(LifeSiteNews) — This article will address certain claims made by Patrick Coffin in his recent article. Speaking of Benedict XVI’s resignation, Mr. Coffin writes:
I find it impossible, if not absurd, to believe he was too confused about the papacy to resign properly, despite the very harsh denunciations by some online trads. Indeed, as Italian author Andrea Cionci has shown, 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.
I certainly agree that it is “impossible, if not absurd” to believe Benedict XVI was “too confused about the papacy to resign properly.” However, I find it equally absurd to claim, as Coffin and Cionci do, that Benedict XVI “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.”
Andrea Cionci’s position
Andrea Cionci’s thesis strains credulity for several reasons. If Benedict XVI intentionally submitted an invalid resignation for a supposed greater purpose, then he still would have been instrumental in, and directly and morally responsible for, both (1) the election of a man the same Benepapists tell us is an antipope, as well as (2) the creation of a “false church” of which the great majority of Catholics are blithely unaware.
However, the ends do not justify the means. Not only does the theory make Benedict a liar, but it also makes him a monster for allowing the great majority of Catholics to believe he was no longer Pope, and for not offering any real resistance to an anti-pope and false church which arose as a consequence of his actions. Benedict would be a monster for enabling the wolves of the “false church” to ravage the Lord’s flock. He would have been a monster for not leaving the faithful any word or last testament explaining what he had done, why he had done it, and what he proposed we do to extricate ourselves from the crisis he created.
Even assuming Benedict XVI had concerns about the next conclave, surely there were far simpler and less drastic actions he might have taken to save the Church than handing it over to an anti-pope. For example, Benedict could have, theoretically, enacted new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of vote-eligible cardinal electors to a handful of his closest, most trusted associates. Alternatively, he might have dismissed most cardinals, replacing them with those trusted by him, or by his most trustworthy of friends.
The Cionci thesis requires the suspension of commonsense. It does so by essentially suggesting that Benedict decided that pretending not to be pope was a wiser and preferable course of action than to remain as the visible and active pope. Surely, one can do greater 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 by pretending not to be that shepherd, and thus failing to tend or feed the flock.
WATCH: Exploring the thesis of the ‘Ratzinger Code’: Did Pope Benedict fake his resignation?
There are no clues
Patrick Coffin writes that “Pope Benedict XVI left many clues for us to discover that he intentionally retained the munus to protect the Church.” I will address a few of them.
First, regarding Benedict having continued to wear “the white papal cassock and zucchetto,” this phrasing is misleading. While Benedict as emeritus did wear white, it was not a “papal cassock.” Benedict wore a simple white cassock. When he resigned, he stopped wearing items associated with papal attire, including the white or red ‘mozzetta’ worn over the shoulders, the white sash or fascia worn around the waist bearing the papal coat of arms, and the papal red shoes. In addition, when he resigned, Benedict took off the Fisherman’s Ring, a sign of papal office, as witnessed by Archbishop Gänswein (Benedict’s personal secretary). [1]
Furthermore, after Benedict renounced the papacy he stopped wearing pontifical insignia during the liturgy, e.g., the pallium.[2] As “the pallium symbolizes the plenitudo pontificalis officii (i.e. the plenitude of pontifical office),” [3] the significance of Benedict no longer wearing it should be self-evident. The removal of these items from his attire is another sign Benedict fully resigned the papal office.
Second, Coffin claims Benedict as Pope Emeritus “signed his name “Benedict XVI, PP” or “Pastor Pastorum” (Shepherd of Shepherds), the official suffix of Supreme Pontiffs.” I have previously looked into this claim and written a detailed article against it. Signature samples I have collected from Benedict’s letters as Pope Emeritus do not bear the “PP.” Furthermore, it is notable that Cionci’s book includes two images of letters written by Benedict, but neither of the signatures include the “PP.” [4] Consequently, the claim – apparently founded on a misunderstanding – is spurious.[5].
Third, with regard to Benedict imparting Apostolic Blessings, I will – in the interest of space, point the reader to my article on this topic (see Apostolic Blessings) where I argue a mundane solution is more probable than the one proposed by the Benepapists.
RELATED: Why Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid: a response to Dr. Mazza
The Supreme Pontiff is the Pontiff Supreme
Finally, I would like to address Coffin’s claim Benedict “never once unambiguously wrote “I am not the Pope, Francis is the Pope—obey him” although he does use mental reservation in answer to certain questions.”
At the outset, I dispute the significance or necessity of finding such a specific quote. The important thing is that Benedict said many things which demonstrate he did not believe he was still Pope (e.g., in the Seewald interviews). For one, we have a witness statement attributed to Archbishop Gänswein that Benedict as Pope Emeritus clearly did not believe himself to be Pope, for Benedict named “not himself but Pope Francis in the Canon of the Mass,” and “always and only Pope Francis.” [6] This is definitive proof Benedict both believed and said that Francis was the Pope.
