Roma Locuta Est

August 7, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, August 6th, Patrick Coffin appeared on Tim Gordon’s Rules for Retrograde podcast (see HERE).  In the course of Mr. Coffin’s appearance, the topic of Benepapism came up during the interview.

The particular brand of Benepapism peddled by Mr. Coffin is Andrea Cionci’s so-called “Ratzinger Code.” The general idea behind Cionci’s theory of an ‘impeded see‘ is that Benedict did not really resign the papacy. Rather, seeing the extent of modernism in the Church, and wanting to protect the papacy from being taken over by heretics (e.g., the ‘St. Gallen mafia’), Benedict engaged in a sophisticated ruse whereby it would only appear he had resigned the papacy.  That is, Benedict’s seeming resignation document (Declaratio) was not really a resignation document. Rather, through careful wording of the document, Benedict devised a way to retain the papal office (munus), and only give up the practical governance of the Church — all while retaining the papacy. By doing this, the claim goes, Benedict was able to prevent the modernists within the Church from gaining hold of the papacy.

The Thesis authored by Mr. Cionci, and defended by Mr. Coffin vs. Common Sense

This theory relies on various bits of supposed evidence and claims. However, for the moment, let’s focus on the big picture question: does it make sense to claim Benedict essentially ‘pretended’ to resign the papacy in order to save it, and the Church?

The answer is a clear “no.” The theory fails when just a modicum of common sense is applied to the question. If Benedict XVI intended what is claimed by Cionci and Coffin, then it necessarily follows that Benedict must bear responsibility for the Church, cardinals, bishops, and the common faithful believing he wasn’t really the pope. But worse still, Benedict would be morally responsible for the conditions, occasion, and opportunity for an invalid conclave to elect an anti-pope. Thus, Benedict would share in the responsibility of whatever wrong and evil perpetuated by Francis as an anti-pope under this theory. Not only that, Benedict’s “plan” left us in a situation where it is very likely the next “pope” will be theological clone of Francis.

So, how is this a plausible plan, good or not? How could Pope Benedict XVI think he could better save the Church from its internal enemies by pretending not to be pope, rather than by acting as its true pope?  How could turning over the Church to an anti-pope and the wolves to ‘lead’ the Church for rest of Benedict’s life – and beyond – be a wise strategy? What of all the souls that might be led astray and lost because of this ruse?  The reality is, he who entertains such a absurd theory makes Benedict as big a monster as Francis would be in such a scenario.

Indeed, such a plan requires the suspension of all common sense to suggest that pretending not to be pope is a wiser and more preferable course of action than actually remaining as the visible and active pope. Surely, one can do more good for the Lord’s flock by being the shepherd and doing precisely what the Lord commanded, “tending” and “feeding” the flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17), rather than pretending not to be that shepherd. Even if we grant, arguendo, that Benedict wanted to act to save the Church in some way, there are far simpler, and less extreme methods he might have used to do so that would not involve handing the Church and the Lord’s sheep over to an antipope!

What else might have Benedict XVI done? For one, Benedict could have greatly expanded the college of Cardinals, adding as many trustworthy priests and bishops as necessary to insure the election of a ‘good’ pope.  Alternatively, and simpler still, Benedict might have promulgated papal legislation to restrict voting eligibility in a conclave to a small committee of trusted cardinals named by him. There is something of a precedent for this going back to the time of Pope Nicholas II (see Here) when cardinal-bishops[1] had a leading role in selecting the candidate for the papacy (see also the election of Pope Innocent II and the election controversy involving anti-pope Anacletus) (NB: I previously opined that this might be a tactic chosen by Pope Francis to guarantee a successor to his liking, see HERE). The point is, even if we accept, arguendo, the premise Benedict XVI was of a mind to save the papacy from an unworthy successor; there are reasonable, and far less extreme measures he would have taken that would not involve handing the Church over to an anti-pope.

Beyond all of this, even assuming Benedict might have wanted to opt for a plan to ‘pretend’ to resign, surely he would have communicated this in a clear fashion to trusted friends and cardinals at some point. Surely, Benedict XVI would have left a ‘testimony’ to be released upon his death, explaining the truth and reason behind what he had done, as well as providing suggestions — indeed, a set of provisions — for how the Church should proceed to extricate itself from the crisis upon his death. Yet, no such documents has been produced. Benedict lived ten years following his resignation. He had more than enough opportunity to communicate such a ‘testimony’ to trusted friends either by word, by note, by a flash drive, etc. However, over a year and half since Benedict’s death, no such ‘final testimony’ has appeared with any such admission or plan.  The fact none has appeared is in itself a devastating proof that the “Ratzinger Code” theory is fiction, to put it charitably.

