#276: Reactions to My “Francis Is an Anti-Pope” Video

#276: Reactions to My “Francis Is an Anti-Pope” Video

In this episode of The Patrick Coffin Show, I review some of the establishment Catholic media reactions to my recent video about Pope Benedict still being the true Pontiff, and I invite Michael Voris to a live debate on the evidence on his own Church Militant platform.CM Resistance members across the country got emails warning members that if they agree with the conclusion of the evidence, they will be removed, as the “theory” is guilty of “deliberately leading souls astray.”Is that so?

Points Covered in this episode

  • Various responses to the video reveal a lot about bias and group think
  • Church Militant is vehemently opposed to evidence the leadership doesn’t seem to have examined closely
  • The aversion to having uncomfortable conversations
  • A call to adult conversation
  • The reality of copycat mimesis and group think
  • Friendly debate invitation

Resources mentioned in this episode


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified

Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.

On the Faux Consecration

On the Faux Consecration

In this video, I summarize the reasons why I think the “Consecration of Ukraine and Russia” of March 25, 2022, is not only an ape of a Consecration but could have disastrous effects. God forbid.


  • Only a valid Pope can do a valid Marian consecration. Pope Benedict XVI is the true Roman Pontiff because he did not resign the office, or “munus”, of the papacy. See the video below for more background on the evidence for this conclusion.)

  • How strange that Pope Benedict appears in photos, meetings with friends and cardinals, weighs in on the Church crisis, but is not permitted to be a few thousand yards away for such a momentous event for the universal Church? His Mater Ecclesiae residence is literally just over the hill in the Vatican Gardens.

  • It is NOT being done according to the original 1917 formula in the request of the Mother of God, nor in the 1929 request made again through the surviving seer of Fatima, Sister Lucia.

  • If this were a true Consecration involving “all the bishops of the world” with global implications for all of humanity, don’t you think the Vatican would have given it a little more advance notice than a week and a half beforehand?

  • Since the March 15 announcement, the initial “Franciscan wording” has been altered.
    Now it’s this long-winded blend of woke ideology, Freemasonic buzz words, and saccharine sentiments with some traditional sounding phrases thrown in to hook the naive.

  • If the March 25, 1984 Consecration by Pope John Paul II was “accepted by heaven,” why is it being done AGAIN by Francis 38 years later?

  • Could it be that Russia is still not converted?

  • There are three possible outcomes:

    1) Nothing will change, the Ukraine-Russia conflict will continue until it ends, hopefully with Ukraine accepting her neutral buffer state status.

    2) It will escalate fast and get much worse since we’re really dealing with the ape of a consecration. God forbid.

    3) Almighty God will permit a quick end to the conflict, and the world will applaud its worldly leader as a miracle worker and prophet of peace (but it won’t be because of the Consecration)

  • Over the last 100 years, Sovereign Pontiffs have not done the Fatima consecration correctly. One miss after another, from pope after pope. My, we Catholics love tradition!


  • Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is An AntiPope VIDEO

  • Acosta interview on details of the evidence VIDEO

  • Text of the 1929 Fatima request, with timeline. Article from EWTN here.

  • Text of Francis’ March 25, 2022 version in this ARTICLE.

👉Support my work: https://www.patrickcoffin.media/donate

👉Find out what lovers of truly independent Catholic media enjoy in over 20 countries. It’s all about the gospel without compromise. It’s not for everyone but it might be for you:www.coffinnation.com


#275: Catholic Anti-Feminism—Stephanie Gordon

#275: Catholic Anti-Feminism—Stephanie Gordon

Stephanie Gordon is the wife of author podcaster Timothy Gordon, and the mother of their seven kids. She has written a book called Ask Your Husband: A Catholic Guide for Femininity, which has been quite the object of derision in the Catholic internet space.

Most of her critics are working Catholic women who consider themselves conservative and some are authors with their own books against Mrs. Gordon’s thesis. Indeed, she has touched the ecclesial third rail by defending the biblical and magisterial tradition of Catholic husbands imitating Christ through servant leadership and Catholic wives submitting to their husbands.

It seems less than 1% of self-identifying Catholic conservatives want to go touch this third rail out of misplaced fear of angry women who think submission means slavery and headship means tyranny.

Points Covered in this episode

  • Why is this book now from this author
  • The many biblical passages that affirm wifely submission and why it’s not “culturally conditioned” out of binding relevance
  • A brief history of the Church’s teaching against married women working outside the home
  • Why you never hear women saying, “Let me ask the boss,” whereas it’s a cliche among men to say the words regarding their wives.
  • How feminism made deep and wide inroads into the mindset of Catholics
  • Pro tips on making marriage great again

Resources mentioned in this episode


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified

Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.

#274: Meet the Freedom Fighters at Reawaken America San Diego

#274: Meet the Freedom Fighters at Reawaken America San Diego


I traveled to San Diego to join the media team covering the Southern California Reawaken America Tour with General Michael Flynn (whom I will be interviewing in the future). I met some great freedom fighters, and got to hang out with four leaders who are featured in this week’s episode: 

Guests appearing:

Dr. Andy Wakefield: an academic gastroenterologist turned filmmaker, in 1995, as an academic physician working in a London teaching hospital, he was contacted by the parent of an autistic child with stomach issues. He soon learned from several other parents with autistic behaviors, that their children’s regressive behavior immediately followed an MMR vaccine. He started investigating a possible role between gastrointestinal issues, the MMR vaccine, and neurological injury in children. The ensuing report, written with 12 others, would catapult Wakefield into becoming one of the most controversial figures in the history of Medicine. See his movie link below.

Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, inspirational speaker, former co-host of The 700 Club Canada, and author of Relentless Redemption. Laura-Lynn now hosts Live with Laura-Lynn, a daily podcast bringing attention to current news and politics from a Christian perspective in Canada. To watch Laura-Lynn’s videos free from censorship from Big Tech Platforms, see below.

Dr Bryan Ardis is a chiropractor, acupuncturist, and the Chief Formulating Officer of TruLabs. He is married to his wife Jayne, and together they have eight children. He completed his Bachelor’s Degree and his Doctorate Degree at Parker College of Chiropractic in 2004 and has exposed the lies and corruption of Tony Fauci and the Big Pharma cabal. His father-in-law was the victim of medical murder in 2020. See the link below to his podcast.

Seth “Captain K” Keshel, MBA, is a former Army Captain of Military Intelligence and Afghanistan veteran. His analytical method is known worldwide and has been recognized by President Donald Trump. His number-crunching in the area of baseball and election processes are now famous. See his website and Telegram channel below.

Resources mentioned in this episode


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified

Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.

#273: From Covid to Truckers to Ukraine-Russia—Dr. E. Michael Jones

#273: From Covid to Truckers to Ukraine-Russia—Dr. E. Michael Jones


Have you noticed how fast Covid left the front pages, and then the next over-saturated story of the Ottawa trucker convoy, and now it’s the Ukraine-Russia drama?

Michael Jones aims his rhetorical blunderbuss at media malfeasance and oligarchic deception in this episode. The media industrial complex do not want you paying attention to what’s really going on, so they wag the dog, and create effective distractions.

In this episode, you will learn

  • How the Ottawa trucker event and the reactions to it revealed a crisis of democracy: whom do politicians represent?
  • How the Covid misinformation, the trucker misinformation, and the Ukraine misinformation are of a piece. Same liars, different lies.
  • Why do so many of the manipulators of the official narrative happen to be Jewish?
  • The connection between the Catholic crisis in Germany, and the secular crisis in Ukraine
  • Why no one in the western media is interested in seeing the Ukraine conflict through Russian’s national interest
  • The role of the message of Fatima in all these errors
  • How you can tell the levers of political power lie above individual heads of state

Resources mentioned in this episode

  • All of E. Michael Jones’ books and articles can be foundhere
  • Check out Culture Wars website here


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified

Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.






Please share it using the social media buttons below.

Benedict XVI Is the True Pope? The Evidence, and Answers to Objections: Part Two

An interview with attorney Estefanía Acosta

(Part Two)

Here we continue, with Part Two of my interview with Colombian author and attorney Estefanía Acosta. If you missed Part One, it is HERE.

At this point, someone will ask, “Are you calling Pope Benedict a liar? He has said many times that he is no longer the pope, and that his Declaratio stated that the Chair would be empty after February 28, 2013?” How do you respond?

Indeed, after February 28, 2013, the Chair was empty in fact (de facto), not by law (de iure). His Holiness Benedict XVI actually withdrew from the exercise of his functions, exiling himself in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery, and the cardinals, not having understood (or pretending not to, or refusing to, understand) the true meaning of the Declaratio, according to its original wording in Latin, materially celebrated a Conclave devoid of any canonical value, from which an anti-Pope would be elected, that is, a Pope of mere appearance, lacking true authority before the law, God, and the Church. 

Juridically, however, Benedict continued to be the sole holder of the See, the only legitimate Roman Pontiff. One must read not only the Declaratio but also, for example, the speech given by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, in May 2016, at the Pontifical Gregorian University, where he said: “As in the time of Peter, also today the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us —who are not in a competitive relationship between themselves, and yet both have an extraordinary presence!“.

Benedict did not “lie” then in his Declaratio, nor has he done it throughout these nine years. He has resorted, yes, to a certain ambiguity, through words and gestures that seem to mutually exclude. He intentionally wears the clothes, the name, the title, the residence, the protocol treatment of the Roman Pontiff. He addresses another man (“Francis”) as Holy Father

And despite his kind treatment towards “Francis,” and his declarations about “the unity of vision” that he maintains with the “pontificate” of his “successor,” he does not hesitate to contradict the false magisterium of the latter with a stroke of his pen. Is it impossible for us to understand that under all this ambiguity lies a coherent background message? Namely, the coexistence of “two Popes,” one true and the other false, who, although they fulfill radically different roles, converge in the same divine plan of the final purification of the Church.

In the moral order, we can apply the teachings proposed by several Catholic theologians about mental reservations. Will we deny that Benedict has been in a situation of extreme need, even from the beginning of his pontificate, when he asked for the prayer of the faithful not to flee before the “wolves?” Did he not explain later, in Peter Seewald’s biographical book mentioned above (A Life), that the spiritual danger against which he requested prayer was nothing other than the influence of the Antichrist, socially operative in our times? Truly, what has been done by Benedict XVI is not “lying.” Rather, in order to juridically and spiritually safeguard the helm of the Church against the threats of the children of darkness, and offer himself for her as a victim before God, the Pope has mocked the evil in such a way that, in any case, has been perfectly perceptible to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Finally, the validity or invalidity of the Declaratio has nothing to do with the mention made there to the future “vacant See.” The “Vacant See” is actually a juridical consequence that could only occur if the juridical act of “resignation from the pontificate” had existed under canon law. But since, as we have seen, such a “resignation from the pontificate” never existed (because His Holiness carefully preserved the Petrine munus), the juridical consequence of the vacancy could not arise either, even if it were explicitly mentioned. 

