Patrick Coffin with twelve minutes of blistering counterattack against Voris et al; issues challenge for open debate on CMTV to expose the real lies and falsehoods

He mentions at about the eight minute mark a peculiar similarity among a majority of Benedict is Pope critics: They haven’t even bothered to examine the evidence. Isn’t that strange? We have a manifest public heretic squatting on the Seat of Peter, a man who cannot possibly be pope. A small group of people are offering a theory as to how this came about, and there are some people won’t even look at it. In fact, Voris says it is SINFUL to look at it or share it. Yeah.

43 thoughts on “Patrick Coffin with twelve minutes of blistering counterattack against Voris et al; issues challenge for open debate on CMTV to expose the real lies and falsehoods

  1. The one interesting counter argument I’ve come across (I tend to hang around with interesting Eastern Orthodox folk who both actually pay attention to the Catholic Church, and who think these sorts of decent arguments through) is the following:

    Let’s say both Benedict and bergoglio pass away within a short amount of time of one another, say a couple of weeks or so, there is no time for one or the other to remain when a new Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals. According to your position, “The See of St. Peter IS VACANT, the Pope, and the anti-Pope are both dead, and a new Bishop of Rome is be elected.”

    The College of Cardinals then comes together, and a new Pope is elected, “Habemus Papam…” is announced and all that.

    Is someone like Ann Barnhardt (just because she appears to be the most vocal at the moment) going to come out and say that this man is a valid Pope, and this whole debate is now put to rest? Or will you come out and argue that because bergoglio was never the Pope, he could not make anyone a cardinal, and this Post-Benedict/bergoglio Conclave is also not valid because men who were never supposed to be there in the first place voted for a man, and that new Pope himself maybe should not have been in that Conclave either, because of the fact that they were appointed by what you describe as an anti-pope?

    If that second option is the case, it seems that the Catholic Church is bound to collapse because we could never know who is a valid Pope.

      1. A papal blessing is NOT a juridical act. All those “cardinals” are not so.

    1. I have a feeling this is the end times. The thunder that struck St Peter’s twice was a sign ignored by many people who think the spiritual is superstitious. Let’s see if Bergoglio attempts to replace the mass with an ecumenical service between all Christians.

      We’ll see what happens when we get there. We can’t base our understandings on a hypothetical. There are some people who refuse to consider the evidence because is Benedict dies they would have to become sedevacantists.

      1. Exactly. So we HAVE TO understand that one thing is being sedevacantist -wrongly believing that the See is vacant when it’s objectively not- and a different thing is to live under the situation of a See objectively vacant. When BXVI, the See will be objectively vacant, but we will not be sedevacantists.

  2. I don’t think he understands what “judge” means. A personal judgement is not a legal judgement. The former is not morally binding. It is always prior to official judgement, official judgement itself cannot be done without personally judging the pope.

    Let’s say that putative popes ipso facto lose the office. No cardinal can declare the loss of office without personally being guilty of judging the first see.

  3. I really don’t understand why the people behind the scenes who are funding the Voris and Niles show are still funding them. Common sense says that when you have invested in a ticking time bomb, you pull your investment or cut your losses and run. The Voris and Niles show is tabloid trash. They’re helping the Church about as much as the freemasons are.

    1. “ I really don’t understand why the people behind the scenes who are funding the Voris and Niles show are still funding them. ”

      It is not about the financial success, market ability, or audience appeal. That is not their mission. The money that goes into their coffers is meant to infiltrate and subvert the Traditional Catholic community. That is their purpose.

  4. This (“… they haven’t even bothered to examine the evidence …”) is what I’ve noticed also.

    Stephen O’Reilly of Roma Locuta Eat is the worst at this. He did to Prof Ed Mazza the same thing he’s done to me in exchanges I’ve had with him over the past few years. Completely, unequivocally, totally ignore everything I (or Ed) just said as if I (or he) weren’t even there.

    At first, I just thought I wasn’t being clear enough – if I just re-phrased my point we could discuss that as rational Catholics. Nothing. Brick wall. I would engage him on his terms. He would engage me on his terms. And so I stopped visiting his site and wasting my time quite some time ago.

    Then I watched him “debate” Ed Mazza on some podcast. I looked forward to seeing Mazza, and I looked forward to seeing how he engaged O’Reilly – and it went exactly how I expected. Ed Mazza was really interesting and I loved how he developed his ideas and how he logically, methodically, simply explained important complexity to a novice.