The Ratzinger Code fails:  Mr. Cionci’s gaslighting, and Mr. Coffin’s silence

Now, on Tim Gordon’s show, Mr. Coffin spoke of how Cionci (supposedly) found a pattern of “mental reservations” (34:18) in what Benedict, as pope emeritus, said or wrote, and these findings were the big “eye-opener” for Mr. Coffin. Cionci’s thesis claims that Benedict used “mentals reservations,” double-meanings, etc., to communicate that he was, per Cionci, still the valid pope. Mr Coffin goes on to claim Benedict XVI as pope emeritus:

“never once said ‘I am no longer the pope of the Catholic Church’…’the true pope is Francis…follow and obey him.’  Never.  Which is a little striking and it and it sheds light on why he wore the white papal cassock why he wore the zucchetto why he gave the apostolic blessing and writing it in person he signed his name Benedict XVI PP pope pontifex”.

(From Rules for Retrograde podcast, August 5, 2024.  Unofficial transcription by Roma Locuta Est)

Mr. Coffin claims that Benedict never said “I am no longer the pope of the Catholic Church.”  However, the facts show that Mr. Coffin is wrong. On February 28, 2013, at around 5:30 PM, a little over two hours before the effective time of Benedict’s resignation (8pm), Benedict, speaking to pilgrims in Albano did literally say “I will no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…”.  Benedict said (emphasis added):

“I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer. I am simply a pilgrim beginning the last leg of his pilgrimage on this earth.”

(Source:  GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO, February 28, 2013)

To my knowledge, Mr. Coffin has never addressed this statement by Pope Benedict XVI which directly contradicts his claim Benedict never said “I will no longer be pope of the Catholic Church.” Perhaps the fans of Mr. Coffin, who can reach him behind his pay wall, should ask him to explain this statement in light of his claim Benedict never said “I am no longer the pope of the Catholic Church.”

Now, granted, it may be that Mr. Coffin’s silence here only means he adheres to Cionci’s attempt to explain away Benedict’s clear words. For Cionci, Benedict’s words to the pilgrims of Albano on February 28, 2013 are the key example, and therefore the key test of Cionci’s thesis that there really is a “Ratzinger Code.” Cionci devotes an entire chapter in his book to Benedict’s words to the pilgrims of Albano (see Chapter 15 “A Farewell from Castel Gondolfo” in Cionci’s book).

I’ve discuss this question in detail elsewhere (e.g., HERE), but will summarize the issue here. Briefly, Cionci notes that in the Italian language, Benedict actually said he would no longer be the “pontefice sommo” of the Catholic Church. Cionci asserted the correct and only way to refer to the pope as “supreme pontiff” in Italian is “sommo pontefice” (Latin: “Summus Pontifex”).  “Sommo pontefice”, Cionci observes, is literally “supreme pontiff” in English, while “pontefice sommo” — the expression used by Benedict — is translated “pontiff supreme” in English.

Hence, Cionci asserts that the words actually used by Benedict — “pontefice sommo” or “pontiff supreme” — are not an expression of a title used of popes, it is meaningless. In his book, the Ratzinger Code, Cionci makes this the linchpin of his code, devoting a whole chapter to it. This is not surprising as Benedict certainly appears to be saying he will no longer be pope as of 8pm on February 28, 2013.  Thus, Cionci must explain away Benedict’s statement to the pilgrims of Albano, or else concede the game and go home, admitting his Ratzinger Code is complete nonsense. Cionci writes (emphasis added):

“Benedict says he will no longer be the “Pontiff Supreme” (Pontifex Summus), but the correct papal title is actually “Supreme Pontiff” (Summus Pontifex). There is simply no such thing as a “Pontiff Supreme.”

