in an interview published on Monday. “Some of my more fanatical friends are still upset, they have not accepted my choice.”

Patrick Coffin is among those fanatics who refuse to accept this statement from Pope Benedict XVI.  

Coffin continues:

Six of the seven items of evidence have to do with the strange abdication of Pope Benedict XVI and why it is not only incomplete but why it seems to invalidate itself in light of the canon law that it purports to follow in abdicating. The last of the seven has to do with the possible canonical crimes committed by the liberal St. Gallen Mafia cardinals in the election of Bergoglio on March 13, 2013.  

Whenever you hear "St. Gallen Mafia", you know you have gotten off into fantasy land where the goal is to smear and besmirch validly appointed cardinals in good standing in the Church.  

Notice how Coffin tries to mitigate his statements by saying Pope Benedict's abdication "seems to invalidate itself" along with the statement about the "possible canonical crimes committed by the liberal St. Gallen Mafia cardinals."  That is Coffin's way of trying to say - hey, I'm just putting it out there for people to think about it.  I'm not saying it's absolutely true.  Yet, at the same time Coffin is telling us we are fools if we don't believe him.  

Coffin then tells us that there are "powerful forces both inside the Church and outside the Church very much invested in keeping people silent about this hypothesis." This is Coffin's way of trying to portray himself as the brave and heroic David (a/k/a Traditionalists) up against big bad Goliaths (a/k/a Pope Francis and those who support him). 

If there are so many "powerful forces" trying to silence this message, then why is it everywhere you find Traditionalists? These "powerful forces" seem to be rather impotent.

From Coffin:

I've been told. . . that Canon 1404 says that the First See or the Holy See is judged by no one.  Well, the context of Canon 1404 is the competent forum provided by a canonical trial. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not a given sovereign pontiff is the real pope.  I am not conducting that canonical trial.  I'm certainly not judging the Holy See or anyone else.  The cardinals of the Catholic Church are the ones assigned to sort out questions like papal elections and papal abdications.  

Coffin has once again lied.  First of all, Canon 1404 tells us that the Pope has the ultimate authority in the Church and that his papal judgments or rulings can never be questioned. The rest of Canon 1404 explains the situations in which the Pope has sole authority and the matters in which the Roman Rota has authority.  

Interestingly, Canon 1404 §2 states, "A judge cannot review an act or instrument confirmed specifically (in forma specifica) by the Roman Pontiff without his prior mandate."  This is very important to keep in mind when watching Coffin's video.

Secondly, yes, the cardinals elect the pope, but the pope, as in all other official matters, makes the rules.  This was recently seen when Pope St. John Paul II changed the Conclave rules to say that a simple majority elects the Pope.  That was changed back by Pope Benedict XVI who ruled that a two-thirds majority is required. 

As EWTN tells us: "Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."

The cardinals' only role in electing the pope is to follow the rules set by the papacy and to vote. Contrary to Coffin's lie, cardinals do not "sort out" anything.  To "sort out" would mean to judge the papacy.  No human being has that authority.

Back to Coffin and his lies:

I'm also not debating whether or not the Church has the authority to depose a pope who is a heretic. . . Whether or not Francis can be formally pronounced a heretic or even if he is a formal heretic, has nothing to do with the evidence that Benedict XVI is still the real pope.  

Nor is what I am saying evidence for sedevacantism.  

This is a binary question of is or is not Benedict XVI still the valid pope.

Again, per Canon 1404, no one has the right to judge the Pope or "depose" him.  But Coffin has conveniently ignored that fact. 

And so we begin with Coffin's "evidence":

1) The term “pope emeritus” is not only strange but has no precedent and is confusing.  It is downright confusing to have two popes in Rome at the Vatican, one active and one retired.  

Maybe if Coffin read Pope Benedict Letter of Resignation, he wouldn't be confused:

"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. 

However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

Pope Benedict's Letter of Resignation makes it abundantly clear that he is completely revoking the office of the Papacy. He explicitly says that on "28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter WILL BE VACANT." That means there is no pope at that time. Therefore, "a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."  

