#290: Don’t Go to College—Timothy Gordon

#290: Don’t Go to College—Timothy Gordon


Tim Gordon has a message for college-seekers: turn back; don’t do it. He co-written a book on this topic with Dr. Michael Robillard, titled Don’t Go to College: A Case for Revolution, with a Foreword by Michael Knowles.

College or university experience is widely seen as the default “We All Do It” setting when it comes to making your way in life. But how true is that? Are there other alternatives that cost less, provide a bigger return on investment, and avoid college environment problems? This is the heart of why I had the host of Rules for Retrogrades on the podcast.

Support My Work

If you find my content valuable please consider supporting my work with a one-time donation here: DONATE

You may also consider joining Coffin Nation, our premium community. As a member, you will enjoy other shows and live webinars not available to the general public. Click here to learn more: COFFIN NATION

In this Episode You Will Learn

  • When colleges and universities turned to the dark side
  • Alternatives to college
  • Details on how colleges are bad idea factories at the cutting edge of everything that is wrong with society
  • Why Aristotle’s Four Causes matter and who removed the Formal and Final Causes out of the medieval university system
  • The real meaning of entrepreneurship
  • Why there is no such thing as “good debt”
  • The advantages of marrying young and starting a family on one income.

Resources Mentioned

Our Sponsors 

Covid-19 and the Great Reset summit 2021 is still open!

Join us in the fight against tyranny and the misuse of science for political control. Take action, register for a one-year subscription,  and become a knowledgeable voice for truth and freedom.

Go to: www.restoretheculture.com


Get your Z Stack TODAY. Click the image below or Click here:

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



Glory and Shine: Catholic 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 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. Please use our promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-965 and mention the CODE.



#289: Unmasking Anthony Fauci—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

#289: Unmasking Anthony Fauci—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

In case you missed it, a fantastic encore episode with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  Finally, someone has exposed the corruption of the tiny tyrant from Brooklyn, Anthony Fauci. And who better than trial attorney and best-selling author Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. chairman of Children’s Health Defense?  Fauci’s crimes predate the Covid catastrophe of 2020 and date back to the AIDS era in which thousands of homosexuals were killed by the toxic chemical drug AZT authorized by Fauci himself?

Kennedy spoke with me about his book, which brings the receipts, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Massively and meticulously researched, this is an extremely important contribution to the fight for health and sanity.

Support My Work

If you find my content valuable please consider supporting my work with a one-time donation here: DONATE

You may also consider joining Coffin Nation, our premium community. As a member, you will enjoy other shows and live webinars not available to the general public. Click here to learn more: COFFIN NATION

In this Episode You Will Learn

  • The brief history of Fauci’s corruption and manifest crimes
  • The deaths of thousands of homosexuals with AIDS who were killed with Fauci-endorsed AZT
  • How the oligarchs who operate the pandemic have funneled more billions into the pockets of already-billionaires
  • How under Fauci’s reign, allergic, autoimmune, and chronic illnesses have mushroomed to afflict 54 percent of children, up from 12.8 percent when he took over NIAID in 1984
  • Why allergic diseases like asthma, eczema, food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and anaphylaxis suddenly exploded beginning in 1989, five years after he came to power.
  • Fauci’s historic role as the leading architect of “agency capture”—the corporate seizure of America’s public health agencies by the pharmaceutical industry.
  • The connections between the cabal that killed Kennedy’s father and uncle, and the cabal currently imposing global lockdowns and mass death today.

Resources Mentioned

Our Sponsors 

Covid-19 and the Great Reset summit 2021 is still open!

Join us in the fight against tyranny and the misuse of science for political control. Take action, register for a one-year subscription,  and become a knowledgeable voice for truth and freedom.

Go to: www.restoretheculture.com


Get your Z Stack TODAY. Click the image below or Click here:

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



Glory and Shine: Catholic 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 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. Please use our promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-965 and mention the CODE.



His Holiness Benedict XVI’s Declaratio and the Myth of “Substantial Error”: Part II

His Holiness Benedict XVI’s Declaratio
and the Myth of “Substantial Error”

Part II



In this second of a special five-part series hosted by Patrick Coffin Media, Colombian lawyer Estefanía Acosta addresses the arguments and presuppositions of blogger Ann Barnhardt, who was one of the very first American Catholic commentators to expose the suspicious goings-on before and during the 2013 abdication of Pope Benedict XVI and the illegalities of the St. Gallen Mafia in the March 13, 2013 Conclave that gave us antipope Bergoglio.

For that and more, Miss Barnhardt deserves credit for courage and diligence, even if the “Substantial Error” portion of her thesis is plainly and demonstrably wrong, as attorney Acosta demonstrates here. To get a copy of her outstanding book Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”? The Always Is Also a Forever, click HERE.


First theory of “substantial error:”

The “collegial or synodal Papacy”

This theory maintains that Benedict’s Declaratio was invalid because he mistakenly believed that he could “expand” the pontificate, to the point of creating a papal diarchy that would be made up of himself and his “successor.” In short, Benedict would have mistakenly thought that he could substantially or essentially transform the Papacy, in order to make way for the coexistence of “two Popes”[i].

What evidence is offered in support of this alleged Benedict’s misperception regarding the pontificate?

First, the doctoral thesis of J. Michael Miller (now the archbishop of Vancouver, BC) titled, “The Divine Right Of the Papacy In Recent Ecumenical Theology” (Rome: Gregorian University, 1980. 324p)[ii], contains, among other things, post-conciliar theological reflections on the primacy of the Pope, in authors such as Hans Kung, Johannes Neumann, Walter Kasper, Karl Rahner, and Joseph Ratzinger. In this work, we are told, there are theological discussions about the possibility of either abolishing or substantially transforming the Papacy. As “abolitionists,” or authors of the far left, there would be Kung and Neumann; Kasper and Rahner would be “transformationalists” or moderate/centrist authors; and Ratzinger would be located on the right or far right[iii].

The essence of this book, we are informed, is an apology in favor of “demythologizing” the Papacy, for the sake of advancing in the ecumenical dialogue, to the point that in its conclusions there are recommendations such as abandoning the term “ius divinum” in what concerns the Papacy, avoid the word “Primacy,” consider that the Papal ministry should not necessarily be exercised in the future as it has been done in the past or is done in the present etc.[iv]

As for the quotes from Ratzinger that Miller inserts in his thesis, two are specifically referred to us. The first would be footnote 105 on page 196, inserted after the following paragraph:

Secondly, other proposals concern the need for changes in the way in which primatial authority is exercised: from a monarchical or centralist model to a more collegial and decentralized one104.  Thirdly, an important change in the papacy would occur if the process was clarified by which Rome has united under a single title its unique primacy originating from a special apostolic charge conferred by Christ, and its administrative role for the Western Church originating from its patriarchal status. The pope has not adequately distinguished his exercise of Petrine authority from patriarchal authority105” [105 Ratzinger, Il nuovo popolo di Dio, 2nd ed. (Brescia: Queriniana, 1972) 144-146; and Ratzinger, “Primat”, 762-763….][v] [The bold is ours].

The second reference to Ratzinger is found in footnote 55, page 184:

“”Patrick J. Burns in “Communion, Councils, and Collegiality: Some Catholic Reflections,” in Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, 171, states: “Current historical research on the origins of Roman primacy and episcopal collegiality will inevitable produce more qualified Catholic interpretations of the canons of Vatican I.” Ratzinger takes a somewhat different approach.  With the Orthodox, Rome need not demand more than the way papal primacy was understood in the first millennium.  The East must cease rejecting as heretical the subsequent Western development and admit that the Catholic Church is legitimate and orthodox under the form it has taken in the Latin West, whereas the West would recognize the Eastern Church as legitimate and orthodox under the form it has taken.  In this way the formulations of Pastor Aeternus are bypassed and no longer present a problem.  See his, “Prognostics sur l’avenir de l’oecumenisme,” Proche-Orient Chretien 26 (1976) 214-215, or the English summary in T[heological] D[igest] 25 (1977) 202-203. Cf. A[ugustin]. Schmeid’s agreement with Ratzinger in „Das Papsttum im okumenischen Gesprach, „Theologie der Gegenwart 21 (1978) 170[vi] [The bold is from the original text].