Let’s take a simpler example. Let us suppose a Catholic priest imparts his blessing (sic) to a homosexual couple, declaring them “husband and husband.” The first thing we would have to say is that a person becomes the “husband” of another only if a matrimonial juridical act is celebrated with full observance of the relevant requirements of natural law and canon law, one of which is obviously opposite sexes. 

Here, the consequence pronounced by the priest can’t exist because the couple is of the same sex and therefore cannot validly marry. Which Christian would dare say that such a priestly declaration will imply, per se, that the men involved really become “husband and husband?” These men will never be “husband and husband’—not even if the whole world, “Catholic clergy” and state juridical systems included, treated them as such. In the same way, Benedict XVI’s mere mention of the vacant See could never result in it in actuality.

It should be clear at this point that a non-renunciation of the office of one papacy is sufficient to invalidate the election of the subsequent papacy, even if the second is held by a holy and orthodox man. That is world-rocking enough. But there is another invalidating factor, and that is the conspiratorial behavior of the St. Gallen Mafia cardinals before and during the Conclave that gave Cardinal Bergoglio the entelechy “Francis.” Most of my readers know about the St. Gallen Mafia (a clique of leftist prelates), but how does their behavior invalidate the election of Bergoglio, and how do we know this?

If I may, on this point I would rather simply refer your readers to our book, but briefly: first, as you have rightly said, the irregularities that occurred before and during the 2013 conclave, including those of the St. Gallen mafia, are a totally secondary matter in the debate that concerns us. 

Although in our book we wanted to offer documentation in this regard for the sake of completeness, the truth is that the events linked to said mafia have recently been used by various figures in the Catholic world as a smoke screen to divert attention from the central point in the current crisis of the Papacy, which is the Declaratio of “resignation” issued by Pope Benedict XVI. I believe we must emphatically distance ourselves from this distracting trend and focus our gaze on who is truly the legitimate current Pope of the Catholic Church (Benedict), and not so much on who is not (“Francis”).

Second, the information that can be obtained about the mafia is merely indicative, given the illegal and clandestine nature of the operations of this group. It’s difficult to establish, on a factual level, if the cardinal elected in the 2013 conclave (Jorge Bergoglio) participated, and to what extent, in such conspiratorial operations, and if, as a consequence, he incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae prescribed in canon 81 of Pope John Paul II’s UDG.

Finally, the discussions about whether or not the cardinals of St. Gallen, finding themselves excommunicated latae sententiae by the time the 2013 conclave took place, could or could not validly take an active part in the voting, and so on, are as cumbersome as they are sterile. The whole Conclave question is secondary, and include margins of uncertainty about the probability of establishing facts in the case. This issue has academic value, though, and I discuss it at length in section IV-C of our book.

I’d like to ask you about supplied jurisdiction, or ecclesia supplet. Canon 144 §1 says: “In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum” (supplet Ecclesia, pro tam externo quam interno, potestatem regiminis exsecutivam). So in the case of Francis as antipope, does ecclesia supplet mean that his elevations of bishops and appointments of cardinals are legitimate, or are these null and void?

The canon that you quote speaks of the supplying of the “executive power of regime,” so let’s understand what this implies. By virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests and bishops essentially have three functions: to sanctify (everything related to the liturgy and the sacraments), to teach (magisterium), and to govern  (juridical/bureaucratic/administrative/governmental aspect, which includes the legislative, executive and judicial branches). 

Now, canon 144 §1 provides for the supplying of jurisdiction for those specific cases in which, those who must submit to an executive power, believe with some solid foundation that a certain minister is invested with such power, when in fact he is not. The same canon, in its §2, extends this substitution under certain conditions to the areas of Confession, Confirmation and Matrimony. Under this principle (supplet Ecclesia), then, the Church enters to supply the jurisdiction (executive power) that the minister in question lacks, for the sake of the common good involved in each situation.

We’re getting to the question of bishops and cardinalate appointments under Francis. The supplying of jurisdiction takes place for specific, particular cases to do with common error or probably doubt of fact or doubt of law. With Bergoglio, we are talking about a nonexistent pontifical jurisdiction. One could never resort to the Ecclesia supplet principle to legitimize the entire para-structure, the false or anti-Church built up by “Francis” on the (material) ruins of the true Church whose visible head, although impeded, continues to be His Holiness Benedict XVI.

This is especially true considering that this para-structure spreads support for the anti-Gospel, the anti-liturgy, the anti-law and the anti-Christ. Such an application of supplying would not only constitute a total distortion of the principle, but also a very serious attack on the common good for whose defense it is established.

Tying back to your question, the answer is: all the cardinals designated by Francis are invalid, as are the bishops from the juridical point of view—although, from the sacramental point of view, it is possible that they have validly received episcopal ordination, if the pertinent requirements were met in each case (laying on of hands, proper prayer of consecration etc.).

Some critics have said that this whole line of argumentation is advocating sedevacantism, what is the difference between sedevacantism and an impeded Apostolic See?