In Pope Benedict's last address as Pope to the Cardinals on February 27, 2013, he without condition gives his allegiance to the next pope elected by the Conclave:

“Among you is…the future pope, to whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience,” the pontiff said, apparently trying to allay fears that having both a reigning and retired pope living inside the Vatican might spark confusion or division within the church.

There is absolutely nothing confusing about Pope Benedict's intention, unless, of course, you WANT it to be confusing, as Coffin does.  

Second point of "evidence" from Coffin:

2) Pope Benedict XVI seems to have resigned only part of the papacy, the active ministerium, not the office or munus of the papacy.  

Pope Benedict XVI seems to have resigned only part of the papacy, the active ministerium, the executive sphere of the papacy that empowers a pope to appoint cardinals, to write magesterial documents and to serve as Head of State of Vatican City.  He did renounce that.  So he stopped doing but he didn't in some sense stop being pope.  In other words, he did not seem to resign the munus of the office, the charge itself of the papacy, the identity as pope.  

Notice again the wording used by Coffin: "seems to have resigned only part of the papacy", "he didn't in some sense stop being pope.", "he did not seem to resign the munus of the office, the charge itself of the papacy, the identity as pope."  Using phrases like "seem to" and "in some sense" is Coffin's way of absolving himself of the responsibility of telling such lies.  It is how lawyers get around the law when defending their guilty clients.  It is total deception.  

Coffin's statement that Pope Benedict "stopped doing" but did not "stop being" pope is actually true for every pope throughout history.  Once pope, always pope.

Once a man is elected pope. he will always be regarded as pope, even when he dies. This is evidenced by the fact that popes keep their papal name, they never go back to their birth name.  They are always referred to as "pope" for the rest of eternity.  All papal saints are known by their papal names.

But once a pope leaves the papacy either through death or resignation, he no longer has the authority of the office.  

This is actually a very simple concept which Coffin and all Trads just can't seem to understand. 

Continuing with this nonsense:

3) Pope Benedict’s longtime personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein has made statements in speeches and also in some interviews that appear to affirm Benedict’s continued papal identity.

Who cares?  Any statements made by a "personal secretary" of anyone have no authority or standing in the Church whatsoever.  

But Coffin tries to tell us that because Gänswein says Pope Benedict has devoted his life to prayer for the papacy, therefore he is still in the ministry of the pope.  And Coffin then gives this quote from last address on Feb 27, 2013:

"The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter."

As I stated above, no pope ever goes back to being who he was before his election to the papacy.  Pope Benedict can never again live the life of Joseph Ratzinger, and the above statement confirms his understanding of this.  As Pope Benedict said: "The 'always' is also a 'for ever' - there can no longer be a return to the private sphere." 

Coffin's response to Pope Benedict's statement is "If you're confused, you're not alone."  I guess the concept of the papacy is too profound and too far above Patrick Coffin's head for him to understand.

Maybe the problem with Coffin and other Trads is that it is necessary to be Catholic to understand this concept.

4) Pope Benedict’s correct form of address is still “Your Holiness”

He still signs letters and documents as "Pope Benedict XVI, PP" which stands for pastor pastorum or Pontifex Pontificum, both of which are formal titles of the Vicar of Christ.  He still wears the white zucchetto on his head. He still wears the white papal cassock.  

So why not a black cassock after his resignation?  

Once again, Coffin shows his complete ignorance (willing ignorance?) about the nature of the Papacy.  Once a pope, always a pope, for all eternity.  "The always is also a for ever."  

First of all, title has no power of authority.  It is a way of showing  respect.  Even in secular politics, we address a former president as "Mr. President." However, it goes deeper with the Papacy, as I have pointed out.  A pope, even when he no longer has the authority of the office, can never return to his pre-papal life.  Pope Benedict XVI will never again be Joseph Ratzinger.  Retaining the title of "pope" illustrates this truth. As stated, even dead popes are still acknowledged by the title of "Pope."

Coffin also says it is confusing that Benedict still dresses like a pope.  Once again, this shows lack of understanding about the office of the papacy.  Only traditionalists are confused by this.

