Patrick Coffin defends his position that Bergoglio is an anti-pope

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Passing over the fears of the host, I must point out that at about 14:00 Patrick Coffin, says, “Before the Church pronounces, I am not going to stand on moral certainty”. In saying this, Mr. Coffin shows that he is unfamiliar with proper forensic principles of discernment. And if I let this pass over, I would be leading all of you gravely astray, so I will respond here.

Separately, I have cordially responded to Dr. Gordon’s assertion about the necessity or recourse to a concept of legal precedence in discerning the validity of Benedict’s renunciation, here. I will not respond to Gordon’s assertion that the Church must first give the Pope authority to do something before he can do it, since such an assertion is patently heretical, as it implies the Papal office is subject to the authority of the Church, and not immediately to Christ, as Vatican I teaches.

Moral Certitude and Forensic Evidence

There are different systems of proof in diverse legal traditions. But all of them accept that from a sufficient number objective facts, one can discern the existence of subjective motivations. Otherwise, all legal systems would necessarily have to refuse to impose objective legal public punishments.

In the system here in Italy, the saying is that 2 facts establish a suspicion and 3 confirm a motivation. — This is not an exact quote.

Saint Thomas Aquinas says that 2 or three sins of the same species establish that there is habit of sin, not just an occasional fall.

From this it can be inferred, since man has the God-given intellectual ability to conjecture, recognize species and infer and deduce consequences that;

  1. The knowledge of 1 fact, makes it morally licit for anyone to subjectively consider as possible a certain specific motivation which accounts for the fact in all its details, even though there may be other possible motivations.
  2. From the knowledge of two facts, which are consistent in demonstrating the same motivation, it is morally licit for anyone to subjectively consider as probable — that is as provable or demonstrable — a certain specific motivation which accounts for the facts in all its details, even though there may be other possible motivations.
  3. From the knowledge of three facts, which are consistent in demonstrating the same motivation, it is morally licit for anyone to subjectively consider as certain — that is as provable or demonstrable — a certain specific motivation which accounts for the facts in all its details, even though there may be other possible motivations.
  4. From the knowledge of many more than 3 facts, which are consistent in demonstrating the same motivation, it is morally licit for anyone to consider as objectively certain — that is as provable or demonstrable — a certain specific motivation which accounts for the facts in all its details, even though there may be other possible motivations.

Here, let me define some terms:

  • Possible, I use here as merely capable of being true.  That is purely potential but without any given necessity. There are a quasi infinite number of possible explanations for facts which are objective existent, since a free agent can do the same external act for a variety of motivations.
  • Facts, I use here solely in reference to objective, existent, external, manifest acts of human beings, whether physical or documented.
  • Probable, I use here in the strict Latin sense of being provable or demonstrable — here I abstract from the difference of provable and demonstrable in the science of Logic — since both facts together can be employed to explain one specific motivation.
  • Certitude, I use here as a moral certitude which leaves no reasonable alternative possibility for right reason, with known facts, to conclude otherwise.

Now in the above exposition I make in 4 points, I distinguish between subjective and public certitude. Subjective regard the individual, whether made in the privacy of his own mind or expressed in speech, written or vocal. This regards his personal responsibility. But by Public, I mean to signify what obliges the community to acknowledge and put into forensic or judicial judgements.

As soon as public certitude is had, even before any tribunal hands down a sentence, every individual can stand on the moral certitude that the facts prove or demonstrate a specific cause or motivation.

But if only subjective certitude is has, it may very well be that public certitude follows immediately or necessarily, but the subject for the moment should not claim public moral certitude, though he has the right to claim moral certitude for those who know of the facts, by personal knowledge or confirmation.

For this reason, we must stand on public moral certitude that Bergoglio is a heretic, schismatic, and anti-pope and that Benedict XVI is the true pope and not a heretic, as I have argued in many of my articles here at FromRome.info, but which to explain now in detail would be prolix.

And I do admit, in this exposition I have made, I have inclined to the safer position in my 3rd point, because there are many who make no distinction between subjective and public moral certitude, since many courts use what I call subjective certitude to hand down judgements. But I distinguish here because many courts hand down judgements on the basis of three facts, when more evidence and criticism of the known evidence, results years later in the opposition judgement and the recognition of haste or error in the first one.