The term “sedevacantist” typically refers to those who mistakenly maintain that the Petrine See has been vacant since the death of Venerable Pius XII in 1958, and who consequently find themselves in a situation of schism with respect to the Popes validly and successively elected since that year (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI). 

This gross error rests, in essence, on the heretical premise that the Church and the Papacy failed in the second half of the 20th century—which is obviously impossible, given, among other things, the indefectible character of the former and the institution in perpetuity of the latter by Christ. Now, in a more general way, it is said that the “sedevacantist error” occurs every time some group of people, starting from a private judgment, refuses to recognize a Pope who has been validly elected, that is, with full compliance with the canonical norms that regulate papal elections, and accepted by the Church in a peaceful and universal way. 

Which brings me to ask about the principle of pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio, which is sometimes invoked to validate Francis as somehow universally and peacefully accepted as Pope. What does it mean and how does it apply?

Yes, an important question. Pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio indicates that the fact that the election of a certain Pope is not immediately challenged (or is universally accepted by the Church, under the criterion of a moral and not necessarily mathematical unanimity), at the very moment in which such an election is made known, is an infallible sign that all the canonical conditions necessary for its validity have been fulfilled. 

Naturally, the refusal to accept Bergoglio as the true Roman Pontiff, it is said, goes against the principle of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio. This position argues that, since the March 13, 2013 election was not immediately challenged but was universally accepted by the Church by a moral unanimity, one must conclude it was necessarily valid, and that those who question or oppose it are guilty of sedevacantism. This accusation shows up in the nickname “Benevacantists” that is sometimes thrown at us who consider Benedict XVI as the current legitimate Pope. 

Keep in mind that the doctrine of “peaceful and universal acceptance by the Church,” although it has been enunciated and commonly accepted as a dogmatic fact, it has never been precisely defined in each of its terms, and therefore its application in specific cases, and especially that of Francis, becomes extremely controversial.

It is asserted that the challenges to a certain papal election must take place “immediately,” or otherwise the adhaesio doctrine teaches that the Pope is the Pope. Which raises the question: what does “immediately” even mean? Some pro-Francis pundits say “weeks and months after” the respective election, but no one can authoritatively say how many weeks, or how many months, nor who gets to determine this time limit—and based on what?

The fact is, the Bergoglio/Francis election was disputed as to its legitimacy from day one; that is, before his “pontificate” aroused perplexities in doctrine, liturgy, and jurisdiction—even, in some cases, before the conclave where he was elected took place on March 13, 2013. 

We mustn’t forget that Benedict’s Declaratio itself soon began to generate public suspicions of invalidity, linked to factors of various kinds: metaphysical or ecclesiological, as in the case of those who denied the very possibility of a papal resignation; linguistic, for those who focused on the Latin errors in the text; juridical and symbolic, linked, on the one hand, to Benedict’s own specification at his last General Audience (08/27/2013), in the sense that his resignation related to the active exercise of the ministry (which, as we have seen, is clearly different from the ecclesiastical charge or office of Roman Pontiff), and on the other, to the typical elements of pontifical dignity that the “renouncer” decided to maintain (the titles His Holiness and Pope Emeritus, and the coat of arms, and so on).

We cannot consider that Francis’ “papal election” is the “official position of the Church” since, in his case, the pacifica hasn’t been configured, let alone issued by the competent ecclesiastical authorities gathered in a canonical forum, which is a definitive and juridically binding pronouncement for the universal Church in this regard. 

Interestingly, our investigations have not thus far been undermined with serious arguments, and for the most part have simply been ignored or silenced. Our contribution is to work toward the day when such a forum can be constituted, and the faithful may receive the full truth about the current crisis of the Pontificate. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux, in effect, did so in their own way, at a time when the ecclesiastical hierarchy was not infiltrated by Freemasonry to the point that it is today.

As you have said, in no way do we maintain that the See is vacant, because in reality it is impeded: Benedict XVI never resigned from being the Pope and therefore continues to be the juridically legitimate occupant of the See. By materially withdrawing from his functions and self-exiling in the Vatican, however, the See was left paralyzed and usurped by “Francis.” It’s not that the highest ecclesial authority is non-existent, unrecognizable or invisible in the face of the universal body of the Church, but rather, its legitimate exercise is being prevented. In short, we are not sedevacantists. Habemus Papam: His Holiness, Benedict XVI!

The Catholic Church has gone through the crisis of men falsely thought to be the Pope over 30 times in the past. How can this present crisis be resolved? What’s the proper procedure that gets us out of this chaotic mess, and does it matter who dies first, Pope Benedict XVI or Bergoglio?

The Code of Canon Law does not contain indications on how (nor by whom) an authoritative, binding pronouncement should be issued in the case of a disputed Papacy like this. More theological and historical research on the subject will be useful to resolve the current impasse. For my part, I have no expertise here, and therefore there’s little that I can say about it.

A possible solution would be that, at Pope Benedict XVI’s death, the true cardinals—that is, those who were appointed by Benedict himself or by Pope John Paul II—meet in Conclave in accordance with the norms of UDG, for the election of the new Roman Pontiff. I can also say that any conclave held under any of the following circumstances would be juridically invalid: while Benedict’s pontificate remains juridically in force; with the participation of the “cardinals” designated by “Francis;” and/or in accordance with any provision issued by the latter for the purposes of such Conclave. Both the person who is elected under any of these conditions, as well as his possible successors, would necessarily be anti-Popes.

