May 16, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – On a recent podcast, John-Henry Westen and Patrick Coffin again called into doubt whether the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was valid (see Was Benedict XVI Still Pope? Vatican Petition Sparks Debate). The seeming prompt for the show was a recent story that the Office of the Promoter of Justice at the Vatican had taken up the investigation of Benedict XVI’s resignation after receiving information from Italian journalist Andrea Cionci on the subject. Readers of Roma Locuta Est will recall that Cionci is the author of The Ratzinger Code, the follies of which have been demonstrated on this site many times over (for example see Summa Contra Andrea Cionci, Plan B, and the Ratzinger Code), as well as in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
While Mr. Westen and Mr. Coffin seemed to take the announcement of this investigation as something noteworthy; the reality is this “investigation” is almost certainly, as we have previously written, “Much ado about nothing.” There is no need to rehash the reasons why here.
Mr. Coffin’s and Mr. Westen’s treatment of the munus-ministerium question in relation to the Declaratio was gravely disappointing. While Mr. Coffin paid lip service to wanting to “encourage Catholics around the world to at least look at the evidence,” it is apparent this encouragement does not extend to a “look at the evidence” that undermines and demolishes his position. I understand why, but the failure to even acknowledge and to address the counterarguments to his position was a disservice to the viewers. Unfortunately, this has been the standard operating procedure among many of the leading Benepapists such as Mr. Coffin, Dr. Mazza, Ms Barnhardt, and others.
That said, it is not the point of this article to once again enter into the munus-ministerium question. However, for the record I will note that myself and others (e.g., Ryan Grant, and Fr. John Rickert, HERE and HERE) have addressed the Benepapists’ munus-ministerium claims in the past (see Roma Locuta Est: Regarding the Declaratio, Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto, Ms. Barnhardt vs. the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, No, Patrick Coffin, Benedict is NOT “our pope”). I have also discussed these questions in an Objection-Reply format in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
Did Benedict XVI continue signing the PP after his resignation?
The topic of this current article is Mr. Coffin’s claim regarding Benedict XVI’s inclusion of the “PP” in his signature after February 28, 2013, as well as Mr. Coffin’s claim about Benedict giving Apostolic Blessings after the date of his resignation. I will address the latter in a separate section, further below.
We will first examine the Benepapist claims about the PP. The “PP” is an acronym for the Latin “Pontifex Pontificum” or sometimes is defined as “Pater Patrum” (Father of fathers). Regardless, the inclusion of PP signifies the one signing is the pope. For example, Benedict XVI, when he was pope, signed documents as “Benedictus PP XIV,” such as in the example below.
Now, certain Benepapists have claimed that even after the date of his resignation (February 28, 2013), Benedict XVI continued to include the PP in his signature. For those who believe Benedict never validly resigned, the claim – if proven – that Benedict continued to include the PP when signing his name after his resignation would mean that Benedict still believed himself to be pope, either fully so, or in at least some partial way. That is their claim.
Given I had previously written an article on this topic (see Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt wrong on the “PP” (Pontifex Pontificum)), I have continued to collect samples of Benedict’s signatures, both pre- and post-resignation, whenever I come across them [NB: Readers are invited to send samples]. So, when I heard Mr. Coffin’s claims regarding the PP on the recent podcast, it sparked my interest. Mr. Coffin stated Benedict XVI “signed his name with the the PP” (see time stamp c. 10:12) after February 28, 2013.
This is not the only occasion Mr. Coffin has said this. He has said it a few times, at least. For example, he said the same thing in his November 2024 article in a LifeSiteNews opinion piece (see Patrick Coffin: Pope Benedict left us clues that he did not validly resign). In this article, Mr. Coffin said Benedict XIV “signed his name “Benedict XVI, PP.” Mr. Coffin listed Benedict’s use of the PP as one of many clues left by Benedict XVI:
“Pope Benedict XVI left many clues for us to discover that he intentionally retained the munus to protect the Church from the disaster he knew would follow with the Conclave that gave us the pro-homosexualist Bergoglio.”
In November 2024, I replied to Mr. Coffin in my ownifeSite opinion article on LifeSite (see Benedict XVI did not fake his resignation: a response to Patrick Coffin). I had hoped M. Coffin would reply to it, but alas he did not. So when I saw his recent podcast with Mr. Westen, I submitted the following question to him in the comment section (bold and italics added below):
“Mr. Coffin continues to say that Benedict signed his name with the “PP” after his resignation. Can he produce a couple examples of this? I don’t think he’ll be able to provide any examples that withstand scrutiny. I discuss this general claim in an article on my blog, Roma Locuta Est. it is a bogus claim.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Coffin has not responded to this challenge as of yet. This is surprising. One would think, if someone makes such a claim, that the someone could easily and readily present the evidence for that claim. But, no. Mr. Coffin has not…and I suspect he never will, not because he is hiding it, but because it doesn’t exist.