As a comment on all the above, we are told:

WITHIN THE SPECTRUM of these theologians [Kung, Rahner et. al], Joseph Ratzinger was actually on the more conservative side, which is damning with faint praise, indeed.  There was OPEN TALK in this circle about the ABOLITION OF THE PAPACY OUTRIGHT by Kung, Rahner, Neumann and others. Ratzinger denied this possibility of total abolition, but did argue that the Papacy was NOT immutable (unchangeable), could be changed, and could be ‘synodalized along the lines of Petrine Office vs. Ministry AND along the lines of Petrine vs. Patriarchal[vii] [bold and bracketed texts are ours].

Honestly, we do not see how the transcribed lines could show that, according to Ratzinger’s conception, the coexistence of several Popes would be juridically and theologically admissible. If anyone sees it, please illuminate us.

Now, such an illumination might seem inane in light of what follows:

As further “proof” of Benedict’s “substantial error” in his Declaratio, we are told that

In 1978 Joseph Ratzinger considered hypothesis that a monarchical Papacy was intrinsically ‘Arian’ in nature, and the Papacy should reflect the Trinity, a ‘Pope-Troika’ consisting of One Catholic, One Protestant and One Orthodox, ‘through which the papacy, the chief annoyance of non-Catholic Christendom, must become the definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians’”[viii].

This idea would have been defended by Ratzinger in his article “The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God,”[ix] of which we are provided with the following fragments[x] [the bold is ours, the underlines are from the original]:


The papacy is not one of the popular topics of the post-conciliar period. To a certain extent it was something self-evident as long as the monarchy corresponded to it in the political realm. Ever since the monarchic idea became extinct in practice and was replaced by the democratic idea, the doctrine of papal primacy has lacked a point of reference within the scope of our common intellectual assumptions. So it is certainly no accident that the First Vatican Council was dominated by the idea of primacy while the Second was characterized mainly by the struggle over the concept of collegiality. Of course, we should immediately add that, in adopting the idea of collegiality (along with other initiatives from contemporary life), the Second Vatican Council sought to describe it in such a way that the idea of primacy was contained within it. Today, now that we have gained a little experience with collegiality, its value and also its limitations, it looks as though we have to start again precisely at this place in order to understand better how these seemingly contrary traditions belong together and thus to preserve the richness of the Christian reality.

  1. Collegiality as the expression of the “we” structure of the faith

In connection with the conciliar debate, theology had tried, in due course, to understand collegiality as something more than a merely structural or functional feature: as a fundamental law that extends into the innermost essential foundations of Christianity and that therefore appears in various ways on the individual levels of Christianity as it is actually put into practice. It was possible to demonstrate that the we structure was part of Christianity in the first place. The believer, as such, never stands alone: to become a believer means to emerge from isolation into the we of the children of God; the act of turning to the God revealed in Christ is always a turning also to those who have already been called. The theological act as such is always an ecclesial act, which also has a characteristically social structure.

Hence initiation into Christianity has always been socialization into the community of believers as well, becoming we, which surpasses the mere I.” Accordingly, Jesus called his disciples to form the Twelve, which recalls the number of tribes in the ancient People of God, an essential feature of which, in turn, is the fact that God creates a communal history and deals with his people as a people. On the other hand, the most profound reason for this we character of Christianity proved to be the fact that God himself is a we:” the God professed in the Christian Creed is not a lonely self-reflection of thought or an absolutely and indivisibly self-contained “I” but rather he is unity in the trinitarian relation of I-you-we, so that being we,as the fundamental form of divinity, precedes all worldly instances of we,and the image and likeness of God necessarily refers to such being wefrom the very beginning.

In this connection, a treatise by E. Peterson on “Monotheism as a Political Problem,” which had been largely forgotten, again became a matter of current interest. In it, Peterson tried to show that Arianism was a political theology favored by the emperors because it ensured a divine analogy to the political monarchy, whereas the triumph of the trinitarian faith exploded political theology and removed the theological justification for political monarchy. Peterson interrupted his presentation at this point; now it was taken up again and continued with a new analogous thought, the basic thrust of which was: God’s wemust be the model for the action of the Church as a we.This general approach, which can be interpreted in various ways, was in a few cases taken so far as to claim that, accordingly, the exercise of the primacy by a single man, the pope in Rome, actually follows an Arian model. In keeping with the three Persons in God, the argument went, the Church must also be led by a college of three, and the members of this triumvirate, acting together, would be the pope. There was no lack of ingenious speculations that (alluding, for instance, to Soloviev’s story about the Antichrist) discovered that in this way a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Protestant together could form the papal troika. Thus it appeared that the ultimate formula for ecumenism had been found, derived immediately from theology (from the concept of God), that they had discovered a way to square the circle, whereby the papacy, the chief stumbling block for non-Catholic Christianity, would have to become the definitive vehicle for bringing about the unity of all Christians.”

And here is the comment that arises from this quote:

[…] we see Joseph Ratzinger taking this SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS MADNESS so far as the say that the Petrine Ministry could eventually include NON-CATHOLICS and thus become the “definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.” But first, it has to be “expanded” into a ‘collegial, synodal ministry’[xi].

Now, actually… Joseph Ratzinger in no way welcomes, endorses or defends such “substantially erroneous madness”! He is presenting it as someone else’s argument, not his own. Ratzinger points out that “there were speculations” [not on his part] “that discovered” [again in the third person, not in the first person] the possibility of a “Papal troika” and thus implied that “they [the speculators, not Ratzinger himself] had discovered a way to square the circle” regarding the Papacy. The real madness, the real “substantial error,” is to attribute to Ratzinger an idea that is obviously alien to him!

And besides, the remaining lines of Ratzinger’s writing are specifically dedicated to dismantling this crazy idea of ​​a “Papal troika,” under the argumentative line that the “we” of believers does not suppress the “I” nor the “personal responsibility” and, therefore, the unipersonal structure of the Papacy need not be considered as opposed or incompatible with the collective structure of faith – nor with the Trinitarian character of God, Who is in any case personal in nature! Let us see, in fact, a few more fragments [bold and underlining will be ours]:

“2. The interior basis for the primacy: Faith as responsible personal witness

Is this, then—the reconciliation of collegiality and primacy—the answer to the question posed by our subject: the primacy of the pope and the unity of the People of God? Although we need not conclude that such reflections are entirely sterile and useless, it is plain that they are a distortion of trinitarian doctrine and an intolerably oversimplified fusion of Creed and Church polity. What is needed is a more profound approach. It seems to me that it is important, first of all, to reestablish a clearer connection between the theology of communion, which had developed from the idea of collegiality, and a theology of personality, which is no less important in interpreting the biblical facts. Not only does the communal character of the history created by God belong to the structure of the Bible, but also and equally personal responsibility. The ‘we’ does not dissolve the ‘I’ and ‘you,’ but rather it confirms and intensifies them so as to make them almost definitive. This is evident already in the importance that a name has in the Old Testament—for God and for men. One could even say that in the Bible ‘name’ takes the place of what philosophical reflection would eventually designate by the word ‘person.’ Corresponding to God, who has a name, that is, who can address others and be addressed, is man, who is called by name in the history of revelation and is held personally responsible. This principle is further intensified in the New Testament and attains its fullest, deepest meaning through the fact that now the People of God is generated, not by birth, but rather by a call and a response. Therefore it is no longer a collective consignee as before, when the whole people functioned as a sort of corporate individual vis-à-vis world history, in collective punishment, in collective liability, penance, and pardon. The ‘new people’ is characterized also by a new structure of personal responsibility, which is manifest in the personalizing of the cultic event: from now on everyone is named by name in penance and, as a consequence of the personal baptism that he received as this particular person, is also called by name to do personal penance, for which the general ‘we have sinned’ can no longer be an adequate substitute. Another consequence of this structure is, for example, the fact that the liturgy does not simply speak about the Church in general but presents her by name in the Canon of the Mass: with the names of the saints and the names of those who bear the responsibility for unity. […]

It is in keeping with this personal structure, furthermore, that in the Church there has never been anonymous leadership of the Christian community. Paul writes in his own name as the one ultimately responsible for his congregations. But again and again he addresses by name those also who hold authority with him and under him […]. Along these same lines, lists of bishops were compiled already at the beginning of the second century (Hegesippus) so as to emphasize for the historical record the particular and personal responsibility of those witnesses to Jesus Christ. This process is profoundly in keeping with the central structure of the New Testament faith: to the one witness, Jesus Christ, correspond the many witnesses who, precisely because they are witnesses, stand up for him by name. Martyrdom as a response to the Cross of Jesus Christ is nothing other than the ultimate confirmation of this principle of uncompromising particularity, of the named individual who is personally responsible.