Last question. The very idea of Francis as our latest antipope is scary to many Catholics, as though a trap door has been opened up beneath them. Some feel abandoned, confused, and disturbed. Why do you believe the contrary, and what words of hope and encouragement might you have?

Okay, let us ask ourselves: what can the world and the Church expect from God in the present moment? We have an infinitely wise, loving and powerful God; He is merciful and just at the same time. In justice, given our behavior as creatures/sons of God, what do we deserve from Him today, or what have we earned? We know that the worst divine punishments take place passively: when a generation rejects the Lord again and again and man degrades himself to a level lower than that of the beasts and prostrate himself before all kinds of false gods, God abandons him “to his shameful passions” and “to his depraved mind” (Rom 1, 18-21). 

Things are getting worse, fast. In the times of the imminent glorious return of the Lord, the peak period of human degradation in which “the apostasy is to come and the man of lawlessness is to appear,” God will “send a deceitful power, which impels them to believe in lies … to those who are doomed to perdition for not having accepted the love of the truth that would have saved them … so that all those who not only resisted believing in the truth, but also took pleasure in iniquity, will be condemned” (2 Thess 2, 1-12). It is, therefore, against the backdrop of divine wrath in obviously apocalyptic times, that we must read the temporal triumph that the enemies of God and of His Church have achieved by installing on the Petrine throne a man whose singular objective is the destruction of the Catholic Faith, and whose works have deceived, scandalized, and disappointed—shall we understate the point—not a few believers. 

On the other hand, the deepest truth is that God is truthful, faithful and loyal, and that all His promises are fulfilled to the letter. One of these promises is precisely the indefectibility of the Church, edified on the Rock of the Papacy as a guarantee that “the gates of hell [heresies] will not prevail over her” (Mt 16, 18). This promise is unconditional, totally independent of the behavior of man towards his God. The Holy Church of Christ is in essence indestructible, as is also, by nature, her Divine Spouse.

How to hold these two views together? We must keep in mind that divine justice is inextricably linked with mercy, and that its purpose is not definitive destruction but renewal, restoration of all things in Christ. God has allowed Holy Mother Church to be infiltrated at the highest levels so that all those who “went out from us, but were not of us” (1 Jn 2, 19) may reveal themselves, and be finally defeated, while true believers are increasingly refined, in preparation for receiving the Savior at His Second Coming. The Lord has taken good care to withdraw His hand, His supernatural graces and, more specifically, the power of the keys, from the one who has dared to usurp the place of His Vicar. Does the fact that lightning struck St. Peter’s Basilica—twice—on that February 11, 2013 tell us something? 

So let us rejoice! The Church and the Papacy remain standing. We don’t have an “apostate Pope” because there’s not such thing. It’s an oxymoron. We have a Pope, materially impeded, yes, but suffering and praying, in imitation of the Master. Things will get harder and harder, Patrick, it’s true; but, although it seems that the Church is crumbling, the supernatural vision tells us that, in reality, the Church is being purified, in the midst of the final battle against evil, from which she will emerge victorious and fully prepared for the Marriage of the Lamb. 

May that moment find us, if we are to witness it, crying out to Heaven: Come, Lord Jesus!

Benedict XVI Is the True Pope? The Evidence, and Answers to Objections: Part One

An interview with attorney Estefanía Acosta

(Part One)

Estefanía Acosta of Medellin, Colombia, is a practicing attorney with expertise in constitutional law, and was for years an official of the State Judicial Power and university professor in the area of commercial and civil law. In 2020, the fruit of diligent research and legal/canonical analysis of the Declaratio read by Benedict XVI on February 13, 2013, materialized in her bombshell book, Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”? The ‘Always Is Also ‘Forever.’”  

She felt it would be more effective to do a print interview since the details—the relevant canons, doctrines, and line of argumentation—are rather detailed and technical. Counselor Acosta writes in the lean, compressed style you would expect from a trained lawyer, and her replies carry so much important backstory and attention to detail that I decided it would be best to publish the interview in two parts. 

The very topic can appear frankly unsettling for Catholics. At first. Take your time as you go through Part One. You might find yourself, as I did, slowing down to concentrate as you read. 

Of the thousands of interviews I have done, this might be the most important. The stakes for the Catholic Church couldn’t be higher, the facts more verifiable, and the sense of hope more palpable, once you allow Estefanía Acosta to lay out—from one angle after another—the case that the sole sitting Roman Pontiff remains His Holiness Benedict XVI. Along the way, she clears aside the misperceptions of what happened on February 11, 2013, what it meant, and what it didn’t.

Read on.

First of all, thank you for agreeing to speak with me. Tell me about your background in the Faith. Have you always been a Catholic?

Thank you for your kind invitation. Actually, in my case it was a reversion to Catholicism. I had the blessing of being born into a Catholic family and attending a Catholic school, as well as receiving the sacraments of Christian initiation in my childhood and teenage years. This initial Catholic formation, however, was rather superficial, and I didn’t achieve, in that first period, the personal encounter with Christ that is what truly transforms our lives in a decisive way and impels us to leave everything for His love. 

So with such poor foundations, from an early age I began to progressively distance myself from the Lord, the Church, the sacraments and the life in grace—and then I received the “mortal blow” of a radically anti-Christian and anti-clerical university formation. But, after many years of wandering, in my worst moment of spiritual darkness, the Blessed Virgin Mary rescued me and brought me back home to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Holy Mother Church.