There are at least two things Coffin does not tell us. Pope Benedict no longer wears the red shoes AND his fisherman's ring was destroyed.  Further, Coffin spins the truth when he talks about the cassock worn by Benedict. 

From a bbc article dated May 2, 2013 entitled "Benedict XVI: 10 things about the Pope's retirement":

His clothing The Pope emeritus will continue to wear papal white - rather than the black of an ordinary priest, or the red of a cardinal. However it will be a simple cassock, with none of the flamboyant hats and vestments he revived during his papacy (prompting the Wall Street Journal to ask "Does the Pope Wear Prada?") He will be giving up his trademark red shoes, wearing instead brown shoes handmade for him by Mexican craftsmen during a visit to the country last year.

His ring According to tradition, the papal apartments are sealed and the Pope's gold ring - known as the fisherman's ring - is smashed with a specially designed silver hammer when the Pope leaves office. "Objects strictly tied to the ministry of St Peter must be destroyed," the Vatican says. This time round, though, the insignia on Benedict XVI's ring was merely scratched with a cross so that it can be kept for posterity - perhaps in a museum.

Clothes, like a title alone, do not give authority to a person.  So even if Pope Benedict XVI dressed as he did when he was in the office of the Papacy (which. he does not), it would make no difference.  At the same time, clothes and the title show that Pope Benedict can never again be Joseph Ratzinger.

This "evidence", like everything else Coffin has said, is nonsense and would never hold up in a real court of law. 

5) There are at least three errors in the official Latin “declaratio” read by Pope Benedict on February 11 2013.

This is not the place to review them but I would direct your attention to the link to the 2021 book by  Prof. Estefania Acosta entitled "Benedict XVI: Pope "Emeritus?" Prof. Acosta reviews the Latin mistakes and reminds us that it is a principle of traditional canon law that every rescript, every brief, every papal bull containing a fault in the Latin language makes that document null.  The question becomes whether you believe that someone who is renowned for decades for his linguistic and theological precision, who could write, dream and speak in the mother tongue of the Church, Latin, would be so haphazard in composing the very document of all the documents that he wrote - this one would be analyzed for untold years to come about the most important decision of his life - the last papal act that he made. 

Coffin tells us "this is a strong bit of evidence here."  Really?

First of all, Coffin does not tell us what these "mistakes" are.  He gives us a link to a book which we will have to buy and then take hours to read. You can do that if you would like. I'm not interested.

So what are the mistakes? Is a comma out of place?  Is there anything that changes the meaning of Pope Benedict's words?  Why won't you tell us? Why do you leave us in the dark to just guess?

All Coffin does is insinuate that a man "renowned for decades for his linguistic and theological precision" could never make such mistakes.  Therefore, he either didn't write it, or he was forced to under duress (at gun point?).

Further, even if there were typos in this document, where in canon law does it say that a "typo" in a papal document makes it null and void?  Coffin doesn't tell us because there is no such law. 

This "evidence" is as useless as all of the rest of the "evidence." 

6) “Universal peaceful acceptance" by the Church of Francis has never really occurred.

The number of leaders who don't accept the Bergoglio papacy grows around the world.  

Really?  And who are these "leaders", besides the Trads, who don't accept the "Bergoglio" papacy? Coffin doesn't tell us, because there is no one else.  

Coffin continues with this delusion.  He hits us big time with innuendo, smears and lies:

There never really has been universal nor peaceful acceptance by the Church of the Bergoglio papacy.  If you're Catholic, and you're watching this, didn't you find something 'off' about him from the beginning, maybe from the first moment? Have you accepted his actions peacefully? Orthodox and traditional Catholic commentators all over the world - I was one of them - began to express grave reservations early on about the grandiose acts of super humility and mostly the doctrinal chaos generated by Francis and his ecclesial Amen corner.  Are you one of them?

Then Coffin goes on to give us whiplash.  After telling us that evidence of the invalidity of the "Bergoglio papacy" is that it was never peacefully accepted, Coffin goes on to tell us that this is of no importance.  Why, even an anti pope was "universally and peacefully accepted."  Of course, this is a lie, like almost everything else Coffin has said.