Witness implies particularity, but witness—as a response to the Cross and Resurrection—is the primordial and fundamental form of Christian discipleship in general. In addition, however, even this principle is anchored in the very belief in the triune God, for the Trinity becomes meaningful for us and recognizable in the first place through the fact that God himself, in his Son as man, became a witness to himself, and thus his personal nature took concrete form even unto the radical anthropomorphism of the ‘form of a servant,’ of ‘the likeness of men’ (µoρφἡ δoύλoυ, µoἰωµα ἀνθρώπoυ: Phil 2:7).

The Petrine theology of the New Testament is found along this line of reasoning, and therein it has its intrinsically necessary character. The ‘we’ of the Church begins with the name of the one who in particular and as a person first uttered the profession of faith in Christ: ‘You are . . . the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16:16). Curiously, the passage on primacy is usually thought to begin with Matthew 16:17, whereas the early Church regarded verse 16 as the decisive verse for an understanding of the whole account: Peter becomes the Rock of the Church as the bearer of the Credo, of her faith in God, which is a concrete faith in Christ as the Son and by that very fact faith in the Father and, thus, a trinitarian faith, which only the Spirit of God can communicate. The early Church viewed verses 17–19 as simply the explanation of verse 16: To recite the Creed is never man’s own work, and thus the one who says in the obedience of the profession of faith what he cannot say on his own can also do and become what he could not do and become by his own resources. This perspective does not include the “either-or” that was first suggested in Augustine and has dominated the theological scene since the sixteenth century, when the alternative was formulated: Is Peter as a person the foundation of the Church, or is his profession of faith the foundation of the Church? The answer is: The profession of faith exists only as something for which someone is personally responsible, and hence the profession of faith is connected with the person. Conversely, the foundation is not a person regarded in a metaphysically neutral way, so to speak, but rather the person as the bearer of the profession of faith—one without the other would miss the significance of what is meant.

Leaving out many intermediate steps in the argument, we can say, then: The ‘we’ unity of Christians, which God instituted in Christ through the Holy Spirit under the name of Jesus Christ and as a result of his witness, certified by his death and Resurrection, is in turn maintained by personal bearers of responsibility for this unity, and it is once again personified in Peter—in Peter, who receives a new name and is thus lifted up out of what is merely his own, yet precisely in a name, through which demands are made of him as a person with personal responsibility. In his new name, which transcends the historical individual, Peter becomes the institution that goes through history (for the ability to continue and continuance are included in this new appellation), yet in such a way that this institution can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility.”

The institution of the Papacy can only exist as a person, says Joseph Ratzinger. Where, then, is his ‘substantial error’ about the possible ‘collegiate or synodal’ conformation of the primatial office?

But let us not stop here. Because we have received other ‘proof’ of such ‘substantial error.’ This time it is Peter Seewald’s book-length interview, Salt of the Earth[xii], and specifically, the following question-answer between the interviewer and Joseph Ratzinger (p.189) [the text in square brackets and bold will be ours, the underlining will belong to the person who defends the “substantial error”[xiii]]:

[Q] Do you think the Papacy will remain as it is now?

[A] In its core, it will remain the same. That is, there will always be a need for a man who is the successor to St. Peter, and the person holding the ultimate responsibility, in support of collegiality. Having a personal principle so that everything is not hidden in anonymity, and that it is represented in the person of the parish priest, or the bishop, who are the expression of unity in the whole of the Church, is typical of the nature of Christianity. That will always remain the same, as it was defined in Vatican Councils I and II, as the responsibility of the Magisterium for the unity of the church, her faith and her moral order. The ways of doing this can change, if the hitherto separate communities are brought into unity with the Pope. For now, the pontificate of our current Pope, with all his trips around the world, is already completely different from that of Pope Pius XII. But I cannot anticipate anything, nor do I want to do so with respect to the variations that may occur in the future. We cannot foresee what may happen in the future.”

Again we ask: from what part of these lines does Ratzinger’s supposed mistaken conviction that the Papacy can be collegial come off? In his answer he states, in fact, quite the opposite! Namely: a man (in the singular) as the successor of Saint Peter, the person holding the ultimate responsibility (again in the singular), in total harmony with the perspective of the intimate connection that exists in the Catholic faith between the personal and the collective, and with the permanence of the dogma declared at Vatican I, and reiterated in Vatican II, on the necessary singularity of the primacy. That the forms of exercise of the Papacy can change does NOT mean that it can assume a collegial character, or be transformed in its essential aspects (dogmatic, of divine law). In fact, the change between the papal style of John Paul II and that of Pius XII, referred to by Ratzinger, in no way touches this essential immutable aspect. From where, then, is a “substantial error” extracted?

As if the above were not enough, in the document The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church of October 31, 1998, prepared by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Eminence reiterates emphatically the dogma of the Church on the Primacy of Peter:

[…] the image of Peter remained fixed as that of the Apostle who, despite his human weakness, was expressly assigned by Christ to the first place among the Twelve and was called to exercise a distinctive, specific task in the Church. He is the rock on which Christ will build his Church; he is the one, after he has been converted, whose faith will not fail and who will strengthen his brethren; lastly, he is the Shepherd who will lead the whole community of the Lord’s disciples[xiv].

Note that Ratzinger, when speaking of Peter, always uses the singular: “the Apostle, the rock, the Shepherd, the first place, will not fail, will strengthen, will lead.” And this is abundantly confirmed later, even with explicit reference to the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I:

[…] the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ’s Church […] In the divine plan for the primacy as “the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successor,” we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., “the unity of faith and communion” [16: First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051. Cf. St Leo I the Great, Tract. in Natale eiusdem, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19] of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is ‘the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful’ and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission. […] collegiality does not stand in opposition to the personal exercise of the primacy nor should it relativize it. All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum as members of the Episcopal College which has succeeded to the College of the Apostles, to which the extraordinary figure of St Paul also belonged. This universal dimension of their episkope (overseeing) cannot be separated from the particular dimension of the offices entrusted to them. In the case of the Bishop of Rome – Vicar of Christ in the way proper to Peter as Head of the College of Bishops – the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires particular force because it is combined with the full and supreme power in the Church […].”

Let us now continue with what is presented as the last support of the first theory of “substantial error” that concerns us here. It is the controversial speech delivered by Bishop George Gänswein in May 2016 at the Pontifical Gregorian University on the occasion of the presentation of the book by Roberto Regoli, Beyond the Crisis Of the Church: The Pontificate of Benedict XVI. Let us see the excerpts that we are given at this point[xv] [underlining and bold in the original]:

It was ‘the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism’ Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first ‘pope emeritus.’ Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”

These lines have been read in light of the claim of “demythologization” of the Papacy discussed throughout the aforementioned doctoral thesis by J.M. Miller, being such a “demythologization”, in reality, a denaturalization, an attack directed specifically, in this case, against one of the essential and unalterable elements of the Papacy: its singularity. However, we have already seen, on the one hand, that these claims of “demythologization” were not defended by Ratzinger himself, but by other authors mentioned by Miller[xvi], and on the other, that Ratzinger himself constantly and emphatically defended the unipersonal configuration of the primatial office.

How to understand, then, Gänswein’s words, without ignoring Ratzinger’s demonstrated orthodoxy regarding the singularity of the papacy? Let us go little by little, fragment by fragment at Gänswein’s speech[xvii] [our highlights]:

“Eminences, Excellencies, dear Brothers, Ladies and Gentlemen!

During one of the last conversations that the pope’s biographer, Peter Seewald of Munich, was able to have with Benedict XVI, as he was bidding him goodbye, he asked him: ‘Are you the end of the old or the beginning of the new?’ The pope’s answer was brief and sure: ‘The one and the other,’ he replied. The recorder was already turned off; that is why this final exchange is not found in any of the book-interviews with Peter Seewald, not even the famous Light of the World. It only appeared in an interview he granted to Corriere della Sera in the wake of Benedict XVI’s resignation, in which the biographer recalled those key words which are, in a certain way, a maxim of the book by Roberto Regoli, which we are presenting here today at the Gregorian.