Reverts are not rare these days! Okay, how soon after the Conclave of March 13, 2013 did you begin to have serious concerns about what was happening to the Catholic Church under Francis?

It so happens that the rescue that I have mentioned took place at the beginning of 2017, and curiously, it developed in parallel with the knowledge and deepening of the biblical and private prophecies about the end times. So, when I returned to the bosom of the Church, I found—almost immediately—that she had been usurped at her apex (the Papacy), just as it had been prophesied centuries before. Between 2017 and 2019 I assiduously watched the famous “Café con Galat,” a well-known Colombian television program in the Spanish-speaking world. There, Dr. José Galat and his team denounced not only the heresies, blasphemies, and outrages committed daily by “Pope Francis,” but also the pressures and irregularities that had surrounded the “resignation” of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. 

I listened to these complaints with some fear, but I saw them as well-founded and coherent. So it wasn’t until 2019, after digesting and discerning all this information, that I definitively accepted in my mind and heart this truth about the malevolent Petrine usurpation perpetrated by Jorge Bergoglio with the clear purpose of destroying the Church of Christ.

Your new book, Benedict XVI: Pope Emeritus? The “Always” Is Also a “Forever,”  is divided into two sections—the first focusing on the strange abdication text of Pope Benedict XVI, the second on the Conclave that putatively elected Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio on March 13, 2013. Both sections have many facets. I’d like to start with the abdication first. Is it possible to compress into one sentence why the evidence is clear that Pope Benedict XVI did not, in fact, resign the office of the papacy and therefore remains the true Sovereign Pontiff?

Yes, it can, but before doing so, it is vital that we understand the broader context. It is evident that around these supposed juridical acts referring to the papacy—Pope Benedict XVI’s “resignation” and Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio’s “election”—numerous irregular and confusing facts have arisen. Here are seven: 

(i) The furious opposition that was raised from some of the clergy itself against Benedict XVI’s pontificate that was evidenced, for example, in the repeated “calls to disobedience” by the Austrian clergy who demanded “magisterial reforms” on points of sexual morality and priestly ordination (the endorsement of female priestly ordination, the suppression of compulsory priestly celibacy, the approval of homosexual unions etc.). Additionally, speaking to a more symbolic level, in the scandalous act of disrespect of those bishops and cardinals who publicly refused the formal greeting due to Pope Benedict during his trip to Germany at the end of 2011; 

(ii) The notorious threats against His Holiness Benedict XVI’s life, aired in the Italian media at the beginning of 2012, and publicly corroborated a few years later by Colombian Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos; 

(iii) The economic blockade of Vatican bank accounts, which occurred in February 2013 and was suddenly resolved the day after the public announcement of the Declaratio of “resignation” by the Pope; 

(iv) The plans of certain sectors of the Left in American politics and finance, aimed at “planting the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church; 

(v) The machinations of the infamous St. Gallen Mafia, among whose members were, curiously, the fiercest opponents of Joseph Ratzinger. Take for example Cardinal Godfried Danneels (RIP), one of the confessed leaders of said mafia, whose life was characterized by his systematic disobedience to the teachings that were imparted by Cardinal Ratzinger from his position as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and whose triumphant candidate in the 2013 conclave, Jorge Bergoglio, assumed, from the first moment of his inauguration as “Pope,” the banner of liberalism so loved by the mafiosi. And by “liberalism” I really mean here Masonic/satanic postulates; 

(vi) The apparent Papal diarchy that has arisen as a result of the “juridical acts” in question and of the symbolically significant behaviors of both Pope Benedict XVI and “Pope Francis;” 

(vii) To all of the above are added, of course, the biblical and private revelations about the great apostasy, which would be “institutionalized” from the highest ecclesial “authority” at the end times (to which the Catechism of the Catholic Church alludes in No. 675). Let’s not forget the documented Masonic and Communist infiltration in the Church has fulfilled to the letter the equally documented Masonic plans for the destruction of the Catholic Faith. And finally, we have the signs of the times, crying out to us that the Apocalypse has arrived.

Now all these elements (which are often mistakenly or maliciously classified under the cliché of “conspiracy theories”) do not constitute any proof of the canonical validity or invalidity of the Declaratio and, therefore, do not offer, in a strict sense, the answer to who is or is not the Pope of the Catholic Church. The only way to resolve this question is to confront the text of the Declaratio itself with the canonical norms that regulate juridical acts in general and the juridical act of a papal resignation. And by making this confrontation, it becomes clear that Benedict XVI did not resign from the papacy: his resignation never had as its object the charge or office (in Latin munus) of Roman Pontiff. This refers to the ontological dimension, linked to the ownership of the ecclesiastical position in question.

But, literally, His Holiness resigned “the ministry of Bishop of Rome” (in Latin ministerio Episcopi Romae); that is, the practical dimension, linked to the exercise of the ministries/services/functions/tasks/helps associated with the office. Obviously, the coexistence of “two Popes” is unthinkable: one who is so, and another who acts as such. Whoever acts as Pope without being one, will simply be a usurper, and whoever is the Pope, will continue to be so until his death or his valid resignation from the office or charge itself, regardless of whether or not he actually exercises as such –or shall we say that Peter stopped being the Pope while he was imprisoned by order of Herod Agrippa? 

So the short answer to your question is: the Declaratio is objective and verifiable evidence that Benedict retained the Petrine munus and therefore remained, and is to this day, the true Sovereign Pontiff.