Another example will suffice to illustrate the impossibility of both Coffin’s claim and the “Ratzinger Code” related to it. On February 28, 2013, the effective date of his resignation, Benedict did essentially say “I am not the Pope.” Less than three hours from the effective hour of his resignation, Benedict said to a gathered crowd of pilgrims: “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…until eight o’clock in the evening I still am, but then no longer.” [7]
I don’t know how Mr. Coffin might try to explain this statement away, but I do know how Andrea Cionci attempts to do so. Cionci points out that, in Italian, Benedict used the words “pontefice sommo,” which in English is translated “Pontiff Supreme.” Therefore, as Cionci correctly notes, Benedict literally said “I am no longer Pontiff Supreme of the Catholic Church.” [8] Observing this, Cionci quite clearly states: “There is simply no such thing as a ‘Pontiff Supreme.’” [9]
Let that sink in. Cionci explicitly states, “there are no arguments: Pontiff Supreme does not exist.”[10] Having made this statement, Cionci goes on to explain the significance of Benedict using “Pontiff Supreme” instead of “Supreme Pontiff” (bracketed comments in the original):
The inversion of the two terms indeed prevented Pope Benedict…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. [11]
By pointing to the use of “pontefice sommo,” Cionci hopes to explain away a clear statement by Benedict that he was no longer Pope, no longer Supreme Pontiff. [12] Devoting a chapter to it in his book, Cionci makes this the test case. Indeed, it is the keystone of his gnostic “Ratzinger Code” thesis.
However, in my book, I detail examples from various sources, over the course of 165 years, where “pontefice sommo” is used of either the pope or the papacy, i.e., meaning the same thing as “sommo pontefice” or Supreme Pontiff – the very phrase Cionci said does not exist. Quite simply, Cionci is wrong when he claims that there is no such thing as a “pontefice sommo.” This is indisputable. What Cionci declared to be “impossible” is, to the contrary, quite real.
This truth explodes the whole foundation of the “Ratzinger Code,” destroying the myth Benedict left cryptic word clues – a “Ratzinger Code” – to reveal that he still retained the papal munus, and thus remained pope.[13]
Conclusion
It should now be evident to the reader that, contrary to Coffin’s claim, Benedict did not leave behind any, let alone many, “clues for us to discover that he intentionally retained the munus to protect the Church,” etc.
The faith of believers in the Ratzinger Code should have imploded the moment Cionci’s claim “There is no such thing as a ‘Pontiff Supreme”” – the key case upon which his Ratzinger Code relied — was proven false.
“Pontefice sommo” does mean, or can be translated as, ‘Supreme Pontiff.’ Consequently, it is indisputable that less than three hours from his effective resignation, Benedict said “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…[U]ntil eight o’clock in the evening I still am, but then no longer.” There is no plausible, commonsense explanation for this statement other than that Benedict recognized he would no longer be Pope as of 8pm, February 28, 2013. It is clear from this that he validly resigned.
I hope and pray that the Benepapists will take this all to heart, that they will stop confusing the faithful, and that they depart from the schismatic path upon which they are treading.
Steven O’Reilly is the author of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and of PIA FIDELIS: The Two Kingdoms (Book I of coming trilogy). He is the publisher of the blog Roma Locuta Est (www.RomalocutaEst). He is a graduate of both the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and is a former intelligence officer.
Notes:
[1] See from “Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech” translated by Diane Montagna. May 30, 2016. © Aleteia.org.
[2] See “The status of pope emeritus remains to be defined;” an Interview with Valerio Gigliotti, professor of medieval and modern law at the University of Turin (Italy) By Matthieu Lasserre.
[3] Braun, J. (1911). Pallium. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htm
[4] See Cionci, Andrea, Codice Ratzinger, Milano: Byoblu Edizione, 2022. [Italian Kindle Edition], pages 98 and 103; or see the English version of The Ratzinger Code. [English Kindle Edition], see pages 112 and 118.
[5] I am currently researching a follow up to my original article on the “PP” question [see Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt wrong on the “PP” (Pontifex Pontificum)] for which I have been collecting additional handwriting samples. If someone reading this believes they have an example of Benedict as pope emeritus signing his name with the “PP”, please forward me the image and source. The key takeaway is that the evidence points to a mundane explanation at the root of this spurious claim that has nothing to do with Benedict having believed he was still Pope. In a future article on my blog, I will elaborate on what I believe is the ‘misunderstanding’ which launched this spurious claim.
[6] See my discussion in my article “Benedict names always and only Pope Francis” in the mass” of November 2, 2022. This article discusses evidence that Benepapists surfaced, through a priest’s phone conversation with Archbishop Gänswein. Links to the key Benepapist articles and video discussing the contents of that call, and Gänswein’s statements are provided in my article, as well as my discussion of them.
[7] GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO, February 28, 2013 (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130228_fedeli-albano.html); Also see Cionci’s Italian language version of the Codice Ratzinger, p. book, The Ratzinger Code, for comments on the translation, see p. 104. My article defers to Cionci’s quotation in the English version of The Ratzinger Code.
[8] See Cionci, Andrea, The Ratzinger Code, Milano: Byoblu Edizione, 2022. [English Kindle Edition], p. 104
[9] Ibid, p. 104
[10] See Cionci’s Italian language version of his book, Codice Ratzinger, p. 93. Cionci writes “…non ci sono discussioni: ‘pontefice sommo’ non esiste”, which translated is “…there are no argument: ‘pontefice sommo’ does not exist.”
[11] The Ratzinger Code [English Kindle Version], p. 104
[12] In his book, after asserting “pontefice sommo” is not a reference to the papacy, Cionci goes on to give the term “pontefice sommo” (Pontiff Supreme) an alternative meaning, working it into his gnostic “Ratzinger Code,” but that part of the story is irrelevant here.
[13] I believe Cionci understood the significance of the evidence I detailed with regard to “pontefice sommo” and that it destroyed his theory. I invite the reader to judge for himself or herself the arguments made for the “Ratzinger Code” theory (see my article Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”). This prompted Cionci to reply to my article with regard to “pontefice sommo”, and this in turn led to my rebuttal, A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”. The reader who follows this exchange of articles will see why I have elsewhere used the word “gaslighting” to describe his method of argumentation.