From Coffin:

The second problem is the principle of universal peaceful acceptance dates back before the medieval era when popes were elected by a claim by the people of Rome.  Besides, not only have "universal and peaceful" not been defined, the principle was never a defined dogma either.  As a modus vivendi in the digital age, it's an obsolete idea.

Coffin then brings up anti pope Anacletus II who reigned in opposition to real Pope Innocent II.  Coffin tries to imply that anti pope Anacletus II was "universally and peacefully accepted." 

Anacletus was proclaimed the pope and he ruled Rome for eight years by vote and a consent of an absolute majority of cardinals, despite the fact that he was an antipope.

Coffin is a prevaricator in the worst sense.  Coffin is a master at twisting facts to support his conclusions and completely mislead the viewer. 

From Wikipedia:

Anacletus II (died January 25, 1138), born Pietro Pierleoni, was an antipope who ruled in opposition to Pope Innocent II from 1130 until his death in 1138. After the death of Pope Honorius II, the college of cardinals was divided over his successor. Unusually, the election was entrusted to eight cardinals, who elected Papareschi (Innocent II). A larger body of cardinals then elected Pierleoni, which led to a major schism in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Anacletus had the support of most Romans, including the Frangipani family, and Innocent was forced to flee to France. North of the Alps, Innocent gained the crucial support of the major religious orders, in particular Bernard of Clairvaux's Cistercians, the Abbot of Cluny Peter the Venerable; and Norbert of Xanten, the Archbishop of Magdeburg who established the Premonstratensians and held a high rank in the Court of the German Emperor Lothar III.

The lack of support from these key figures left Anacletus with few patrons outside of Rome. Anacletus, with little remaining support, lived for several years and died with the crisis unresolved. In 1139 the second Lateran Council ended the schism, although opinion remained divided.

This was hardly a time of "universal and peaceful acceptance". The Church was very divided and in great upheaval, mostly Rome against the rest of the world.  

Further, Pope Innocent never supported Anacletus. Pope Innocent never at any time renounced the papacy to Anacletus. This situation cannot in any way be compared to Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

7) The canonically illegal behavior of the St. Gallen Mafia cardinals in conspiring to vote in their man from Buenos Aires in 2013 invalidates the Conclave.

This is false conspiracy all the way.  It is all about smearing the magesterium of the Church and undermining their authority.  It is Satanic. This is the very worse of all the lies propagated by Coffin. I refuse to even print these terrible lies here.  If you think that somehow validates Coffin, then have at it. 

The rest of the video is lies and smears against the Holy Father.  It sounds very much like the Pharisees railing against Jesus Christ.  

Anyone who accepts this video as "evidence" is living in their own reality, in total delusion.  Believing the lies in this video could very well lead to the loss of your eternal salvation.

Pope Francis has made it very clear that he will no longer accept the lies and division spread by the Trads. They have always been a divisive force in the Church, and since Summorum Pontificum, they have gotten worse, especially with the use of the Internet.  Thanks to the courage of Pope Francis, the Trads will soon have to repent and turn back to the Church or make their already soft schism an official reality.  Pope Francis is not leaving room for them to cause any more destruction in the Church.

If you wonder why Pope Francis has made this decision, I give you Patrick Coffin's video as Exhibit A. The Trads are true blue fundamentalists. They see life in plain and simple terms, black and white with no shades of gray. They feel free to judge and condemn anyone who doesn't agree with them.  They twist and lie and shape reality to be whatever suits their purpose.  They are harsh, humorless and judgmental.   

May God have mercy on their souls.

UPDATE: For an excellent analysis of Patrick Coffin's video, please see Coffin's alma mater, Catholic Answers.  Catholic Answers pretty much debunks everything Coffin says and in a much more thorough way than I have done.  Their prejudice against Pope Francis comes through, but they do not disrespect Pope Francis as Coffin has done.  

You can view Catholic Answers' response HERE.  I know it wasn't easy for Catholic Answers to do a response to Coffin as they view him as their friend, and I give them a lot of credit for doing it.