Which are the relevant canons (or documents from Councils or elsewhere in the magisterium) that support this?

I understand that canons 10, 39, 124 § 1, 125, 126, 145 § 1, 187, 188 and 332 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law to be decisive.

Canon 332 § 2 indicates that “if it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [in Latin munus], it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested, but not that it is accepted by anyone.” In no way should it be understood that this canon establishes a “sacramental formula” of which the word “munus” is an indispensable part, as occurs, say, in the formula “this is my Body” for the consecration of the Eucharist. (Those words are indispensable under penalty of invalidity of the sacrament and, therefore, of non-existence of transubstantiation). What happens is that the Petrine munus (or its synonyms: charge, office, papacy, pontificate etc.) constitutes nothing less than the object on which, by mere logic, any papal resignation must fall.

The thing is, the “object” is an essential, structural, defining, constitutive element in every juridical act. Why? Because a juridical act is essentially a decision, and as such requires: (i) a subject (ii) who grants his consent; (iii) that this consent is made externally or socially recognizable through a form; and (iv) a clear object, that is, that the specific content of the decision adopted, as well as the objective reality on which this decision falls, must be precisely indicated.

So in the debate that concerns us, this content and this objective reality would be none other than “to resign” and the “papacy” (or its synonyms), respectively. All these structural requirements of the juridical act are provided for by canon 124 § 1: “For a juridical act to be valid, it is required that it has been performed [form] by a capable person [subject – consent], and that the elements that essentially constitute that act [object] concur, as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act.” 

Even if these elements were not expressly indicated by canon law, their necessity would be evident by the very nature of the juridical act. Think about it. Could we even imagine a juridical act without subject(s), without authorship? Or without an object? Such logical necessity leads us to affirm that for the Declaratio to be a true papal resignation, should have as its object the Papacy, the Petrine munus (or its synonyms: charge, office, Pontificate etc.), in the same way that the sale of a property must use precisely that word (or its synonyms: land, estate, terrain etc.), so that the object of the act is determined and the act itself reaches juridical existence.

If a pope resigns the exercise of some of his functions (ministerium) but not the office from which such functions derive (munus), a conclave cannot be validly called for the election of a new pope for the simple reason that there cannot be, simultaneously, more than one pope. This would be contrary to divine law, since, by direct institution of Jesus Christ Himself, the papacy is necessarily a one-person charge (Mt 16, 18-19 and Jn 21, 15-17). Multiple magisterial documents of the Church teach us this, by way of dogma: Bull Unam Sanctam (Boniface VIII), Encyclical Satis Cognitum – On the Unity of the Church (Leo XIII), Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (Vatican Council I), Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi – On the Mystical Body of Christ (Pius XII), Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (Vatican Council II) etc.

Regarding the question of language, how do you respond to critics who claim that this thesis makes too sharp a distinction between the munus (office, or charge) and the ministerium (the executive functions) of the papacy? In other words, even if Benedict XVI did not use them interchangeably, aren’t they essentially synonyms?

The critics have two shortcomings: first, they take as authoritative certain Latin-English dictionaries and some literary and philosophical works originally written in Latin, and leave aside what should be the primary source in this linguistic discussion, namely, the canonical norms (especially the CCL). The thing is, since we are dealing with the validity or invalidity of a juridical act (the Declaratio), the meaning of the terms must be sought precisely in the canonical context. Second, the critics overlook that the synonymy between munus and ministerium is only partial. This is important, so let’s cover it well.

In our book, we have made a systematic search of all those canons that use the words munus and ministerium, both in the CCL and in the 1996 Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), searching the following (digital) normative compilation: “Código de Derecho Canónico. Edición bilingüe y anotada” (sexta edición, Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 2006), in which each canon is found both in the original Latin and Spanish. When analyzing the words in question in the normative context, we were able to show two important facts. First, that the term munus is used in two senses: as office (charge, title, position, commission, situation) and as function (task, labor, service, ministry, help); and second, that the term ministerium is NEVER used as office, but ALWAYS as function (or set of functions). The book includes abundant quotations of canonical norms.

The foregoing leads us to the undeniable conclusion that, to validly resign the pontificate, the appropriate word is munus, and not ministerium, since whoever resigns the ministerium only resigns EXERCISING as Pope, and not BEING so.

At this point, we must clarify something. Critics argue that both munus and ministerium have among their meanings, “office.” According to this, a pope could well cease to be so by resigning from the ministerium. Faced with this objection, we need to keep in mind that the word “office” itself has two dimensions: an ontological one (the “being” which is linked to charge, position, situation etc.), and a practical one (the “doing,” related to the tasks inherent to a certain charge, position, situation etc.)

In other words, the fact that the word ministerium has among its meanings that of office, doesn’t mean that it becomes synonymous with munus in its sense of charge, position, situation etc., since the similar meaning between ministerium and office takes place on the practical level. In the canonical context, the word ministerium is NEVER used in an ontological dimension, but ALWAYS in a practical dimension.

That clarification done, we must emphasize that our reflections do not refer to the intention that Benedict XVI had when using these words (munus and ministerium), but to the objective meaning attributed to them in the juridical field. This is key. Remember that juridical acts—and the Declaratio is one—are necessarily expressed through words, and words have a socially recognizable meaning. Without this, all communication, all language, all social and juridical order, would become impossible.

