Patrick Coffin comes out as BiP: “Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is an Antipope”

Today is 11 Feb 2022, the ninth anniversary of Pope Benedict failing to renounce the Papacy. Patrick Coffin with a brief 30 minute presentation, easily viewed at 1.5x speed, explaining the evidence with noble simplicity. He gets the base premise correct, and the logic flows.

Things are starting to happen, folks.

Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is an Antipope

Rumble — Support our work:

“In this video, I summarize the one hypothesis that makes sense of the last eight years of chaos and evil in the Catholic Church: that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an antipope and that the February 11, 2013 abdication by Pope Benedict XVI was not objectively valid.

“Conspiracy theory, white-hot take, or accurate description of reality? Watch this, follow up with the documentation reading links below, and decide for yourself.”


* Think, don’t emote over this hypothesis

* Weigh the evidence like a juror at a trial

* An antipope is not the antiChrist, but a man falsely believed to be the legitimate pope

* The Church has had over 30 antipopes in 2000 years

* This hypothesis is not sedevacantism

Evidence items:

1) The term “pope emeritus” has no precedent and is confusing
2) Pope Benedict XVI seems to have resigned only part of the papacy, the active ministerium, not the office or munus of the papacy
3) Pope Benedict’s longtime personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein has made statements that appear to affirm Benedict’s continued papal identity
4) Pope Benedict’s correct form of address is still “Your Holiness”
5) There are at least three errors in the official Latin “declaratio” read by Pope Benedict on February 11th 2013
6) “Universal peaceful acceptance by the Church of Francis has never really occurred
7) The canonically illegal behavior of the St. Gallen Mafia cardinals in conspiring to vote in their man from Buenos Aires in 2013 invalidates the Conclave

* Catholics who refuse to even consider this evidence are forced to defend and domesticate the worst pope in history

* Catholics, especially conservative or traditional-minded ones, are in an abusive relationship with a passive-aggressive dictator

* The list of the evils and diabolical confusions perpetrated by Bergoglio is long, comprehensive, and disturbing

* The bottom line: Pope Benedict XVI is a wise and holy man who, in the end, really didn’t want to be Pope.

* He repeatedly asked Pope John Paul II to allow him to retire as prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

* In his very first homily as Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI asked for prayers that “he might not flee out of fear of the wolves.”

* Maybe he didn’t flee the wolves. Maybe he outfoxed them.


* Apostolic Constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis,” by Pope St. John Paul II, February 22, 1996:

Abdication text (English) from February 11, 2013:

Interview with Professor Edmund Mazza, Episode #248:

* Talk by Uncle Ted the Molester McCarrick, Villanova University Philadelphia (2013):

* Full talk (cringe alert):

* Interview with Francis for the Belgian Catholic weekly “Tertio” (July 12. 2016)

Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”? The “Always Is Also a Forever,” by Prof. Estefanía Acosta, trans. by Clara Eugenia Laverde

28 thoughts on “Patrick Coffin comes out as BiP: “Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is an Antipope””

      1. Oh, I know. But I am making a parody of Patrick Coffin’s closing line “Be a saint. What else is there?” I’m not too crazy about that phrase — is there anything else to be, besides a saint? How about gett6ing into Purgatory after repenting of many sins?

      1. No need to apologize about attacking my flippant nonsense. I am intrigued that people I would not consider to be traditionalists are starting to conclude that Francis is an antipope. I can count about five such among my friends, people who do not attend the old Latin Mass.

  1. So… one thing that struck at me was that he used an analogy directly from Barnhardt, but didn’t credit her. I also saw some things that may have been from Mark’s research. I know, I know, it doesn’t really matter in the broad scheme of things, and every one will receive his praise or blame from God when it is due, but it sticks in my craw.

  2. From first learning of the machinations of the St. Gallen group, I have thought it very possible the election was invalid. I think I am remembering correctly that Father Z wrote awhile ago that the canons weren’t violated, and I respect the opinion of him and others whose knowledge is much greater than mine. Still, to me it seems at a very basic level that those involved in the “group” admit to collusion and “fixing” the election.

    1. Importantly, Coffin notes St Gallen as the seventh and last piece of evidence. He gets the base premise right, that Benedict’s non-resignation is the root. But even if that weren’t true, Bergoglio and his enablers are all excommunicated anyway due to UDG.

      1. Well done Patrick Coffin! I hope that this impacts the wider and more mainstream audience of Mr Coffin and beyond.
        The Truth always wins. And this time when it does, we (all the faithful including members of the episcopacy) will have to look in the mirror and figure out how we let this happen in the first place. And vow never to be that complacent again.

