Seems Coffin has crossed the line into schism (becoming a sedevacantist) following the death of Benedict XVI

[Michie]

Was Benedict XVI the True Pope the Whole Time?

No, no, definitely not. From 2013, Francis was pope, and Benedict was pope emeritus. This is crucial to understand.

Of all the things Benedict XVI did as a theologian, and then a cardinal, and then a pope, the one detail that every one of his obituaries touches upon is his resignation.

His announcement of this plan to resign, just shy of a decade ago, shocked the world. In fact, in the aftermath of Benedict’s resignation came a strange phenomenon: Catholics claiming that he hadn’t really resigned.

Patrick Coffin, former host of Catholic Answers Live, suggested that Benedict’s “resignation” was some kind of elaborate sting operation, in which Benedict merely pretended not to be the pope to expose corruption in the Church. In Coffin’s words, “if his abdication was intentionally false, it was a masterstroke, pure genius, because it revealed all the corruption that he knew was simmering just below the surface of the Church’s life, but he was too weak to confront it.”

This is a form of “Benevacantism”—the theory that Benedict XVI never truly abdicated and was, in fact, the true pope, whereas Francis was and still is an antipope.

Given that we’ve already addressed this argument elsewhere, why bring it up again?

For two reasons. First, Benedict’s death clarifies something that Coffin and others misunderstood. In his final general audience, Benedict asked for prayers “for the new successor of the apostle Peter” and then again asked “each of you to pray for me and for the new pope.” That Benedict was declaring himself no longer the pope was unambiguous. But he also said something else, which has led to a great deal of confusion:

Continued below.

Seems Coffin has crossed the line into schism (becoming a sedevacantist) following the death of Benedict XVI – Defenders of the Catholic Faith

Was Benedict XVI the True Pope the Whole Time? No, no, definitely not. From 2013, Francis was pope, and Benedict was pope emeritus. This is crucial to understand. JOE HESCHMEYER • 1/6/2023 Of all the things Benedict XVI did as a theologian, and then a cardinal, and then a pope, the one detail...

catholicconvert.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Was Benedict XVI the True Pope the Whole Time?

No, no, definitely not. From 2013, Francis was pope, and Benedict was pope emeritus. This is crucial to understand.

Of all the things Benedict XVI did as a theologian, and then a cardinal, and then a pope, the one detail that every one of his obituaries touches upon is his resignation.

His announcement of this plan to resign, just shy of a decade ago, shocked the world. In fact, in the aftermath of Benedict’s resignation came a strange phenomenon: Catholics claiming that he hadn’t really resigned.

Patrick Coffin, former host of Catholic Answers Live, suggested that Benedict’s “resignation” was some kind of elaborate sting operation, in which Benedict merely pretended not to be the pope to expose corruption in the Church. In Coffin’s words, “if his abdication was intentionally false, it was a masterstroke, pure genius, because it revealed all the corruption that he knew was simmering just below the surface of the Church’s life, but he was too weak to confront it.”

This is a form of “Benevacantism”—the theory that Benedict XVI never truly abdicated and was, in fact, the true pope, whereas Francis was and still is an antipope.

Given that we’ve already addressed this argument elsewhere, why bring it up again?

For two reasons. First, Benedict’s death clarifies something that Coffin and others misunderstood. In his final general audience, Benedict asked for prayers “for the new successor of the apostle Peter” and then again asked “each of you to pray for me and for the new pope.” That Benedict was declaring himself no longer the pope was unambiguous. But he also said something else, which has led to a great deal of confusion:

Continued below.

Seems Coffin has crossed the line into schism (becoming a sedevacantist) following the death of Benedict XVI – Defenders of the Catholic Faith

Was Benedict XVI the True Pope the Whole Time? No, no, definitely not. From 2013, Francis was pope, and Benedict was pope emeritus. This is crucial to understand. JOE HESCHMEYER • 1/6/2023 Of all the things Benedict XVI did as a theologian, and then a cardinal, and then a pope, the one detail...

catholicconvert.com

That good people like Patrick Coffin and even Patrick Madrid get drawn into such things is indicative of just how bad it has gotten with pope Francis. He is alienating otherwise good and thoughtful people. I am hoping we can all bring it back in if the next pope is decent. Hoping it's not too late and things haven't splintered irreparably.

Changed: no reliable evidence of this in Patrick Madrid.

 

[Michie]

That good people like Patrick Coffin and even Patrick Madrid get drawn into such things is indicative of just how bad it has gotten with pope Francis. He is alienating otherwise good and thoughtful people. I am hoping we can all bring it back in if the next pope is decent. Hoping it's not too late and things haven't splintered irreparably.

It’s a complete mess. I can disagree but I’m not dipping a toe in the waters of schism. No thank you.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It’s a complete mess. I can disagree but I’m not dipping a toe in the waters of schism. No thank you.