(Andrea Cionci, The Ratzinger Code, p. 104, Kindle Version)

So, we see, Cionci says “there is simply no such thing as a ‘pontiff supreme“, or “pontefice sommo” in the Italian. Indeed, Cionci doubles down on this claim.  He writes (emphasis added):

“The inversion of the two terms indeed prevented Pope Benedict, although he had already been impeded for 17 days, from telling a lie. He did not say that beginning at 8 p.m. he would renounce his canonical title as pope (Supreme Pontiff”), and as a matter of fact he never did.”

(Andrea Cionci, The Ratzinger Code, p. 104, Kindle Version)

Let’s remember what Cionci is saying: (1) “there is simply no such thing as a ‘pontiff supreme’” or “pontefice sommo” in reference to the popes, meaning ‘supreme pontiff’, and consequently, (2) Benedict’s statement that he would no longer be “pontefice sommo” (pontiff supreme) is not a statement he would no longer be “sommo pontefice” or supreme pontiff or pope.

Such is Cionci’s claim. However, in researching my book which rebuts the claims of the Benepapists (Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI, p. 113-119, and p. 169), I discovered, in a few quick searches, at least a  half dozen examples of “pontefice sommo” being used of popes and or the papacy. There are undoubtedly more.

The implication of this is clear. Cionci’s key and most important example of the “Ratzinger Code” has been blown to smithereens. That is, if he cannot explain away Benedict saying “I will no longer be supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church“, then his whole Ratzinger Code enterprise crumbles into the dust that it is.  Cionci’s absurd house of cards has fallen. I wrote about his in an article titled Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”.

In reply to my article, Cionci conceded I had in fact found valid examples of “pontefice sommo” being used of popes and papacy, and meaning ‘supreme pontiff’. So, realizing the peril his theory was in, and surely remembering his former, categorical assurances there was “there is simply no such thing as a pontefice sommo“; Cionci turned up his gaslighting to “Level 11.” Cionci tried to dismiss the examples he previously said did not exist as now being “archaic” and “rare usages”, saying in part:

“What luck! Who knows how much dust O’Reilly had to breathe in while digging up these very rare usages in the nooks of the Vatican archives!”

Cionci originally claimed “there is simply no such thing as a “pontefice sommo””.  However, when proven to be wrong, Cionci then attempted suggest the fact Benedict used “pontifice sommo” supports his theory!  Cionci had the temerity to thank me in his response article, as if this evidence which refutes his theory, somehow now actually supported it!  Essentially, Cionci would claim the ‘erudite’ Benedict used “pontefice sommo” knowing it was a rare expression for a papal title – something Cionci hitherto denied as being impossible; but even though Benedict knew this meaning, he really intended to signify something else entirely by its use!!  Cionci’s argument is laughable.  But the links to his article, and my response may be found here (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”.).

Cionci is gaslighting, plain and simple.  Cionci admitted I was right — “pontefice sommo” can be used of popes. Thus, in using “pontefice sommo”, Benedict was in fact saying “I will no longer be supreme pontiff (pontefice sommo) of the Catholic Church.” Thus, Benedict is admitting that he intended to fully resign the papal munus in the Declaratio.  Whether a “rare usage” or not does not change the meaning of what Benedict said.  While “pontefice sommo” was previously unknown to Cionci, and is only now considered “rare” and “dusty” by him; we need not admit it was so for Benedict. No. Benedict was an erudite theologian, so it is not surprising he knew the usage, or that he used it. To now insist Benedict didn’t intend to intend the meaning of “supreme pontiff” when using the words “pontefice sommo” — even though they do mean supreme pontiff! — is to engage in impossible mind reading, and a heavy dose of gaslighting.

I recommend the reader see my original article on the subject (see Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”) which drew Cionci’s response, and then read my response to Cionci (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”), to which – even to this date – Cionci has not replied.

More Gaslighting by Cionci: A funny example

One last note on Cionci and gaslighting. I strongly suggest the reader take a look at my article titled Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”, also discussed in part 3 of my three part video series on the Ratzinger Code. This article should provide a real laugh for the reader as it outlines how Cionci applied his code to gaslight his fellow Benepapists, i.e., Don Minutella and some priests.  Cionci explains how Archbishop Ganswein’s comments about Minutella and his book — which Minutella regarded as “calumnious” and “crude” — were really meant by Ganswein as words of “approval and encouragement.”