However, I hope I have explained the forensic principles of certitude which I use, and why I believe that Mr. Coffin gravely errs by an excessive and unreasonable scrupulosity when he says that he will not stand on moral certitude until the Church makes an objective forensic judgement. If his position were correct, then one could scarcely justify any private initiative to urge authority to make public judgements when they hesitate to do so, and one would undermine the confidence the public would have in its ability to know objective truth on the basis of forensic evidence understood by right reason and sound principles. That would serve the elites who rule, but would present a deformed anthropology and distort the image of man as it is presented to us in Scripture, in the bold initiative of all the Saints to judge and discern and condemn error and injustice.

20 thoughts on “Patrick Coffin defends his position that Bergoglio is an anti-pope”

  1. What my pea brain sees in this dialogue is that the worldly elites who have been controlling the narrative in all of the countries of the world by controlling all of the medias and have succeeded in infiltrating the Vatican in such a way that they now can add the Vatican to their list of conquests
    . The meeting held within the V walls with the Wallstreet international bankers in the early 2000s, gained control by hypocracy and a sort of stealth…Their guy was Bergolio. (I think John 23rd was their guy also.. Paul6th and JP2 and Benedict 16 were , in my eyes, valid Popes and good Fathers.)The Int bankers lost their battle when Benedict was elected. ; but, they won when Bergolio was elected.
    I recall when watching Francis being announced as Pope on television,a a having strange vibes as he walked out after being hailed as chief shepherd. He looked to me as someone who stood there , not holding up his hand and blessing the crowd, but as a conqueror who had just won a long fought battle. He called himself on that occasion ” Bishop of Rome”. He asked the people to bless him before he blessed them!!!! Then when the priest attempted to place the Pallium upon him, he reached up and promptly took it off.
    To me, who took notes as I watched, something was different and wierd and telling right from the start with Francis..
    Ann C Emmerickand others from the past, as prophetswill
    preserve the Church in the long run. She and other prominant theologians from the past predicted these days in the Church.
    Mary’s apparitions have had a huge impact also. Somehow I think the 3rd secret of Fatima
    is key. .Medjugoria has had 500 million visitors. Lourdes etc .Satan will not win for in the end We have the promise that Mary will conquer holding out to us a string of beads as the weapon. Meanwhile, if the 3rd world satanic war starts, ” many nations will be annialated,” We all stand on the brink of the unthinkable..
    .

    .

      1. It was infiltrated long before that, never hear of Cdl. Rampolla freemason who a Habsburg veto away from being pope? Also, see vacantism is a seriously flawed idea. There are bad popes who are still pope and nothing you could present would prove they weren’t Pope, they were simply a bad Pope. Antipope Bergoglio on the other hand is easy to see as antipope because there was no valid renunciation of the office by the valid Pope Benedict.

  2. Yes, Brother, but if you were to apply your own standard of discernment, you would likely have to concede that the Church was fully and formally taken over by Freemasons and Zionists in October of 1958 and that all subsequent “Popes” have been NWO anti-Popes who have worked assiduously for 60+ years to kill us all this decade. If you wish, I can present you with more than “three facts” to establish this reality. The Sedevacantists were wrong only in that they did not recognize that the seat of Peter has been occupied by Satanists for the entirety of the post-Vatican II period. What Ratzinger was really after by his Summorum Pontificum is a matter of debate. Was it a remorse of conscience? Or was he just trying to bring everyone in. Satanists all until proven otherwise at this point. Coffin and Gordon are silly, though I am impressed Coffin has even gotten to this point.

    1. John I know all the facts, and yet I recognize that the facts do not prove the case. It is not merely sufficient to claim to have facts, it is necessary to have facts which admit of no other explanation. Sedes like Donatists think moral failure is always doctrinal failure and thus conclude that every sin reveals heresy, except their own pride however, in wanting to impose upon the whole Church that for which they do not even have reasonable subjective certitude.