Indeed, I must admit that perhaps it is impossible to sum up the pontificate of Benedict XVI in a more concise manner. And the one who says it, over the years, has had the privilege of experiencing this Pope up close as a homo historicus, the Western man par excellence who has embodied the wealth of Catholic tradition as no other; and—at the same time—has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent.

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! We may add that the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger had already marked decisively the long pontificate of St. John Paul II, whom he faithfully served for almost a quarter of a century as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes).


Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed during his exceptional pontificate (Ausnahmepontifikat) […].

It was the morning of that very day [February 11, 2013] when, in the evening, a bolt of lightning with an incredible roar struck the tip of St. Peter’s dome positioned just over the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles. Rarely has the cosmos more dramatically accompanied a historic turning point. […]

Paragraphs later, Gänswein insists on the “spectacular and unexpected step,” of “millennial historical significance” that Benedict took with his “resignation,” even comparing it with the divine wonder of the Immaculate Conception.

So, are we to understand “historic,” “millennial,” “spectacular and unexpected,” “unprecedented” and “exceptional” to mean that Benedict XVI put himself above the Eternal Word of God, Who chose only one of the apostles as Pope, and in him, his perpetual successors[xviii]?

Of course not! As Andrea Cionci[xix] has well explained, Gänswein’s paradoxical assertion that the Church “continues to have a legitimate Pope” and at the same time “two living successors of Petercan only be understood in the sense that one of the two is an antipope – and this would be Francis, since he was elected without Benedict having renounced the munus, that is, without the See having become vacant. Note that Gänswein himself warns us of the fact that Pope Benedict specifically renounced the ministerium, and not the munus, as well as of the inadequate translation of the latter word by the Vatican:

The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of ‘pope emeritus,’ stating that his strength was no longer sufficient ‘to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.’ The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with ‘Petrine ministry.’ And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry.’ He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst) […]”.

Such a “collegial and synodal dimension” of the personal office is, of course, a merely apparent situation, factual (de facto), not juridical (de iure). Gänswein explicitly states that “Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry – with an active member and a contemplative member.

According to this discursive line, Benedict kept his papal name, the appellation “His Holiness” and his residence in the Vatican, for the simple reason that “he has not abandoned the Office of Peter […] he has instead renewed this office.” And this renewal does NOT correspond to the juridical effect of an (impossible) act of “bifurcation of the Papacy”, BUT RATHER to the practical effect of a deliberately non-existent/invalid “resignation from the pontificate.”

The “exceptional” refers, then, to the fact that the true Pope finds himself in a situation of paralysis, of practical imprisonment, while the usurper is in control of the structure of the Church, deceiving, disappointing and scandalizing many – especially those who guiltily remain blind to the reality of the facts. But in any case, the Chair of Peter remains juridically safeguarded in its legitimate holder, invulnerable for the gates of hell, and will continue to stand as the perpetual and indestructible foundation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.[xx]

And why would Benedict have acted in such a way? Why would he have conscientiously issued a non-existent/invalid resignation, in order to later preserve elements of indisputable pontifical dignity, and at the same time address Francis as “Holy Father” –also a pontifical title– and allow the deployment of his satanic maneuvers?

The question exceeds the canonical scope of the present dissertation, and has also been resolved on other occasions[xxi]. Briefly, we reply that, in our understanding, it is about the role that Heaven itself has delegated to the Holy Father in the final purification of the Church, and that in any case is accompanied by the necessary signals, issued by Benedict through a logical and at the same time subtle communicational system, so that those who have eyes to see, see – and those who do not, be mocked.

But, regardless of this communicational system, the truth is that, in the theological and juridical aspects, there is abundant and absolutely convergent evidence regarding Ratzinger’s faithful and rigorous orthodoxy regarding the unipersonality of the primacy, which at the same time demonstrate the total inadmissibility of the theory of “substantial error” linked to the extravagant heresy of the “collegial or synodal Papacy”[xxii].

Let us now analyze the second theory of “substantial error,” linked to the concepts of “power of order” and “power of jurisdiction.”

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

[i] Cf. https://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/06/; https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/guest-post-invalid-abdication.html.

[ii] Preview available on: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=njXIJaDZhV4C&printsec=frontcover&hl=es#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[iii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVU3qtmT-gU&t=5198s; minute 57: 33 aprox.

[iv] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/04/06/the-demythologizing-of-the-papacy-means-the-attempted-dissolution-of-the-petrine-office-munus-in-preparation-for-the-antichurch-with-only-human-ministries-devoid/.

[v] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/25/the-dissolving-of-the-petrine-office-into-a-synodal-petrine-ministry-was-the-hot-topic-amongst-german-theologians-in-the-church-in-the-1960s-and-70s/.

[vi] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/28/more-footnote-fun-from-millers-dissertation-ratzinger-on-eastern-orthodox-meh-its-fine-as-it-is/.

[vii] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/25/the-dissolving-of-the-petrine-office-into-a-synodal-petrine-ministry-was-the-hot-topic-amongst-german-theologians-in-the-church-in-the-1960s-and-70s/.

[viii] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/13/thermonuclear-substantial-error-in-1978-joseph-ratzinger-posited-that-a-monarchical-papacy-was-intrinsically-arian-in-nature-and-the-papacy-should-reflect-the-trinity-a-p/.

[ix] In: Communio 41 (Spring 2014); pp. 112-128. Available here: https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/the-primacy-of-the-pope.

[x] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/13/thermonuclear-substantial-error-in-1978-joseph-ratzinger-posited-that-a-monarchical-papacy-was-intrinsically-arian-in-nature-and-the-papacy-should-reflect-the-trinity-a-p/.

[xi] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/13/thermonuclear-substantial-error-in-1978-joseph-ratzinger-posited-that-a-monarchical-papacy-was-intrinsically-arian-in-nature-and-the-papacy-should-reflect-the-trinity-a-p/.

[xii] We consulted here the 5th edition, Publisher Palabra, 211p.

[xiii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVU3qtmT-gU&t=5198s; minute 1:09:40 aprox.

[xiv] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html.

[xv] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/04/06/the-demythologizing-of-the-papacy-means-the-attempted-dissolution-of-the-petrine-office-munus-in-preparation-for-the-antichurch-with-only-human-ministries-devoid/.

[xvi] The Papacy is now undergoing a “demythologization,” but not by Joseph Ratzinger, but by Francis and his henchmen. In fact, the demolition of the Papacy is the final blow in the masonic plan of destruction of the Church, in the structural aspect –because in the sacramental, the final blow is the abolition of the Perpetual Sacrifice–, and concrete steps are already being taken through the infamous “path of synodality”. Regarding this plan, see: MELONI, Julia. The St. Gallen Mafia: Exposing the Secret Reformist Group Within the Church (TAN Books, 2021, p. 168).

[xvii] https://aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech/; https://www.acistampa.com/story/bendetto-xvi-la-fine-del-vecchio-linizio-del-nuovo-lanalisi-di-georg-ganswein-3369; https://web.archive.org/web/20180828113915/http://www.kath.net/news/55276.

[xviii] Cf. Mt 16,18-19; Jn 21,15-17; Second Council of Lyon; Ecumenical Council of Florence; Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus; Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium.

[xix] https://www.byoblu.com/2021/12/22/papa-e-antipapa-linchiesta-ministero-allargato-un-papa-legittimo-e-uno-illegittimo-mons-gaenswein-in-codice-ratzinger-parte-51/.

[xx] In this regard, two sentences by Gänswein are significant: on the one hand, his allusion to the motto “cooperatores Veritatis” that was adopted by Ratzinger as archbishop of Munich and Freising, and on the other, his mention of what Benedict declared in his General Audience of February 27, 2013, in the sense that, since the Boat belongs to Christ, even when it seems that He is sleeping, we believers do not have to panic. It could be said that Benedict and Francis are “cooperators of the truth” because, although their works and attitudes towards the Church are diametrically opposed, both contribute in their own way to the final purification that she is currently undergoing. And it should also be noted that the true Pope, like Christ, seems to be sleeping in his situation of “impeded See,” but the truth is that, with this, he is directing—in an extraordinary and unprecedented way—the rudder of the Boat.

[xxi] Cf. our aforementioned book Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”?, as well as the investigation Pope-Antipope by Andrea Cionci, made up of 60 articles: https://www.byoblu.com/2022/01/07/papa-e-antipapa-linchiesta-fango-di-40-anni-fa-contro-papa-ratzinger-il-tragico-boomerang-dei-pro-bergoglio-parte-60/.