No. I can't foresee going into schism myself either. But it's kind of like pope Francis is the visible seat of unity in the Church AND AT THE SAME TIME he seems to be leading his own schism. I will not rise up against the visible seat of unity in the Church. But the pope does seem to be leading a schism I cannot enter into either. Too complicated. I think going to confession, praying, and trying to stay in the middle of the Church I learned about from the older popes and councils and Fathers and the Bible is about my speed. I'm staying in continuity. Those other guys can be discontinuous.

 

[Michie]

No. I can't foresee going into schism myself either. But it's kind of like pope Francis is the visible seat of unity in the Church AND AT THE SAME TIME he seems to be leading his own schism. I will not rise up against the visible seat of unity in the Church. But the pope does seem to be leading a schism I cannot enter into either. Too complicated. I think going to confession, praying, and trying to stay in the middle of the Church I learned about from the older popes and councils and Fathers and the Bible is about my speed. I'm staying in continuity. Those other guys can be discontinuous.

It’s incredibly confusing for a convert. The scales of justice within the Church seem to be very unbalanced. And the lack of communication from our Papa?

 

[chevyontheriver]

It’s incredibly confusing for a convert. The scales of justice within the Church seem to be very unbalanced. And the lack of communication from our Papa?

It’s incredibly confusing for a cradle Catholic. The scales of justice within the Church seem to be very unbalanced. And the lack of communication from our Papa?

 

[Michie]

It’s incredibly confusing for a cradle Catholic. The scales of justice within the Church seem to be very unbalanced. And the lack of communication from our Papa?

I have to take that as we are on the same page. Lol!

 

[narnia59]

That good people like Patrick Coffin and even Patrick Madrid get drawn into such things is indicative of just how bad it has gotten with pope Francis. He is alienating otherwise good and thoughtful people. I am hoping we can all bring it back in if the next pope is decent. Hoping it's not too late and things haven't splintered irreparably.

I was aware of Patrick Coffin, but Patrick Madrid as well? I hadn't seen that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I was aware of Patrick Coffin, but Patrick Madrid as well? I hadn't seen that.

I do not know the details. In fact I hope somebody got their 'Patricks' confused.

He's still on Relevant Radio so maybe mine is a false alarm. I did see it on the internet somewhere, but we all know what Abraham Lincoln said about things on the internet.

It's just that popesplaining, which we all did nine years ago, is just too difficult to do anymore. Other explanations have to be found. And one of them is that we are popeless. I don't accept that, but then it's either love him as he is or admit he is a bad pope. I fully get why people would say we have no pope now. Even while I think they are wrong. The whole situation is painful.

 

[narnia59]

I do not know the details. In fact I hope somebody got their 'Patricks' confused.

He's still on Relevant Radio so maybe mine is a false alarm. I did see it on the internet somewhere, but we all know what Abraham Lincoln said about things on the internet.

It's just that popesplaining, which we all did nine years ago, is just too difficult to do anymore. Other explanations have to be found. And one of them is that we are popeless. I don't accept that, but then it's either love him as he is or admit he is a bad pope. I fully get why people would say we have no pope now. Even while I think they are wrong. The whole situation is painful.

I guess didn't they ever read any church history about bad popes? And know that's always a possibility?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I guess didn't they ever read any church history about bad popes? And know that's always a possibility?

Yup. We have had some doosies. And we have been blessed with great to good to decent popes for a long long time. My opinion of JPII and Benedict XVI is quite high, as are the opinions of hundreds of millions of others. So it's a bit of a shock. At least I knew about those bad ones from reading that Chamberlain book 'The Bad Popes'.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It’s incredibly confusing for a convert. The scales of justice within the Church seem to be very unbalanced. And the lack of communication from our Papa?

History shows us these dilemmas have always existed.
Some Popes [orthodox ones] exiled, killed, punished.

Bad ones with mental conditions existed.

But alas, the teachings haven't changed.

The closest to possible wrong teaching was really nothing short of the Pope suggesting caution but not himself teaching on the subject whatsoever.. However; when inquired via letter for a teaching, he had already passed away.

The history of the Church is riddled and plagued with 'humans' and that the teachings still stand is remarkable [Holy Spirit guided].

So keep on praying for the ones who were given more.

 

[narnia59]

Yup. We have had some doosies. And we have been blessed with great to good to decent popes for a long long time. My opinion of JPII and Benedict XVI is quite high, as are the opinions of hundreds of millions of others. So it's a bit of a shock. At least I knew about those bad ones from reading that Chamberlain book 'The Bad Popes'.