Odds and Ends from Mr. Coffin’s Appearance on Tim Gordon’s show

There is much more that might be said about other claims made by Mr. Coffin on Mr. Gordon’s podcast.  I will provide some brief comments here:

“Follow and Obey”:  Mr. Coffin says Benedict never said to “follow and obey” Francis.  Well, this is somewhat disingenuous. It is clear Benedict intended to fully resign the papacy, and he said  he pledged his “unconditional reverence and obedience” to his successor (See Guardian). So, this necessarily included Francis. Peter Seewald provides the fuller quote of Benedict from the same meeting on the last day of Benedict’s papacy: “And among you in the college of Cardinals is the future pope for whom today I promise my unconditional respect and my unconditional obedience” (Seewald, Benedict XVI: A Life, volume two, p. 659).

“The Title of Declaratio should have been the Renunciato:” Mr. Coffin has said this before, and it is not quite clear to me what he hopes to gain for his argument by this suggestion.  But, while we are on the subject of titles, it turns out the actual, official title of the document in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, as Fr. Rickert has pointed out,[2] the title of this document in the AAS is Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione. This is translated “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter” (see Ms. Barnhardt vs. the Acta Apostolicae Sedis).  The point being, the Latin title speaks of the document being a declaration on the “abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter. Thus, it is clear, that Benedict’s renunciation of the “ministry (ministero/ministerium) of the bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter” is synonymous with the title, which again, says the document is about the abdication of the Petrine munus.

Munus vs. Ministerium:  I have specifically addressed Mr. Coffin’s erroneous claims on this topic in an article titled No, Patrick Coffin, Benedict is NOT “our pope”.  But other resources on the topic can be found in Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio, and in a several part video series on the munus vs. ministerium question on my youtube channel (see HERE, episodes 1 through 7), and or my book (see HERE).

Wearing white and Apostolic blessings:  Mr. Coffin raised the issue of Benedict giving apostolic blessings on a few occasions in his letters. I address this in an article (see A Rebuttal of Benepapist claims regarding Benedict and Apostolic Blessings), and in a video (see Apostolic Blessings). And, again, also address in my book (see HERE).  These sources also address the wearing of white.

Benedict signing his name with Pontifex Pontificum (“PP”):  With regard to this issue, I have looked into various claims made by Ann Barnhardt, Don Minutella, and Andrea Cionci. My reply may be found in an article titled Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt wrong on the “PP” (Pontifex Pontificum).[3]

Final Thoughts

In the above podcast, Mr. Coffin speaks of the importance of “critical thinking” and living as “jurors as in a trial.” I certainly can agree with that. However, it does not appear to me that Mr. Coffin has actually applied the level of due diligence he claims is so important on this issue.  Was Mr. Coffin aware that Cionci was simply wrong on his claim about “pontefice sommo”? Can Mr. Coffin honestly look himself in the mirror and say he sees no problems with Cionci’s gaslighting attempts to save his theory as a result?

I don’t know Mr. Coffin. But, I suspect we started off in about the same place with regard to the Francis pontificate.  How do we explain it?  I have looked closely at the St. Gallen Mafia issues and the 2013 conclave in great detail (see The Conclave Chronicles).  For those who have read my blog, or who know me; know that I have been open to critically examining pretty much any theory on Francis – as I believe his pontificate has been disaster for the Church. However, with regard to any theory, one must follow the evidence where it leads, and not one’s heart.

As I have said before, I began looking into Benepapism around 2017, hoping there was something to it. However, the more I looked into the actual documents, the more it became clear there was nothing to it.  This is true of both the nonsensical “substantial error” theory offered by Barnhardt/Mazza, and the nonsensical “Ratzinger Code” theory offered by Andrea Cionci. These two theories are simply two sides of the same, bad, worthless coin.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

[1] The College of Cardinals is comprised of three ranks of cardinals: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon

[2] See Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Follow The Munus! Why Benedict Is [Likely] Pope — Guest Post by Edmund J. Mazza; Rejoinder by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39752/. Permission to use and cite article granted by W.M. Briggs, and Fr. John Rickert, FSSP.

[3]  I have not found, to date, any published examples of Benedict XVI using the PP after his resignation.  I am not saying there are no examples — only I have not seen one. That said, I continue to look into this question. If any readers have image examples of Benedict XVI using the PP after his resignation, please be so kind as to forward me the image or the link to it via email (StevenOReilly@aol.com).