[xxii] For, what sense does it make that someone who for years has emphatically defended the dogma of the unipersonality of the Primate –and this even at the level of the Sacred Congregation in charge of safeguarding the faith– suddenly “changes his mind” and executes an act bifurcation of the Papacy? This assumption is truly absurd, unproven and unprovable.

His Holiness Benedict XVI’s Declaratio and the Myth of “Substantial Error”: Part I

His Holiness Benedict XVI’s Declaratio
and the Myth of “Substantial Error”

Part I



Estefanía Acosta, Colombian attorney and leader in the “Benedict is Pope” (BiP) movement, has written a meticulously detailed five-part series refuting the “Substantial Error” theory suggested by Ann Barnhardt, Mark Docherty, and my friend Prof. Ed Mazza.

I am honored to publish the case against “Substantial Error” here. To get a copy of her outstanding book Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”? The Always Is Also a Forever, click HERE.

The ever-growing BiP movement agrees that Pope Benedict is the true Pope, but some are needlessly divided over the reasons why that is so. We hold that the evidence is clear and convincing that His Holiness intended to resign the ministerium (the external functions of the papacy) but retain the munus (the office or gift of the papacy)—not that the Holy Father has held a modernist or otherwise heterodox view of the papacy for decades—the “Substantial Error”—that caused him to mistakenly resign the wrong way.

The following Introduction sets forth Acosta’s very detailed objections to this “Substantial Error” theory, which purportedly invalidates Pope Benedict’s resignation.  I will post the remaining analyses here later this week. Each post builds upon the previous, delving more deeply (and from different angles) into why “Substantial Error” is itself an error that can be refuted by a close look at Ratzinger’s own writings in context, and at the Declaratio that the Holy Father read on February 11, 2013.

More and more Catholics around the world are opening their eyes to the fact that the famous Declaratio publicly communicated by His Holiness Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013 did not constitute a valid resignation from the pontificate[i]. An objective, verifiable, documented fact: the Pope explicitly stated that he resigned “the ministry of bishop of Rome“, and not the Petrine munus, that is, he resigned from performing (some of) the functions inherent to the Pope, but not from being the titular of the ecclesiastical charge or office of Roman Pontiff[ii]. This fact, as is known, was followed by the rigorous and generally silent self-exile of the Holy Father in the Vatican, so that the Apostolic See was paralyzed, in a certain way impeded[iii], and at the same time materially exposed to the attacks of the enemies of the Church. And so it happened that ecclesiastical Freemasonry, embodied in the Satanist conspirators who led the infamous St. Gallen mafia, managed to install one of their own as usurper of the throne of Peter: Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now known with the offensive and burlesque entelechy of Francis[iv]. Nine years later, “the two Popes” apparently continue their peaceful coexistence.

So far everything is clear: at the canonical level, we have a legitimate Pope but materially retired from his functions (H.H. Benedict XVI), and an anti-Pope who, de facto, intends to “govern, sanctify and teach” the Universal Church without having an iota of authority for it (Francis). Now, the panorama begins to get complicated, and the disputes to arise, as we delve into the reason for the situation: what was Benedict XVI thinking when drafting his Declaratio? Did he know, prior to its public reading, that the text contained a non-existent/invalid resignation from the pontificate, or did he mistakenly believe that he was resigning on a juridical level? Did the Shepherd abandon his sheep? Has the Holy Father lied about the reasons for his “resignation”, or when supposedly recognizing Francis as Pope? Is Benedict XVI a heretic (formal or material) as regards the essence of the Papacy?

Naturally, we do not intend here to answer all these questions – which, incidentally, we have already done to some extent elsewhere[v]. Specifically, we propose to dismantle the so-called “theories of substantial error”, which proclaim that Benedict XVI ignores the canonical invalidity of his resignation, since his misconception about the nature and essential characteristics of the Papacy led him to think that it was possible for him to give rise to a valid “successor” in the pontificate and at the same time continue to be Pope.

As we shall see, these theories are, at best, lacking in sufficient evidence, and at worst, openly contradicting existing evidence. In any case, they accentuate the already harmful traditionalist[vi] positions that, seeing in the post-conciliar Popes hopeless heretics and modernists, or at least fifth-class theologians, only contribute to deepening the wounds of division in the Church, and to hinder the filial and loyal adherence to Peter. We will try to undermine them, then, as part of our service to The Rock: our Lord Jesus Christ and His Vicar on Earth.

To fulfill this purpose, we will begin by defining “substantial error” in the context of the juridical act. Then we will address the two theories of substantial error that, due to their great diffusion and their at least internal coherence[vii], deserve consideration. We will address both theories separately: we will briefly expose their postulates, and immediately we will present the respective counter-arguments. Finally, we will offer our conclusions on the assessment that these theories deserve in terms of truthfulness, necessity and convenience.

 Conceptual clarifications

“Substantial error” as a vice of consent in the juridical act

Like almost all words in natural language, the term “error” has multiple meanings. Let us take, for what concerns us here, the first two definitions offered by the Royal Spanish Academy (Real Academia Española – RAE): “Wrong concept or false judgment / Misguided or wrong action[viii] [and by “misguided” is meant, lacking sanity, prudence, or accuracy[ix]]. As an example of “mistake,” the dictionary presents us the following sentence: “When writing the address, I have mistaken the number of the hallway[x].

Let us now enter the context of the juridical act. Let us remember that a juridical act is nothing more than a socially recognizable decision (expression of will or consent) relevant to the law, that is, accepted by the pertinent regulations as a source generating juridical consequences. Thus, for example, the juridical consequences of a contract are the reciprocal obligations between the contracting parties, the juridical consequences of an act of adoption correspond to the parentage relationship between adopters and adoptees etc.

Logically, for the effective arrival of the juridical consequences that each juridical act is conceded to generate, it is necessary that the act meets all the requirements provided by the law itself. These requirements are aimed, on the one hand, at guaranteeing clarity, security, and freedom for those who participate in the act; and on the other, at safeguarding certain demands related to public order (public safety, morality and good customs, publicity of particular transactions etc.).

What does all this have to do with the notion of “substantial error”?

“Substantial error,” understood in the first meaning that the RAE provided us—or, in the more elaborated words of the canonists, as “a defect of the act of understanding by which there is a false judgment or wrong estimate of an object[xi]—is a phenomenon that excludes the freedom of the parties in juridical acts, and therefore is generally provided as a ground for their nullity. Indeed, how could someone freely make the decision that the juridical act consists of, if his intelligence is affected by a mistaken appreciation of the circumstances that in one way or another influence such act?

If the correct understanding of the reality on which to decide is lacking, the will in this decision will not be free (it will be vitiated), and consequently, the act in question may be annulled. In the canonical context, such nullity is provided for in canons 126 and 188 of the Code of Canon Law (CCL).[xii]

These theoretical considerations are necessary because, in the case of the presumed juridical act of “resignation from the pontificate” carried out by His Holiness Benedict XVI in February 2013, there have been pointed out (under the heading of supposedly invalidating errors) a number of circumstances that in no way fit into the concept of “substantial error” as a vice of consent.

Thus, for example, there are those who have tried to analyze the grammatical errors of Latin[xiii], or even the typing errors,[xiv] present in the Declaratio, from the perspective of this class of vices[xv]. But, what does a grammatical or typing error have to do with a mistaken appreciation of the reality that surrounds the act and, therefore, with a vice of consent? Obviously nothing.

It has also been said that “the Holy Spirit guided Benedict XVI to make AN INTENTIONALLY ERROR ON PURPOSE[xvi] (sic). We do not know what specific “error” the commentator is referring to here, but, although in certain cases the presence of “errors” deliberately inserted in the text of a juridical act would be conceivable—such as the aforementioned grammatical and typing errors–the truth is that deliberation automatically excludes the defect of understanding that constitutes the “substantial error” as a vice of consent.