The systematic examination of the Declaratio, however, shows how Benedict makes a clear distinction, almost like a patient teacher, between the word munus in its sense of charge or office and the word ministerium. Thus, the Pope tells us that the Petrine munus is of a spiritual nature and must be exercised by acting, speaking, suffering and praying. So his own distinction between the whole (munus) and the part (ministerium) is clear: while the munus (charge, office) is the container, the ministerium (functions) associated with it are the contents.

So not only do the words in question have an objectively different meaning whenever munus is referred to charge or office, but also the Declaratio itself recognizes and explains such an objective distinction while limiting the resignation specifically to the ministerium (and not to the munus).

One striking fact of the Declaratio (not Renuntiatio!) is the presence of grammatical errors in the official Latin text, written by a man of God renowned for his Latinity excellence and precision. Can you give some examples errors, and do they invalidate the document?

Actually, I do not believe that, in the current canonical and social context, errors in Latin invalidate a papal document. This happened in the past, yes, with respect to papal rescripts, briefs and bulls, by virtue of what was apparently a custom (with normative force). But in the present, I believe that the force of such a custom could hardly be admitted in the face of the (in)validity of a papal resignation. 

Again, the Church’s historical treatment of Latinity errors is not immediately applicable. In the first place, the grounds for invalidity must be expressly established by law (cf. canon 10 of the CCL), and currently there is no law that expressly sanctions with nullity a papal juridical act containing Latin errors. It’s also not clear that the Declaratio fits into what was understood by “rescript, brief, papal bull” in the time in which the aforementioned custom was in force. 

Thirdly, and this is the decisive reason, which I came to realize after the writing of our book. This custom had a factual basis that doesn’t exist today: the constant falsifications of papal documents was a real problem and not always easily detectable. Precisely as a criterion to identify such a falsehood, the presence of Latin errors was provided, especially those “ludicrous” or “inexcusable”, whose Vatican origin was considered implausible.

Our book proposes that the Latin errors present in the Declaratio have at least an indicative value. As you rightly say, Pope Benedict is a man of high intellectual level, particularly competent in handling Latin. Wasn’t total linguistic neatness to be expected? Actually, in light of the above custom from the past, Benedict’s errors in his Declaratio are ironic. As his biographer, Peter Seewald, reflects in his Pope Benedict biography, A Life (p. 1158 of the Italian version): “There were still two weeks left to announce his resignation, when the Pope sat down at his old walnut desk to work on the drafting of the text, which should not be too long or too complicated. However, he had to be precise and pay attention to detail, to avoid controversies over canon law. […] He did not formulate the text in Italian because ‘such an important thing is done in Latin,’ and he also did not want to make mistakes in a language that was not his own.”

You asked about the errors. The Italian-American friar Alexis Bugnolo, an expert Latinist, points out 40. But the errors that the media highlighted a few days after the public announcement of the Declaratio were specifically three: (i) the expression “commissum renuntiare” was included when the correct thing was “commisso renuntiare;” (ii) it was noted that the See would be vacant on February 28 at “29” hours; and (iii) in the first paragraph, “Ecclesiae vitae” was indicated, when “Ecclesiae vita” corresponded.

Now, all these errors have already been corrected on the official Vatican website, and in Benedict’s public reading of the Declaratio, you can perceive only the first one (commissum). As for the other two, the audio allows one to perceive that the Pope correctly pronounces “vita” and “20“. So we do not know for sure if the remaining errors were made by those who typed the text for its web version, or if they were actually found in the manuscript prepared by Benedict. In any case, the error of the “commissum,” which is clearly attributable to the Holy Father—which he emphasizes in his public reading—is found in the very formula of the “resignation,” in its “heart,” and not in the “secondary” part such as the antecedents or justification of the act, or in the acknowledgments.

I wanted to ask you about the behavior of Benedict since his departure. Strictly speaking this is not “proof,” but he has—by his statements, decisions, and behavior since becoming the “Pope Emeritus”—left many clues indicating he’s aware of his identity as the true Vicar of Christ. Your book goes into this at some length. Can you give some examples?

Practically everything about him is characteristic of one who is and knows himself to be the Vicar of Christ. It just doesn’t make sense that he keeps calling himself Benedict XVI and using the initials P.P. (Pastor Pastorum). He maintains his residence in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery in the Vatican when, as we know, Ratzinger dreamed since his days as prefect of a quiet retirement in his beloved Bavaria.  He continues to wear white and has adopted the unprecedented and anti-canonical title “Pope Emeritus.” All of this is a source of confusion, at a symbolic level, regarding the identification of The Rock (in the singular) on which the Church is built and her unity is guaranteed. But it gets more interesting.

Although during the farewell to the cardinals ceremony (02/28/2013), His Holiness promised his “unconditional reverence and obedience” to the “future Pope,” the truth is that since March 13, 2013 he has assumed a role that doesn’t fit into any of the ranks of the ecclesiastical authorities, nor has he been directly subordinated to “Francis’” orders, and not even to his teachings. On the contrary, Benedict’s occasional interventions have only undermined “Francis” both in word and deed. There are many examples of this, but perhaps the most significant was Benedict’s famous 2019 analysis of the sexual abuse crisis in the Church. This document was enough to sweep away the doctrinal atrocities of the hitherto six years of the Bergoglio false magisterium, especially in matters of sexual morality, so much so that newspaper headlines read, “The dubia were finally resolved.”



Click HERE for Part Two of this interview with Estefanía Acosta.