I am always greatly comforted by the parable of the weeds in the wheat. Jesus told us that we would have weeds with us until the end of time. That you can't try to 'rip them up' without ripping up the wheat as well. That in my opinion is why the efforts to "change" the Church, even with motives to change it in a good way, if done in an activist kind of manner will do more harm than good. You will leave a path of destruction of the wheat in your wake. That's why I reject calls for petitions, or protests, or to stop giving money, etc. I think the only outcome of those things is to harm the Church by pulling up the wheat. Our only recourse is to follow Christ's words that "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting." The formula for demons to back off it seems.

I remember having a discussion once with a woman who was a bit smug that there were no problems like clergy sexual abuse in her church. I was actually quite doubtful of the claim, because these things are often quite well hidden as we all know. But I asked her, aren't you a little concerned that the devil sees your church as so small of a threat to him that he doesn't bother to try to sow weeds there? She was taken aback and not amused.

I can't go so far as to say I believe that Pope Francis is a weed. Many of his points are quite good, he seems to understand the devil is active and working (wish people reported more on his words about that). I think he has a singular message to us all that we should take to heart -- you can have all the doctrine right but if your heart isn't right it's worthless to you. My guess is he's known more than a few people who fit that description, and perhaps tends to apply it to most of us. But it is a message that we should all hear and heed the warning, and examine ourselves as such. He seems to have the view the doctrine is settled, we all know it, why aren't we all living it? And that is not a bad thing. The problem is he's not watching the fox in the hen house who is very much taking advantage of his lack of attention to safeguarding the doctrine.

But that is just my take. One thing is certain, the next papal election is going to be very, very interesting and is going to set us on a path that will take us to new heights or depths. I pray for new heights. I pray that the reason Christ allowed Francis to be Pope is twofold. First, he wants us all to hear that message and heed to it. Second, the foxes have shown their faces, and the right new pope could use that to much more easily do a needed housecleaning. So that's my prayer.

 

[Erose]

The problem with our Church right now in the West, because I’m not sure this is an issue any where else. Is there are a good number of very vocal Catholics who see the Church and her teachings through the lens of their politics; and we have them on both sides of that political lens. I find this sad because you are right it can be very confusing to those Catholics who are not well informed on the orthodoxy of our faith, because these men and women usually are the loudest in the room.

It all falls back to the number one issue of our Church, and that is adult catechism. There is one thing I pray to God that we would have learned from our Protestant brethren. The one thing that they do so much better than us, and that is adult continuing catechism.

If more Catholics truly knew their faith, these squeaky wheels wouldn’t have an audience.

 

[Erose]

Dr. Taylor Marshall is another one. A couple of days ago he tweeted that the Pope does not have the authority to change the liturgy. Really? Here is someone who has a pretty large audience saying something that is completely and utterly false. The only person in the Catholic Church who has the authority to either change the liturgy or put his seal of approval on revisions before they can be used is the Pope! No one else has that authority period.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I remember having a discussion once with a woman who was a bit smug that there were no problems like clergy sexual abuse in her church. I was actually quite doubtful of the claim, because these things are often quite well hidden as we all know. But I asked her, aren't you a little concerned that the devil sees your church as so small of a threat to him that he doesn't bother to try to sow weeds there? She was taken aback and not amused.

Clever response, but accurate.

Seems like Catholics have three quarters disclosure and most of the rest keep it a tight secret if they can get away with it. Of course that was the Catholic modus operandi for a long time too.

I suppose if she ever did find out about any sordid goings on she could just start up a new 'Purer Than The Driven Snow' denomination down the street until something sordid happened there.

Actually I am quite amazed by how many in CF refuse to be involved with any actual church outside of their own homes. Many of them must have already been burned one too many times.

I can't go so far as to say I believe that Pope Francis is a weed. Many of his points are quite good, he seems to understand the devil is active and working (wish people reported more on his words about that).

I'll say he is a bad pope, for specific reasons, but not pure evil by any means. He gets it right from time to time too.

I think he has a singular message to us all that we should take to heart -- you can have all the doctrine right but if your heart isn't right it's worthless to you. My guess is he's known more than a few people who fit that description, and perhaps tends to apply it to most of us. But it is a message that we should all hear and heed the warning, and examine ourselves as such. He seems to have the view the doctrine is settled, we all know it, why aren't we all living it? And that is not a bad thing. The problem is he's not watching the fox in the hen house who is very much taking advantage of his lack of attention to safeguarding the doctrine.

I find him too difficult to figure out. Is he a dupe or an active co-conspirator? I don't know. His appointments include some of the worst sort.

But that is just my take. One thing is certain, the next papal election is going to be very, very interesting and is going to set us on a path that will take us to new heights or depths. I pray for new heights. I pray that the reason Christ allowed Francis to be Pope is twofold. First, he wants us all to hear that message and heed to it. Second, the foxes have shown their faces, and the right new pope could use that to much more easily do a needed housecleaning. So that's my prayer.