Still others have pointed out that, despite the fact that, for the valid renunciation from the papal office (and the consequent vacancy of the Apostolic See), canon 332.2 of the CCL expressly provides for the renunciation from the munus, Benedict resigned from the ministerium, and therefore, his assertion that the See would remain vacant was “erroneous.” This would be, they continue, a “substantial error” in terms of the effects of the act. The defenders of this position explain it in a simple way by comparing what the Pope affirmed in his Declaratio—in the sense that, by renouncing the ministerium, the See would remain vacant—with the absurd hypothesis that it would be said: “I renounce eating bananas, in such a way that the See will remain vacant.”[xvii]

The problem with this explanation is that it does not offer proof of the “substantial error” (understood as a vice of consent) that it advocates. What this position evidences is a deficiency related to the object of the supposed juridical act contained in the Declaratio: if the Pope intended to resign from the Papacy, he should have precisely indicated the Papacy (or its synonyms: pontificate, primatial office, charge of Roman Pontiff etc.) as the object of his resignation; having pointed to a different object (ministry, bananas, etc.), it was logically impossible for the act of resignation from the Papacy to arise. But the fact that an object other than the one required for the emergence of the act has been indicated does not allow us to know, per se, the reason why the author has acted in this way, and therefore, the affirmation that this reason would have been necessarily a “substantial error” is simply gratuitous and unjustified. Is it not possible that Pope Benedict had been fully aware that his “resignation from the ministry” would in no way produce, juridically, the vacancy of the See, and even then he had expressly alluded to it for reasons of convenience? Could not this behavior correspond to a deliberate and subtle use of ambiguity?

What we want to highlight here is: a juridical act does not meet the necessary requirements for its existence and validity (that is, to produce the juridical effects that are inherent to it) is not necessarily due to a “substantial error,” to poor knowledge or misjudgment on the part of its author. Thus, for example, I could, in the text of an alleged sales contract of one of my properties, mix correct data and erroneous data about its identification (location, area, license plate number etc.), and this could be due either to the fact that I mistakenly think that all the data entered is correct (and it would even be possible that I had a wrong judgment about the identity of the property that I am supposedly selling), or to the fact that I know and accept the inaccuracy of some of such data, since for some reason I am interested in causing confusion in the object sold so that, tomorrow, I can obtain a declaration of non-existence or nullity of the act.

Let us take an even simpler example. Suppose someone declares: “the rotational movement of the earth takes 48 hours.” This proposition is clearly and objectively false, but, in terms of the “psychological perception” of its author, the possibilities are multiple. Thus, it is possible that the author is lying (and deliberately trying to teach a false doctrine), or joking, or that he is in fact “in error.” Or, finally, that he is trying to send his recipient(s) certain message (linked, for example, to the 48/24 ratio).

What we want to explain with the previous hypotheses is that “substantial error” cannot be recognized only from the very words of the act in question. The “substantial error” is a psychological phenomenon, and as such requires further evidence to reconstruct the author’s assessment of the reality to which the act refers. These proofs could be linked, for example, to the intellectual level of the subject, his motivations, the circumstances in which he was when performing the act, etc.

None of the aforementioned complaints about the alleged “substantial errors” in Benedict XVI’s Declaratio—linked, respectively, to grammatical and typing errors, to “an intentional [or] purposeful error” and to “an error as to the effects of the act”—fulfills this necessary burden of proof in terms of the psychological, and therefore all of them are dismissible without further ado.

However, there are two theories of “substantial error” that effectively start from an adequate understanding of the need to satisfy this burden of proof, and in fact attempt to satisfy it. We turn to an individual examination of these two theories below.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

[i] Patrick Coffin being perhaps, until now, the most prominent voice in defense of this reality. Cf. https://www.patrickcoffin.media/seven-pieces-of-evidence-that-francis-is-an-antipope/, https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/05/anti-pope-catholic-writer-says-francis-has-assumed-invalid-authority-over-catholic-church/

[ii] Cf. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html.

[iii] Truthfully, the situation in which Pope Benedict XVI has been during these nine years does not fit technically and precisely in what canons 412 to 415 of the Code of Canon Law (CCL) understand and regulate for “impeded episcopal See” – moreover, we do not even have a specific canonical regulation of the “impeded apostolic See.” And this is obvious: the current situation of the pontificate is completely unprecedented in the history of the Church, and escapes the juridical provisions that have existed up to now. We are not in a “vacant See,” since we still habemus Papam (Benedict XVI), but this Pope is not in the “normal” exercise of his functions. The concept of “impeded See,” whose relevance has been proposed by the Italian journalist Andrea Cionci (cf. https://www.byoblu.com/2022/01/07/papa-e-antipapa-linchiesta-fango-di-40-anni-fa-contro-papa-ratzinger-il-tragico-boomerang-dei-pro-bergoglio-parte-60/), is the one that, at least provisionally, comes closest to the adequate description of the crisis that the Papacy is going through at the present time.

[iv] Cf. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-danneels-admits-being-part-of-clerical-mafia-that-plotted-francis; https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/europa/58849/iglesia-catolica-mafia-cardenal-danneels-papa-francisco-benedicto-xvi; https://www.infocatolica.com/?t=noticia&cod=24945; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuzV4zdAgpU; PIQUÉ, Elisabetta. Francisco: Vida y Revolución. Una biografía de Jorge Bergoglio (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2013); 315p; IVEREIGH, Austen. El Gran Reformador: Francisco, relato de un Papa radical. Buenos Aires: Ediciones B, 2015. 567p.

[v] Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”?: https://mybook.to/BenedictoTP (Spanish); https://mybook.to/BenedictTP (English); https://mybook.to/BentoTP (Portuguese); https://mybook.to/BenedettoTP (Italian).

[vi] Make no mistake: by definition, every true Catholic must be traditional (not traditionalist) and modern (not modernist) at the same time. We follow the Risen Christ, always the same and always new!

[vii] By “internal coherence,” we mean that the two theories in question start from an adequate understanding of the concept of “substantial error.”

[viii] https://dle.rae.es/equivocar.

[ix] https://dle.rae.es/acierto.

[x] https://dle.rae.es/equivocar.

[xi] CÓDIGO DE DERECHO CANÓNICO. 6ª ed. Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra S.A., 2001; comment on c. 1097.

[xii] An act performed out of ignorance or of error when it affects what constitutes the substance of the act or falls on a sine qua non condition is null; otherwise, the act is valid, unless law establishes otherwise, but the act performed due to ignorance or error may give rise to the rescission action in accordance with law” and “The resignation made due to grave fear unjustly inflicted, malice, substantial error or simony is null by virtue of law itself.”

[xiii] Commissum vs. commisso, vitae vs. vita.

[xiv] Hora 29 vs. hora 20.

[xv] Cf. Josephmaryam, Análisis de la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI. [consulted May 04, 2022] Available on: https://josephmaryam.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/analisis.pdf.

[xvi] https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/04/26/follow-the-munus-dr-mazza-via-dr-briggs-as-the-debate-heats-up-over-pope-benedicts-abdication/#comments.

[xvii] Cf. https://www.fromrome.info/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/; https://abyssum.org/2018/03/21/much-has-been-written-about-benedicts-resignation-and-francis-election-here-is-the-best-analysis-i-have-read-up-to-now/.

#288: What is Behind Every Single Mass Killing—Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

#288: What is Behind Every Single Mass Killing—Lt. Col. Dave Grossman


Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is one of my top 1% favorite guests. His expertise in the psychology of killing, his work as a scholar and US Army professional, and his straightforward communication style make him the ideal guest for the topic: what is the only causal factor in the personal backgrounds of every single school mass murderer?

He is the director of the Warrior Science Group and lectures all over the world.

This interview must be shared widely. “School shootings” and terrorist attacks are going to get much worse and we need to be prepared, without succumbing to the paralysis of fear. God wins, and there are things ordinary people can do to detect, deter, and defeat these killers in our midst.

In this Interview You Will Learn

  • That the single factor in 100% of “school shootings” is involvement in violent video games
  • Why we shouldn’t call them “shootings” but mass murders
  • The names and content examples of some of the worse of these “games”
  • Grossman’s mission to understand and prevent crime and to equip law enforcement (and regular civilians) to have a bullet proof mind
  • The first mass murder in a school setting was back in 1975—in very pro-gun control Ontario
  • Why these events have nothing inherently to do with guns
  • Warning signs of possibly troubled and violence-prone young men in your community.



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.

Answers to Mark Docherty’s Four Questions About What Pope Benedict XVI Did On February 11, 2013

Answers to Mark Docherty’s Four Questions About What
Pope Benedict XVI Did On February 11, 2013

By Patrick Coffin

Finally, I am getting around to replying to Mark Docherty over at https://nonvenipacem.com, who literally begged me to do so on Twitter.