    And then it was Stephen O’Reilly’s turn. He would start talking as if the previous 8 minutes of Ed Mazza hadn’t even happened. It was supposed to be a debate. Ed Mazza debated. Stephen O’Reilly expounded about himself. I could see, as a dispassionate observer, the precise same “technique” he used on Mazza as he has always used on me. He declares the other side wrong *without ever engaging that side and proving WHY it is wrong and how it is wrong*. And it’s not even a precise declaration of error as much as ignoring the essential point – because he never engages the “error”, the point being made by another person, before moving right along with the important work of talking about his own views.

    I love a good debate. I love engaging with someone with whom I disagree and seeing whether I am wrong by carefully understanding the contrary and proving its falsity – or being prepared to accept its truth (which I’ve done on more than a few occasions over the years). It really, really bothers me … especially when it comes to a topic as crucial (existential) as the Papacy … to have someone so unserious that they can’t listen, understand, discuss, debate, learn – *together*.

    And so – we remain where we were, in our ignorance and discord and a deformed disfunctional Papacy.

    1. O’Reilly will never “debate”. It’s all about psychological abuse and manipulation. He MUST be discredited and ultimately ignored, for the sake of the common good of the Church, the truth and true catholics (which he is not, obviously). That’s why Barnhardt’s podcast on the “debate” between Mazza and O’Reilly was so good and necessary: this man has to be exposed for what he is: an infiltrated destroyer of the truth about the current crisis of the Papacy.
      All his claims about “everything is ok, it is not confusing at all that BXVI wears white, gives apostolic blessings, uses the title Pope Emeritus and so on…”. “Everything is ok”? “No confusion at all”? “There must be a “natural” explanation for all that”? (Like, for example, HIDDEN canonical norms by which “the two Popes” provided for such apostolic blessings by the Emeritus)… Yeah, right… Everything is ok and if you think otherwise you are conspiranoic… Psyop in front of us all…

      And then, of course, the claim that we, who affirm with moral certitude that the Pope is still BXVI, are “imprudent” and “destabilizing the Church”… Right…

      1. The essence of my complaint was that he would never engage on the clear and unbelievably simple argument that Munus is the essence of the Papacy, Munus was acknowledged in the resignation letter as the essence of the Papacy, Munus is specified in Canon Law as the essence of the Papacy … but Pope Benedict XVI chose a different word, Ministerium, not mentioned anywhere else in his penultimate act.

        It could not be any more simple than that.

        One Pope at a time.

        The Pope must die in Office (98% do that), or abdicate the Office (2% do that).

        But that was crazy talk to him.

        Much better to go down rabbit holes like the St. Gallen Mafia – behind-closed-doors influence theory – than consider a silly little thing like a faulty resignation statement that left him right where he was before he made it. That topic was closed, to O’Reilly. I speculate as to why, but decided further discussion was … unproductive.

  5. O’Reilly is the strongest argument for unlettered should be required to have a license from the Church to teach or speak. I don’t want to see that happen of course but goodness, listening to him try to teach aspects of the Church teaching or canon law is painful.

  6. It all reeks of high school drama.

    Mr. Coffin certainly has a right to defend himself, and I’m glad that he is, especially in such a calm and classy way, but I can’t help but shake my head at the absolute effeminacy of it all.

    Were it not such an important issue, THE issue, I’d suggest we throw these guys in a ring, let them work it out and then shake hands when done.

    Perhaps my thinking is too simplified. Even barbaric? I am the mother of seven boys after all, so forgive me.

  7. God bless him!…he’s laid it all out on the line for the Truth that he’s finally recognized, knowing the consequences were going to be catastrophic for his personal life, but magnificent for his spiritual one.
    Welcome to the party Mr. Coffin….water’s mighty hot in here,. but clean and salubrious.
    Can’t believe Steve Ray has sold his soul, but these are the days of baffling betrayal and cowardice….so be it.

    Now….Scott Hahn?….SSPX?….++Burke, +Schneider, +Strickland?….SO many more who know the Truth but stay quiet as the world blazes and souls fall into the inferno. C’mon in guys; plenty of room, and great benefits……..eventually.