The interesting thing is, within 23 hours of my posting my challenge question, Andrea Cionci of The Ratzinger Code fame did reply to me in the comment section. He wrote in Italian: “ha continuato imperterrito a inviare sue fotografie con la sigla PP oltre che la sua benedizione apostolica, ininterrottamente.” In English, this may be translated as follows:
“He continued to send his photographs with the initials PP as well as his apostolic blessing, uninterruptedly.”
It is interesting that Cionci replied instead of Coffin. Cionci appears to have been Coffin’s source for his information on the PP and other things. Coffin appears to admit this much in his LifeSite article. The curious thing is, while Coffin has repeatedly said Benedict “signed his name with the PP,” Cionci only says here that Benedict “continued to send his photographs with the initials PP.”
“Signed” and “continued to send” are not quite the same thing! There is a great deal of ambiguity here. And we will see why this is important directly.
In his book, The Ratzinger Code, Cionci wrote Benedict “…continued to use his pontifical name with the P.P.” (p. 74, English Kindle version, bold added). The English translation is essentially consistent with the original Italian text (see p.66. Italian Kindle version). So here, Cionci says Benedict “continued to use” the PP. Note well, Cionci avoids saying “continued to sign.” So, comparing his wording, it appears by “continued to use” Cionci only means Benedict “continued to send his photographs with the initials PP.”
If I am right, it is easy to see how Mr. Coffin may have misunderstood Cionci’s “continued to use” as implying Benedict continued to personally sign the PP. But that is not what Cionci actually said. Cionci appears to have chosen his words carefully, possibly because he knows better. Why? Because the reality is, what Benedict “continued to send” after his resignation were not newly signed photographs with the PP. Rather, Benedict sent out pre-2013 photographs that bore a facsimile of one of Benedict’s pre-2013 signatures using the PP, which were originally signed while he was still pope (i.e., auto-penned, copied, digitized, etc. from an original)! These cards were printed while Benedict was indisputably pope, i.e., pre-resignation. By the conclusion of his pontificate, Benedict probably had boxes and boxes full of these pre-2013 picture cards — with printed PP signatures — for him to “continue” to go through, and send out to friends, well-wishers, etc., in his correspondence.
It seems to me that something like the above is what Cionci meant when he appears to almost grudgingly admit Benedict ‘continued to send his photographs with the initials PP!’ I say ‘grudgingly‘ because Benedict actually putting pen to paper and signing a document with the PP after February 28, 2013 is quite a different thing from Benedict simply “continuing to send” out old pre-resignation picture cards bearing a signature with PP as a memento. The former would potentially suggest Benedict may have still believed himself to be pope, the latter does not.
The bottom line is, Benedict as emeritus sent out old photos/cards with PP signatures which were made pre-2013. He was sending out these things as tokens, keepsakes, and mementos for friends, well-wishers, etc. These photo cards cannot be seriously taken to be evidence that Benedict still thought of himself as pope! This would still be true even if the Vatican printing press had on occasion run off fresh batches from existent files of such signed photos after 2013 for Benedict to send out. Neither of these scenarios would prove Benedict believed he was still pope, nor would they even be suggestive of a the possibility. That some leading Benepapists have latched on to the PP is a sign of the significant weakness of their overall case.
The key point is, there is no evidence Benedict actually used the PP in signing anything after his resignation. Even the cover of a book of letters he wrote as pope and as pope emeritus, published years after his resignation, bore a pre-2013 signature with the PP. I proved this in another article (see Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt wrong on the “PP” (Pontifex Pontificum). If Benedict really believed himself to still be pope after 2013, one would expect to find many examples of him having actually signed with the PP after February 28, 2013. However, there are no such examples. Certainly none that I am aware of. To the contrary, the post-2013 signature samples I have collected to date have not included the PP. That is the salient point.
Consequently, in the absence of any such evidence, it is disingenuous to say Benedict “continued to use” or “sign” the PP after his resignation, when no evidence has been produced showing he included the PP when actually signing his name during the time period he was Pope Emeritus. It is also disingenuous and ridiculous to suggest that merely sending out old papal photo cards (with the PP) is evidence of any kind that he believed himself to still be pope. These were mementos and keepsakes of his former pontificate sent to friends, well-wishers, etc.; something many celebrities, retired athletes, and other famous people do.
What about Apostolic Blessings?
Also, in the Westen-Coffin podcast, Mr. Coffin raised the issue of Benedict giving Apostolic Blessings after 2013, saying Benedict continued to “give Apostolic Blessings in writing and in person, which only popes can do” (see c. 10:08-10:16). This is a common Benepapist objection.