So, in homage to Strunk and White’s maxim to omit needless words, and grateful to Mark for the opportunity, here are my answers to his four questions (posted May 22, 2022), the full title of which was “Four Questions for the BiP crowd who maintain Benedict knew what he was doing, did it on purpose, and remains the only true pope with his own full knowledge and consent.”

QUESTION ONE: “If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so?”

ANSWER ONE: Resign the external functions (ministerium) of the papacy is what he did. Resign the office (munus) is what he did not do. The juridical object of his Declaratio was not the office of the Sovereign Pontiff, per Canon 332.2, therefore he remains the true Pope.

To assert that this is “grave matter” for which you judge him guilty of “mortal sin” is to commit the Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) fallacy. The additional accusations—like that His Holiness Pope Benedict is a great “deceiver” who wrongly “does evil that good may come”—stem from the same false starting point.

QUESTION TWO: “If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL.”

ANSWER TWO: Pope Benedict did not “execute intentional grave deception” (see above). As for the claim that he has been silent about the apostasy of his “successor,” two things may be said. First, to be precise, he has no successor, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an antipope. Second, at key junctures in the history of Bergoglio’s’ maltreatment of the deposit of Faith, Pope Benedict has intervened with pointed Catholic commentary, providing a timely counter-ballast to Bergoglio’s obvious heretical directives and doctrines. He refused to endorse a collection of lame books by the Argentine usurper, he collaborated with Robert Cardinal Sarah on a book affirming celibacy, he has weighed with select critical interviews that transmit his assessment of the “barque of Peter seeming to capsize” etc. Above all, His Holiness has never once said, “Francis is the Pope, obey him.”

For a complete list of these papal interventions, a keyword search of the research of Andrea Cionci HERE or Brother Alexis Bugnolo HERE will deliver a treasure trove of examples.

And don’t miss Estefanía Acosta’s outstanding book—really, the definitive field manual to this whole question—Benedict XVI: Pope Emeritus? The Always Is Also a Forever. (Almost 90% of Amazon reader reviews are Five Stars).

I don’t know what to make of your complaint that “70 million Catholics who have died since 2013” and “have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition” other than to say it’s a bizarre non sequitur. Pope Benedict has never denied he is the sitting Pontiff, and he is not responsible for the foolish, anti-Catholic, masonic messaging by Francis the antipope.

More importantly, God judges all souls justly and with mercy, and takes into account the same mysterious interplay of conditions as objective matter, subjective context, formation of conscience, and so on—whether or not an antipope sits in Rome. He did the same in history before Christ came to earth, and does so today for remote aboriginal tribes who have not heard the gospel. Were previous true Popes like Urban VI responsible for the damnation of souls because of the non-binding teachings of anti-popes like Clement VIII?

Strange that so many trads and other conservative Catholics reserve their most potent venom for His Holiness Pope Benedict, whose Impeded See (Canon 412) was not only established in response to being criminally forced out (complete with death threats, himself for certain and others most likely) but who continually and with the suffering mentioned in his Declaratio, safeguards the integrity of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Faith, until such time that all is revealed.

QUESTION THREE: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio?

ANSWER THREE: He resigned, and intended to resign, the ministerium, or functions, executive juridical duties, and so on, of the papacy. The video of him doing so in real time is HERE for all to see and read. His chosen key nouns are all declensions of ministerium, not munus. He could have validly resigned the office (munus) at any point since February 11, 2013, but he has not.

QUESTION FOUR: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner?

ANSWER FOUR: With respect, this is the equivalent of beginning a conversation with “Have you stopped beating your wife?” As I understand Andrea Cionci’s research—painstaking and thorough as it is, over many years drawn from dozens of contexts—the Ratzinger “Code” is better understood as a method or manner of communicating. It’s not a kid’s treasure key to find the mythical gold chest, and it’s not a bunch of occult or secret runes or hieroglyphics that can only be known by initiates.

On the contrary, it’s a consistent pattern of revealing a juridical substructure of meaning (namely, that His Holiness is very much aware he is still the Pope) that makes use of a pedagogy that, to borrow from Cionci, brings to mind our Lord’s teaching through parables. No one faults Jesus for communicating His gospel with stories that begin, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” instead of delivering a didactic lecture about metaphysics and theology.

The so-called Ratzinger Code seems a strange and unlikely concept at first. And while it is subtle and sometimes sublime, it’s not terribly complicated. Many true things are strange and unlikely. Like the Incarnation itself.

No need for a decoder ring or elite training. All you need to do is a) look, and then, with the logical and consistent evidence laid out, b) see.

If not, what you’re left with is the Substantial Error theory, the grand assumption of which is that Pope Benedict XVI, the orthodox Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a quarter century who oversaw the very phrasing of the 1983 Code of Canon Law by which he resigned the ministerium and created the Impeded See—didn’t know how to resign properly!

This man—who has spoken, written, (probably) dreamed, and lectured in Latin at the PhD level for six decades, and while he was the sitting Sovereign Pontiff at age 76—was ignorant of his own modernist-tainted error that “the papacy can be bifurcated”?

Such an error, if true, effectively obliterates the gift of infallibility. Mark, I’m sorry, but the Substantial Error theory proves too much.

The cardinals who were appointed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are the only ones assigned by canon law to authoritatively adjudicate and end this Bergoglian nightmare, and therefore need to examine the most accurate collection of evidence for BiP.

To that end, brother, I genuinely hope this helps.

Letter to Cardinal Müller

Letter to Cardinal Müller: help us understand why “the pope is Francis” and not Benedict XVI

Last week, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, did an interview on the German website, Kath.net, and reported on Marco Tosatti’s blog. In that interview, he gave assurances to his readers that “the legitimate pope is Francis.” It’s merely a dictum, or claim from an otherwise authoritative source.

So, to address His Eminence’s many presuppositions and misunderstandings (or ignorance of the “Benedict Is Pope” evidence), and to provide a coherent review of the evidence itself, the Italian researcher Andrea Cionci writes the following reply, which I am honored to publish here.

Most Reverend Eminence,

We permit ourselves to direct to you publicly these scribblings, as one trusting in your charity as a pastor, first as a prince of the Church, mindful of the ancient Christian maxim: veritas summa charitas est (the truth is the greatest charity).

In your recent interview at the German website, Kath.net, as reported on the blog of Marco Tosatti, here, you assured everyone that “the legitimate pope is Francis”.

Even if, in the article, you had not judged it opportune to delve into your affirmation, we have reason to believe that you might be able to enlighten us — or have us enlightened by one of your collaborators — on the thorny question which remains unanswered for nine years and which has seen, throughout the whole world, the interventions – to the contray opinion – from authoritative scholars, canonists, jurists and theologians. To these there have been added the gravest affirmation on the part of three bishops, Mons. Gracida, Mons. Lenga and Mons. Negri on the fact that Pope Benedict did not abdicate and/or was constrained to abandon the Petrine throne (see here).

If, however, as you assure us, “the legitimate pope is Francis”, that means that the abdication of pope Benedict certainly happened without problems or infractions of canon law. If everyone took place in a crystal clear way, at this point, however, we do not understand why some priests incredulous at the claims of a juridically valid renunciation, have been excommunicated and/or reduced to the lay state without a canonical process, if all of this could have been explained so easily.

We implore you to help us understand how it can be, if Canon 332.2 in the Code of Canon Law, imposes for an abdication the renunciation of the Petrine munus, that the same would be equally valid if the renunciation was of the ministerium. Let us remember that it was the same Cardinal Ratzinger who distinguished the papal office in 1983 into these two entities according to the practice of Germanic dynastic law (see here), and that these two terms are not equivalent.

We would like to understand, in consequence, if the unedited expressions (as revealed by Attorney Arthur Lambauer) used in the Declaratio, such as sede Romae, sede Sancti Petri, have a juridical existence such that they can be left “vacante” and if it be true that an abdication, instead of being simultaneous just as the election, could be deferred by setting a sort of “expiration date” for Our Lord God to take the munus back (though in this case it is the ministerium).

In accord with such a request, for the sake of the peace of souls, we would ask you, if it were possible, to show a formal document with which Pope Benedict, immediately after 8 P.M. on the 28th of February, 2013, verbally or by writing conformed his renunciation of the ministerium, given that he bade farewell to the world at 5:30 P.M., two and a half hours before the hour in which the announcement of February 11th would have taken effect. His entire Declaration has remained, as much as we understand it, legally never confirmed. We would want to understand if the ministerium can be canonically separated from the munus, or if this cannot happen in fact, except in the case of a sede impedita (impeded See). Hopefully, on this point the canonists of the University of Bologna can give us useful elucidations, after several months of work precisely on this theme of “a pope emeritus and an impeded pope”. We have tried to ask them several times, but to no avail.