    (ps…why so much animus for Taylor Marshall? They should be fast friends now….Marshall’s done nothing overly dramatic, other than to walk right up to the line and put his big toe on it)

    1. Susan, I don’t think Patrick has any animus for Taylor. He was defending him from Voris’ vicious attacks

  8. I don’t know Kono…at least twice he talks about “Taylor Marshall and all of his drama” (5:55) and saying “He (voris) lumped me in again with all kinds of Taylor Marshall drama” (7:44). Sounds like animus to me, and I just don’t get it. But whatever….good for him for speaking out; the hell-to-pay is usually the cost of doing the right thing.

    1. Yes….I listened to it again and I think you’re right. Maybe Patrick hasn’t listened to Marshall in a while. I know I stopped listening to him for quite a long time after he attacked the BiP position. He seems to be softening a bit now.

  9. Good discussion. Michael Voris keeps conflating me and my position with Taylor Marshall’s (which shift, zig, and zag depending on where he thinks the wind has already blown.) I give him a wide berth, especially after he pretended not to know Alexander Tschugguel during his first interview—when in fact Marshall was his unseen partner who paid for it and edited the video footage he later made appear to be some kind of big scoop. Please. Marsha calls Bergoglio “Pope Francis.” But whatever. Truth matters, particularly in this arena of evidence where precision is king, yes?

    1. True. There is a wishy-washy-ness at work amongst the general Trad commentators.

      I get that nobody wants to be the guy that was wrong, so it feels as though several are hedging their bets.

      I certainly am open to being proven wrong, but the most telling evidence for me is the fact that so many skirt around the argument and those responsible for the duty to get the ball rolling on clarifying the matter, utterly refuse to do so and the data itself is not engaged with.

      Much like how it is similar to the question of the US 2020 election. The data is never engaged, and any suspicions are never investigated and there is repeated stonewalling of anyone simply attempting to look at the records while the screeching that nothing was amiss is all coming from the same sources that everyone would never trust in the first place, a claim simply asserted while questioning your sanity for even daring to suspect anything, with all the king’s horses and all the king’s men censoring all reports and coverage of the trail of broken eggshells.

      A simple public press-conference with Benedict with people who know how to ask the right questions and get around evasive vague maneuvers of response could easily settle the matter. If the Francis-crowd is so certain of their position, they’d simply allow this to take place. It would literally cost nothing more than a bunch of chairs set up in a garden, journalists would happily bring their own cameras and recording equipment. Wouldn’t even need to last more than 1 hour.

      But they will never do it. This lack of concern and complete lack of effort and deliberate inaction in the face of what they claim could be so ‘easily disproven’ is the largest red-flag of this entire affair.

      1. That thing about asking Benedict what he did… the accusation, based on the evidence, is that the man committed Substantial Error. It would be a logical contradiction to rely on his testimony, when the very thing that he did was in error and did not happen.

      2. I would agree, except (like Mark) I think anything he says is not relevant to the *only point* that matters: he failed to resign his Munus as required by Canon Law and Sacred Tradition that requires he leave and return to his prior state (no Pope Emeritus is possible).

        What should be done is a Bishop or Cardinal should approach Pope Benedict with a valid resignation letter, similar to President Nixon’s resignation letter: one paragraph in length. “I, Pope Benedict XVI, hereby resign the Munus of Pope, effective (date xx-xx-xxxx) and hereafter will be known as Bishop Joseph Ratzingerin my retirement in Bavaria”.

        He should be asked to sign the letter to clarify his position. If he fails to do so, the game is over.

      3. Mark Docherty, the benefit of questioning Benedict is that he will be forced to confront the Substantial Error in his testimony. He will either have to confirm that error, or admit that he had erred. Even if he confirms the error and remains obstinate about it, we would at least have his intentions on the record.

        With his intentions on the record, every commenter and ecclesial authority will be forced to confront the consequences of that substantial error – that Benedict’s resigned the ministerium specifically and not the office, and still considers himself ‘Pope’ or part of the ‘Papacy.’

        There would be no more arguing that the resignation contains substantial error any more than that Hunter Biden’s Laptop exists and has naughty things on it.

        We will at least have that inescapable fact and that fact will force Voris and co. to admit it.

        What happens next, much like Hunter’s laptop is another story. Some will either pretend nothing happened, but there will be both converts and more confrontation by the obstinates which leads to more demands that pressure the Vatican to respond.