My prayer too. We could get a pope Francis II or a Benedict XVII or any number of other possibilities. Maybe one that will clean up messes rather than keep making new ones. We could have had a Catholic decade in the 2010's. Instead I have heard from so many people that they would have become Catholic but it's too unsettled right now.

 

[narnia59]

Dr. Taylor Marshall is another one. A couple of days ago he tweeted that the Pope does not have the authority to change the liturgy. Really? Here is someone who has a pretty large audience saying something that is completely and utterly false. The only person in the Catholic Church who has the authority to either change the liturgy or put his seal of approval on revisions before they can be used is the Pope! No one else has that authority period.

I marked Taylor Marshall off my list when he claimed that Pope Francis never mentioned God the Father and only mentioned Jesus Christ twice in one of his encyclicals. I went online and just did a basic search. It was true he only mentioned "Jesus Christ" twice; the other more than thirty times he just referred to him as Jesus. And he mentioned God somewhere close to 100 times; he just didn't refer to God the Father specifically. It was blatantly dishonest and its entire purpose was to create animosity towards Pope Francis and he was successful to a large degree. All of his followers just accepted what he said without verifying it and reposted it and it spread like wildfire.

And I'm sure they'll accept that claim too.

 

[narnia59]

The problem with our Church right now in the West, because I’m not sure this is an issue any where else. Is there are a good number of very vocal Catholics who see the Church and her teachings through the lens of their politics; and we have them on both sides of that political lens. I find this sad because you are right it can be very confusing to those Catholics who are not well informed on the orthodoxy of our faith, because these men and women usually are the loudest in the room.

It all falls back to the number one issue of our Church, and that is adult catechism. There is one thing I pray to God that we would have learned from our Protestant brethren. The one thing that they do so much better than us, and that is adult continuing catechism.

If more Catholics truly knew their faith, these squeaky wheels wouldn’t have an audience.

I've said for a long time that Catholics in this country have allowed their consciences to be formed by political parties and not Catholic teaching. Adult faith formation is very much needed.

 

[narnia59]

Clever response, but accurate.

Seems like Catholics have three quarters disclosure and most of the rest keep it a tight secret if they can get away with it. Of course that was the Catholic modus operandi for a long time too.

I suppose if she ever did find out about any sordid goings on she could just start up a new 'Purer Than The Driven Snow' denomination down the street until something sordid happened there.

Actually I am quite amazed by how many in CF refuse to be involved with any actual church outside of their own homes. Many of them must have already been burned one too many times.

I'll say he is a bad pope, for specific reasons, but not pure evil by any means. He gets it right from time to time too.

I find him too difficult to figure out. Is he a dupe or an active co-conspirator? I don't know. His appointments include some of the worst sort.

My prayer too. We could get a pope Francis II or a Benedict XVII or any number of other possibilities. Maybe one that will clean up messes rather than keep making new ones. We could have had a Catholic decade in the 2010's. Instead I have heard from so many people that they would have become Catholic but it's too unsettled right now.

If someone won't become Catholic until they think things are better settled then they're the type of person who wouldn't stay Catholic when we hit a rough patch. It all goes back to not understanding that it's all a mighty round of spiritual warfare and sometimes it will look like the devil is winning. But to deny yourself being in the barque of St. Peter and the Eucharist is sad and truly does lack an understanding that the bosom of the Church is the safest place to be protected in the midst of this epic battle.

And I think Francis has been duped because he can only look at things through the lens of his own experience. But I could be wrong.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Dr. Taylor Marshall is another one. A couple of days ago he tweeted that the Pope does not have the authority to change the liturgy. Really? Here is someone who has a pretty large audience saying something that is completely and utterly false. The only person in the Catholic Church who has the authority to either change the liturgy or put his seal of approval on revisions before they can be used is the Pope! No one else has that authority period.

Jesus was clear...

Whatsoever you open or shut it is also so in Heaven.

I have heard the expression 'He's more holy than the Pope himself...'
Holiness isn't the measure. For truly there is no measure except our own obedience to changes that do not change teachings.
St Chrysostom called the Pope: 'The Teacher of the entire Church."

And never has it been known since the Popes who did in fact teach, that teachings were changed. They have become more 'understood' as questions arose. This also refers to pronouncement [ex cathedra] in Ecumenical councils as well as teaching encylicals. Pronouncing the canon to be observed. etc etc

In todays world, the only questions dallying about is 'same sex' and of that ilk.
However; though slooooooooow moving [sometimes decades] the Church does make a decree. It just depends on the battle ensuing and the questions unfolding.

I will say, if I were in the clergy, I would definitely not envy [and so very few do] the position of the Pope in our times. In fact, most times in history because it IS not a position of power as kings, but a position that weighs heavily on someone. Very heavy indeed.
So many souls... so many.