I am aware of at least a few occasions in which Benedict in letters imparted his Apostolic Blessing. One of these being in a 2017 letter to Cardinal Brandmuller in which he ended it by writing “with my Apostolic Blessing.” I am also aware of one sent to Cardinal Sarah. Leading benepapists such as Mr. Coffin, Dr. Mazza, Signor Cionci, Ms.Barnhardt, et al. claim that if Benedict continued to give Apostolic Blessings after his resignation on February 28, 2013, this meant he either must have really still been the pope, or at least believed himself to be pope in some way–because only popes can give Apostolic Blessings.
I have previously addressed this claim in a Roma Locuta Est article (see Benepapists and their false claims about Apostolic Blessings). The truth is, the authority for Apostolic Blessings does rest in the pope; however, the pope can and does delegate this authority to others.[1] For example, bishops are authorized to give several apostolic blessings each year. The main point here is that popes are not the only ones who can give Apostolic Blessings. The authority to give them is and can be delegated by the pope.
Okay, if that is the case, how did Benedict get this delegated authority to give Apostolic Blessings? There are a couple of ways Benedict could have received this delegation.
First, Pope Francis could have delegated this authority to Benedict after his own election. It is neither odd nor impossible to think he might have done this. Given bishops and other prelates can give the Apostolic Blessing several times a years, surely a pope emeritus should have this ability as well, and arguably so to a much greater extent. Such a delegation would both recognize and honor his service to the Church in his former, lofty position as Supreme Pontiff, as well as support his ongoing service of prayer for the Church.[2]
There is also a second way in which Benedict as emeritus may have received this delegated authority. Canon 1167 reads as follows:
“The Apostolic See alone can establish new sacramentals, authentically interpret those already received, or abolish or change any of them.” [3]
So, given a pope’s authority, per canon 1167, to interpret and even change a sacramental — which an Apostolic Blessing is — it is even conceivable that Benedict, while still pope, privately granted by way of delegation to any future pope emeritus — which he would one day be — the authority to give Apostolic Blessings.
Even so, here we are in the dark as to the exact arrangement. In my opinion, the simplest theory is that Pope Francis delegated the authority to Benedict after his elevation to the papacy. After all, it appears Francis stated he supported Benedict’s idea of popes emeriti for the future:
“I think that a Pope emeritus should not be an exception; after so many centuries, this is our first Pope emeritus. … I believe that Pope Benedict XVI took this step which de facto instituted Popes emeriti. … He opened a door which is institutional, not exceptional.” (Source: HERE)
Given his support of Benedict’s idea of the emeritus, i.e., the service of prayer for the Church, it is not a leap to think Francis would have delegated the authority for the reasons above, and it would have certainly been fitting to do so. Either way, the point is, there are far more mundane, and reasonable explanations available to us to explain Benedict’s imparting of Apostolic Blessings without having to posit the extreme and nonsensical claim that Benedict still thought himself pope!
Final Thoughts
It may seem odd that these questions are still even relevant at this moment, a year into Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate. But, ideas have consequences. Those who believe Benedict remained pope until his death will logically reject the papacy of Francis. These same folks have now gone on, often with different reasons, to claim Leo XIV is not a true pope. So, unfortunately, a defense of the validity of Benedict’s resignation remains necessary.
This article took a quick look at some of the Benepapists claims, which they continually repeat. It is unfortunate. They say they only want a “look at the evidence” but the reality belies such a profession. I have looked at their claims and their evidence, and have presented evidence and arguments which refute their claims. Benedict did not sign using the PP after his resignation in February 28, 2013. Why? Because he was no longer pope. Benedict sent out old papal photos of himself. Why? Because he was sending out mementos to friends and well-wishers. These are in no way a sign he believed himself to still be pope.
And, finally, as we have just reviewed, there are at least a couple of mundane explanations of how Benedict came to give Apostolic Blessings after his resignation. There is no reason to reach for absurd, nonsensical theories that claim Benedict sill believed himself to be pope. There is no reason to go there. To do so is to not treat the evidence with honesty.
To those who either believe, or are tempted to believe that Benedict’s resignation was invalid, and that he remained pope until his death, I invite and challenge you to check out my articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), and or my book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI) , and or some of my videos on the topic (see HERE). Unlike Mr. Westen’s and Mr. Coffin’s treatment of these questions, or that of other leading Benepapists, I actually “look at the evidence” and present what my opponents believe and why, and present arguments as to why they are wrong. This would be a true “look at the evidence” that leading Benepapists only give lip service too. Can your beliefs or opinions survive that? Do what they only give lip service to. “Look at the evidence” and check out the links, and see.
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. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.
Notes:
- Holweck, F. (1907). Apostolic Blessing. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 7, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02602a.htm
- Benedict XVI described how he intended to continue to serve the Church through prayer in his Declaratio, as well as in his final audience. I describe this in my article Regarding Ganswein’s Speech, and in a video Ganswein’s Speech Explained. I also have chapters devoted to the last audience and Ganswein’s speech in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
- John P. Beal, et al, eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 1402.