        The Substantial Error admitted to and the implications will lead to various factions coming to the following positions:
        a) Benedict’s resignation is invalid, he remains Pope. Francis is an AntiPope.
        b) Benedict’s resignation is invalid, but Benedict obstinately holds to this heresy. Benedict thus is a formal heretic and lost the Papacy. The conclave that elected Francis, licitly or illicitly, was valid.
        c) Benedict’s resignation is invalid, but Benedict obstinately holds to this heresy. Benedict thus is a formal heretic and lost the Papacy. But this loss of office only occurs now, at this moment, when he publicly admitted to it. So there was no valid conclave then, to elect Francis, as a matter of procedure. We now exist in a state of sedevacantism.
        d) Error/Schmerror, Munus/Ministerium, I-Baptize/We-Baptize, Russia/Prussia/Ukraine/the World/Humanity, who cares? Same difference! It’s all just words! Who made you the Grammar Nazi, you RACIST?! God will just always accept all our lazy half-assed poorly worded attempts so long as our hearts are in the right place, He/She KNOWS what we really mean, c’mon man, it’s 2022!!! Just shut up and accept it! Francis is your pope! Biden is your President! Klaus Schwab is your King! Experimental mRNA Shots are your salvation! STOP DIVIDING THE FAITHFUL AND SOWING CONFUSION AND MAKING THAT OLD WOMAN THERE IN THE LAST BENCH WORRY!!!

    2. Fair enough….points well made.
      I’m offering my holy hour for you today….you’ve shown real guts and fortitude. Sea’s gonna get mighty choppy, please don’t waver….full speed straight ahead. If we make it to the shore, the Lord’s there with a nice breakfast for us 🙂

      Seriously Patrick, you’re a big voice and the Lord can use you to open a lot of eyes to the frightening but necessary Truth….Glad to have you in camp.

    3. Patrick, I have a question for you:

      Preface – I knew something was wrong from the moment I saw Bergoglio on the Loggia. I accepted him as Pope, and didn’t think twice about Benedict XVI’s resignation. I struggled in the aftermath with all the bizarre changes to the Catholic Faith in practice (encapsulated in the “who am I to judge” comment … response: “if not you, then who?). I became Catholic from Non-Denom Proddie because I was convinced by its claims to authority, the Apostolic Line that holds that authority from Christ, and the unchanging Sacred Tradition that connects every generation of Catholic to every other – One Body, One Lord, Jesus Christ. But this “Papacy” under Bergoglio remeinded me of exactly why I left Protestantism in the first place (which was not easy) – everyone was just making stufff up and the power of personality and cult determined whose bright ideas would direct the future of “the Faith”. This “Papacy” disconnected from Sacred Tradition (and has spiraled away from it ever since) every bit as much as the contemporary proddie churches I grew up in. This went on and increasingly demoralized me until ….

      Change Moment For Me – Barnhardt came up with the False Resignation discovery. She wrote a head slapper column detailing how Benedict XVI had clearly failed to resign the essence of the Papacy by the specific terms of his resignation letter. This explained why he was still there (I had always thought that strange but … whatever). And *IF* he was still Pope in essence then the resulting Conclave meant *NOTHING*, no matter what anyone else thought about it within the Hierarchy. Ontologically, in the eyes of God, it is proveable that Pope Benedict never resigned the Munus – the essence of his Divine Papal Seat and connection to God as His Vicar. Brother Bugnolo (FromRome.info) subsequently put meat on those bones and filled out the theory to my complete satisfaction.

      Question – What was it for you; what is it for you now – after considerable time; that persuaded you that what was currently presented to the Church was not possible, could not be believed, must be resisted for the sake of true and eternal Holy Mother Church? Was it a process, or a moment?

      Thank you for taking the time, and for being an articulate, public defender of Truth.

      1. Thanks, Aqua. Great question. My “uh oh” moment came back in 2014 bu it stayed dormant because I knew somehow that the implications were beyond huge, That was the appearance of Austen Ivereigh’s bootlicking paeon of praise, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.” When Card. Cormac Murphy-O-Connor denounced the Conclave chapter as soon as the book appeared…..I knew there was something terribly wrong going on. Ivereigh was the cardinal’s loyal media spokeshole for years. Why would he make stuff up to embarrass his mentor? Well, his ex-boss-mentor knew that the conniving and conspiring was canonically illegal. This was before I knew that “Universi Domenici Gregis” existed. So my first mental deep dive had to do with the null and void Conclave. It was really only until I found Estefania Acosta’s masterwork “Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus?” that I realized we don’t need to focus on the Conclave, or how bad Francis is, or how gay the St. Gallen Mafia is: ALL OF IT is downstream from the kill shot, which is a pope must resign the office (munus) of the papacy. His Holiness resigned the ministerium. It’s very obvious once to keep looking at it. I just found a rare used copy, btw, of that first edition of Ivereigh’s book: the norms of UDG 78-81 are violated in living color. But again, we don’t need it. You can’t have a valid Conclave, nor a new Pope if the previous Pope is still the Pope. Hope this sheds light.