Moreover, you then affirm (in your recent interview) that “the resignation of Pope Benedict in 2013 introduced a tension in the Petrine principle of unity for the Faith and the communion of the Church which has no equal in history and which has not yet been dogmatically reckoned with.”

Should we, then, hold that the Holy Father, Ratzinger, has voluntarily maintained, even up to today, 1.285 billion Catholics in this terrible, anguished ambiguity? Is it possible that he had not foreseen a “pope emeritus” — understood as a canonical status of an ex-pope — a thing judged by diverse canonists as theologically impossible?

Then, there are some very strange facts about which we are certain you will be able to furnish us with clarity. One, for example, is the fact that Pope Benedict has repeated for 9 years, that “the pope is only one”, without explaining which one, and moreover that he too gives the Apostolic Blessing (see here), an exclusive prerogative of the reigning pope. Or, how is it, that he affirms that he has maintained the white raiment because he did not have “other habits at his disposal”? Is it possible that after 9 years that no one has been able to furnish him with a black cassock? (see here).
In the volume, “Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald, on the topic of his own “resignation”, the Holy Father, Benedict, affirms: “No pope has resigned in a thousand years and even in the first millennium it has been an exception.” With six popes abdicated in the first millennium and four in the second, this phrase has caused us to hold, out of the requirements of logic, that he must have referred to those two popes of the first millennium, before the Gregorian reform, who, as he did also, lost the practical exercise of power (inasmuch as they were driven from it by antipopes), but who, on point, maintained entirely their divine investiture as much as they returned to their thrones without the need of any re-election. (see here).

On which account, can we , therefore, be certain that Francis possesses the Petrine munus, that is, the papal investiture which comes directly from God and which offers the guarantees of assistance on the part of the Holy Spirit? (see here).

Hence, must we hold that when pope Francis enthroned a pagan divinity in Saint Peter or when he declares himself “personally in favor of civil unions” (which legalize the second of the “four sins which cry out for vengeance from Heaven” according to Catholic doctrine) that he has been assisted by the Holy Spirit?

You mention in your interview the discourse of Pope Benedict for the 65th anniversary of his priesthood, in which he cited the Greek word, “Euchristomen” as symbolic of the event of the abdication, that word by which Jesus rendered thanks for His Sacrifice which lay ahead of Him. (see here). Why?

Indeed, ought we hold that Pope Benedict became, therefore, from 2013 onward, so insensible to the Faithful as to cast them into a panic with ambiguous gestures and phrases, not withstanding that he is noted for his crystal clarity of thought and word? (here).

Your Eminence could have the sensibility to understand the sorrow and anguish of not having received a reply to one’s own “dubia”, but, nevertheless, if any juridic act in the life of the Church should be utmost clear and crystalline, it is precisely the abdication of a Pontiff, inasmuch as papa dubius, papa nullus (“a doubtful pope is no pope”). Last year, in a public letter, we asked our authoritative colleague Massimo Franco (for the ultimate book of which, you wrote the Preface) to help us understand such questions. Franco himself, perhaps not so up to discussing these canonical questions, judged the question of interest (see here) and, as his entire response to us, invited me to write a book.

This we have done, with dedication and good faith, and all of these elements, as of yet unclarified, have opened a way to a rigorous reconstruction according to which Pope Benedict, constrained to remove himself from the midst of Globalist power brokers and the Group of St. Gallen, which by the admission of Cardinal Danneels, supported cardinal Bergoglio, in 2013 never did in fact abdicate, but has “put” his enemies “to the test” with a candid, sincere declaration in which, by renouncing the exercise of power, he retreated into an impeded see, the canonical state in which a pope is a prisoner and prevented the possibility of communicating freely. In this manner, he has remained the pope to all effect, though as a contemplative and as one deprived of the faculty of governance, and his enemies, having been tricked by his initial mention of a renunciation, have schismed and nullified themselves by convoking an illegitimate conclave in the presence of a pope who is neither dead nor has abdicated. An invalid conclave can never been legitimized by a universalis ecclesiase adhesio, that is, by a pacific universal adhesion on the part of the Church.

Yes, in this manner, the mystery of a double papacy, which has cause so much discussion, might be explained: “a sort of enlarged ministerium” among two popes, yes, but one who is legitimate and contemplative (Benedict XVI) and another who is illegitimate and active (Bergoglio). To distinguish himself from the illegitimate one, Benedict should, therefore, be the “emeritus”, a term to be understood not as “a pope in retirement” (which is in fact juridically impossible and in-existent), but as the one who is “worthy”, who has “merited”, who has the “right” to be the pope, from the Latin verb, emereo.

Yes, one might even understand the reason for these strange declarations of Pope Benedict, known now as the “Ratzinger Code” and certified even by specialists at the university level (see here): about Pope Benedict being in a impeded see, not being able to express himself freely and obliged to have recourse to subtle logical tricks to explain the canonical truth.

You can understand well the anguish of the Faithful which not even the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, when responding to myself, the author of this reconstruction, had nothing to object to (see here).

Imagine what kind of scandal this comportment would be for the life of the Church and for the credibility of pope Francis from whom we would willingly ask pardon if all the questions on the table were publicly clarified by the Church. Perhaps, together with so many illustrious scholars, we have been the victim of a delusion of the mind in which, though following the iron rules of logic, hundreds of elements of fact which regard canon law, theology, the history of the Church and the “absent minded” declarations of Pope Benedict come together in an extremely coherent vision. It will, therefore, not be difficult for you or your collaborators to take the veil from our eyes and disassemble the diabolic illusion by which we have been victimized.

Up to today, the opposing replies have availed themselves only of insult, aggression on our person and of the most vain arguments of pretext, (see here), and this has increased other doubts among my readers.

Behold the reason, precisely to avoid the scandal of such considerations, why they are now gathered together in one of the most sold books in Italy (“Codice Ratzinger” by ByoBlu editions), a copy of which, it you like, would be our honor to send you: such that we implore you to call for a public canonical investigation precisely to safeguard the legitimacy of pope Francis, to which you owe the cardinal’s hat since 2014, and thus in this manner put to flight every doubt whatsoever regarding the renunciation of the papacy by Pope Benedict XVI.

Perhaps, and better yet, it would be suitable to ask the Holy Father emeritus for a public press conference, with all the guarantees for authenticity, so that He himself can put a definitive end to this knotting Quaestio Magna.

With the hope that you would redeem us from error by unraveling at last these knots in the light of the Logos, the Reason which reveals truth, and finally calm the Catholic people (and not only them), we offer your the most respectful and cordial salute,

The original article may be found HERE.

Photo Credit: New German Cardinal, Gerhard Ludwig Muller is met by Benedict XVI in St Peter’s Basilica Feb. 22, 2014. | Franco Origlia/Getty Images News/Getty Images.

#287: Masonic Infiltration of the Vatican—Fr. Charles Murr

#287: Masonic Infiltration of the Vatican—Fr. Charles Murr


Father Charles Theodore Murr is a sort of post-Vatican II clerical Forrest Gump, having been closely associated with many influential Vatican prelates and other ecclesial and cultural influencers over many decades.

As a young priest in Rome, he worked alongside Canadian Archbishop (later Cardinal) Édouard Gagnon, who was commissioned by Pope Paul VI to document secret curial membership in Freemasonry. This is where the story goes downhill.

Or at least, the Gagnon Investigation went nowhere under Pope VI, John Paul I, and, very regrettably, also John Paul II.

In this Interview You Will Learn

  • The reformers (Gagnon, Benelli, Murr, et al) and resisters (Villot, Gaggio, Casserole) of post-Conciliar Masonic infiltration.
  • Annibale Bugnini, designer of the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass of Paul VI) was a Mason and why that matters.
  • The three volume dossier presented to the ailing and apathetic Paul VI.
  • The concern expressed by Pope John Paul I and the effort to get to the bottom of the Masonic question—and the suspicious details surrounding the death of Pope John Paul I.
  • Why the globe-trotting activities of Pope John Paul II took precedence over routing out Curial Masons.
  • The real reason Archbishop Gagnon quit to become a missionary in the Colombian jungle.



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.