      2. @ Bruno W…Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG)
        81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election. – Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis

  3. August 8th, 1974…
    “Therefore, I shall resign active part of the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. I will be keeping the nuclear launch codes with me as a keepsake and still be called ‘Mr. President’. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office…” – And thirty seconds later the Democrats would declare a civil war.
    That is what Richard Nixon DIDN’T say.
    That is what Benedict XVI’s “resignation” sounded like.
    If he wanted to resign, he could’ve RESIGNED! Just like when someone quits a job, they don’t come and put their work uniform back on, try to clock in, and start their job up again. They don’t want to split their hours with the new-hire to replace them.
    No one has any problem with The Bishop of Rome resigning his position. I don’t think a lot of people realize the argument that Ann is making. I don’t believe they want TO THINK about the serious problem we have right now. Having an anti-pope is SCARY, and they don’t want to think about it.
    Some of the things Benedict XVI had to do was: Stop dressing in white, stop being called “Your Holiness” don’t even have the word “Pope” in your title, don’t use the Papal Name “Benedict.” The title “Cardinal Emeritus” would have been a MUCH more appropriate to use, or even more simply, “Archbishop.”
    In a black cassock, he could keep telling the world’s media, “My name is Joseph Ratzinger, I am an Archbishop of the Catholic Church, I’m formerly the Bishop of Rome.” Him saying that would cut the legs out from under Ann Barnhardt.
    Heck, if Joseph Ratzinger did that, even I might say, “Okay… Ann’s arguments don’t hold water. He isn’t the Pope, Francis IS the Pope. We need to stay in communion with The Pope no matter what because that is the way things are, and we need to be obedient to the Chair of St. Peter. With the Roman Rite, TLM is over, we need to move forward with Novus Ordo, and start signing Gather Us In at the top of our lungs!!”

  4. But why insist on Ratzinger still being pope if he believes almost the exact same heresies and promotes the exact same false ecumenism as Bergoglio? Francis denies the Limbo of Infants and believes infants can be saved without baptism. So does Benedict XVI, who goes even further, and says the term ”original sin” is ”misleading and imprecise” and that infant baptism is meaningless. Francis rejects converting schismatics. So does Ratzinger, who even denies Vatican I’s teaching on papal primacy. Francis is a judeiser who believes Jews have their own valid covenant. So is Ratzinger, who has even endorsed and foreworded a book called The Jewish People And Their Sacred Scriptures In The Christian Bible, which claims that the Jew’s waiting for the Messiah might still be valid. Francis agrees with Luther on justification. So does Benedict, who can actually be ”credited” with helping save the Joint Declaration wit the Lutherans on Justification, which openly denies the Council of Trent. Benedict XVI has engaged in the same false ecumenism as Bergoglio, and just like him he has taken part in Jewish worship and prayed in a mosque towards Mekka. All of Ratzinger´s heresies are publicly available in his books, like Principles of Catholic Theology, God And The Wolrd, etc. In fact, the only meaningful difference between Francis and B XVI is that B XVI is at least a validly ordained priest.

    1. You are missing the point. The point is not whether Pope Benedict XVI is right or wrong on theology. The point … is Pope Benedict XVI still Pope; did Pope Benedict XVI resign the Office as required by UDG; can a Conclave be validly called to replace a Pope who has not left his Papal Munus; do rules matter or do we just do whatever the heck we feel like … one Pope, two Popes, three Popes, four – if you don’t like it just take the exit door; five Popes, six Popes, seven Popes eight – a Church without rules is really friggin’ great!
      Pope Emeritus? Not part of Sacred Tradition; never seen one before, don’t want to ever see one again.
      Two visible Popes? Christ established the Rock on one … there has only ever been one.
      Pope without the Munus? No, the Munus IS the Papacy; the Ministerium is merely what a Pope does. A person on the Seat of Peter (See of Rome) is by definition *antipope* – squatting on a sacred Throne.
      DMG specifies the rules. Were they followed? Or not followed? Does any Catholic care?
      I don’t care about whether Pope Benedict did or did not make theological errors. I care very much that we now have a deformed Papacy and no one even bats an eye – *EMERITUS POPE*? Really? Two visible Popes? Why didn’t the abdicator leave? That means EVERYTHING! He didn’t leave! He didn’t abdicate! He remains and the antipope chosen to serve alongside of him is continually committing the gravest heresies ever seen in recorded history. Pachamama cemon consecrated on the High Altar of St. Peter’s: Problem, or no?
      1: Was Ratzinger validly elected or no?
      2: Did Pope Benedict XVI validly resign or no?
      Only those two questions matter.

      1. And fwiw – it’s not that I don’t care whether Pope Benedict XVI committed theological error. I do. The “expanded and forever new” Papacy is the mother of all theological error, and I care about that very much.
        My position is that there are just so many rabbit trails that divert from the main point: who is the Pope? It seems to me the Catholic Church is in a certain state of suspension until this question is resolved. We have to be certain who *is* Pope before we can discuss his errors *as* Pope.
        We must have a Papacy preserved and whole, with a validly elected occupant, commonly accepted, standing amidst Sacred Tradition within the Divinely bestowed Papal Munus. *Then* we can move on to discuss serious topics that develop from that – what to do about ancillary questions, many of which are crucially important, many of which are named above.

      2. If I may refer you to two articles by the Italian journalist, Andrea Cionci (@CionciAndrea on Twitter):
        Msgr. Gaenswein in Codex Ratzinger: there is a legitimate and an illegitimate pope. The true meaning of “pope emeritus”
        Ratzinger was inspired by the law of the German Princes for the Munus / Ministerium Anti-usurpation System

  5. I think the sect that took over the Vatican cannot destroy the Church until the seat is vacant. They make plans but have not yet removed the real presence. Benedict seems to be a prisoner until he dies.
    I don’t understand why they can’t, but it seems to be because the Church cannot defect under St Peters successor. Best they can do is place a counterfeit rock to fool the normies until the pope dies.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.