      2. Thank you.

        There is simplicity in Truth. It is always that way. Peel away all the rabbit trails and peripheral issues, and what remains is pure grass fed Truth, and it is always head-slappingly obvious.

        Munus (alone) is referenced in Canon Law.
        Munus (alone) is referenced in Sacred Tradition.
        Munus (alone) is referenced in Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation letter … until the actual resignation sentence – which uses Ministerium.

        Those who ignore this obvious misalignment remind me of my Protestant family and friends whom I witness to about the Catholic Faith. They are all Sola Scriptura Christians and they all read the Bible literally, so, when that is established I take them to the most obvious proof against their heretical faith. “Let’s turn to John 6”. “Ok”. Three times Jesus says they must eat His flesh and drink His blood or they have no life within them. His flesh is food indeed. His blood, drink indeed. The proof is the offense taken and anger of those who couldn’t believe their ears” … And my literalist Bible Proddie Bible readers CAN’T accept it. They actually say – “well that is obviously not meant to be taken literally”.

        These two issues (1- the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and 2 – the false resignation and illegal Conclave with an evil antipope given by our Cardinals) are so grave and the implications so shattering that it blows peoples’ minds and they just can’t deal with it. And my experience is … they just ignore it, and pretend it is not there.

        Those who deal with it, precious few but growing, never stop listening to their conscience and using their mind to resolve the nagging incongruities.

        Thank you for your work in the Catholic public square.

      3. Btw, I didn’t realize that “Estefania Acosta”, commenter on this blog, was *that* Estefania Acosta!

        Wow!

  10. Starting in the Roman Catholic Church, Truth has been abandoned and unreality is the coin of the spiritual realm. A good remedy, the proposition response, below, on a twitter thread:

    “I talk about my Sky is Green theory a lot and how The System can make a portion of society believe something that’s completely false. But the real lesson in it is all the people who know the sky isn’t really green standing by while a lie becomes truth because they’re afraid”. (Jessy Kelly)

    “Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.” -(Solzhenitsyn)

  11. Patrick Coffin, in a weird way, I had a prediction in the back of my mind that the US election would be ‘invalidated’ in synchronicity with the Papacy. There has been a strange amount of that occurring lately. It is something more people should follow up on and it’s be interesting if more people pursued it in line with God’s providential designs.

    I’d started writing something about it in the run-up to the election, but wasn’t able to finish it in time and it ended up being a post-election-week thing. If you like, I can send it to you privately along with some other things. Let me know the best way to reach you.

  12. Estefania Acosta,

    I never ignored any email you sent to me. You simply know that is not true. With regard to submissions to my combox on RomaLocutaEst, you never asked why I did not ‘publish’ yours. If you email me, I will tell you my policy. The reality is, I published 99.9% of any comment to my blog. Yet, you never once asked me why not in your case.

    Regardless, your comments above are clearly uncharitable. I must be discredited? You know me not to be a ‘true Catholic’ and this is obvious? I guess that uncharitable accusation doesn’t surprise me as you’ve appointed yourself the judge of who is, or who is not pope; so, it is not a surprise that for lesser cases, you feel yourself able to judge who is or who is not a ‘true Catholic.’ Wow!

    If my arguments are weak…why is it I must be ignored? That makes a lot of sense! I was formerly on the fence about it…but your comments above have convinced me to publish a refutation of the various arguments offered by the Benepapists. Stay tuned.

    May God bless, you Ms. Acosta.

    Regards,

    Steve O’Reilly

  13. Estefania Acosta,

    Please…also…please explain what you mean by me being “an infiltrated destroyer of the truth about the current crisis of the Papacy”! “Infiltrated”? Who “inftiltrated” me? Please, take off your tin foil hat, and explain what you mean by this. Either admit you are being absurd here…or justify the statement with evidence that will stand up in a court of law in Colombia. Perhaps you might recommend a Colombian lawyer to me.

    Regards,

    God bless,

    Steve O’Reilly

Comments are closed.