      1. Cardinal Brandsmuller has asked the obvious question that is there such an office as Pope Emeritus? Neither in Canon Law nor Catholic Tradition does such an office exist! This is where Pope Benedict is unique in Church history. He is the first and only Pope Emeritus. This of itself is a sign that Benedict has remained Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth and Supreme Pontiff. It also makes Bergoglio an anti-Pope because there can only be one person who is truly Pope at a time. We are in a unique and scary situation which has been forseen by holy people such as St Francis, St Brigitte of Sweden and Anne Catherine Emerich among others. We have a schism unlike even that of the medieval great Schism.
        Are we seeing the great Apostasy that St Paul prophesized in his Epistle to theThessalonians? Those who blindly follow Bergoglio risk following him into apostasy and heresy by the nature of his teachings and beliefs. These do not match the traditional theology and teaching of the magisterium of the church handed down over the last 2000 years since the apostles. This also calls into play the messages of Our Lady given at La Salette and Fatima. These point to the greatest trial to be undergone by the Church in its history. This must by necessity call all of us to make a profound choice in who we follow as pope.

      2. Further to my earlier comments, I would like to say to those like Timothy Gordon who still cling to Bergoglio’s papacy, that if he really were pope then one would by necessity need to demonstrate that the gates of hell had not prevailed against the papacy due to his obvious heresies and publically breaking the First Commandment by honouring (if indeed not worshiping)) a pagan idle (Pachammama). Name me one pope in history who has publically done this? Yes, there have been some awful popes morally speaking and two who were anathametized by later councils presided over by reigning popes after their deaths (Liberius and Honorius) for failing to sufficiently combat heresy during their pontificates. Neither per se was a public heretic or idolator.

        One last minor point, the late Cardinal Murphy O’ Connor was not the Bishop of London (an Anglican see) but Archbishop of Westminster (a city separate from the ‘City of London’). There is also a catholic Archdiocese of Southwark which is a southern borough of Greater London. Most of Greater London and the surrounding home counties are split between these archdioceses. Murphy O’ Connor was formerly my bishop in the Diocese of Brighton and Arundel prior to being elevated to Westminster. He was also an old boy of my school in Reading (Berkshire). My old headmaster despised him for his modernism and did not take any pride in his being an old boy (alumni). His hand in Bergoglio’s election is well known in England.

      3. Well, I like you, I respect you, not sure if I know you, and perhaps we’ll have time to discuss this later. I prefer not to argue about it now. Thank you.

  3. Divine law cannot be contradicted by canon law. If divine law states that only Catholics can be head of the Church it cannot be the case that a non-Catholic is the head of the Church until it is canonically declared. Wouldn’t that be raising canon law to a status higher than divine law?

    I’m reading the old code of canon law, don’t know if the new code says anything different.

    1. Where does divine law “state” that only Catholics can head -Church? Divine positive law derives most explicitly from the Commandments; it is moral theology which provides us with cognates/corrollaries from the Decalogue, our Lord’s words & apostolic teaching. The Church, working from these, derives both Her canons & magisterial pronouncements on morality. It is difficult to understand where you think Canon Law has contradicted Divine Law.
      Now, that our Lord has given authority within the Sacrament of Order does not mean that those without episcopal authority cannot recognize when that authority is abused or wrongfully not exercised. To the Faithful pertains both the obligation to do good & avoid evil — even when this may emanate from one or more of the shepherds. Juridical decisions, however, remain within the episcopate. You or I may recognize that Benedict has not abdicated; that Bergoglio is an idolatrous monster, but we have no legal power to straighten out the mess. Nonetheless, we can pray God for an end to the disorder, and clamor with the shepherds for justice, In the interim, we offer the suffering as penance for our sins as well as for those of other sinners.
      You may find consolation in reciting the 5th Psalm daily. I know people who have been doing so for the removal of unworthy officeholders for so long as to know it as well as they do the Our Father.

  4. For what it’s worth, I would like to weigh in on the above conversation between Patrick Coffin and Tim Gordon.

    Not from the perspective of a Catholic, because I am not one, but from the perspective of a Christian, a student of human nature, and perhaps most significantly, an outsider.

    Until I was introduced to FromRome.info about a week ago, I knew very little about the papacy beyond the fact that Francis is clearly demonic, and next to nothing about the politics and legalities of Church procedures and traditions.

    I have found Br. Bugnolo’s articles to be of great interest, even those regarding the current controversy over the papacy, a subject I would formerly have considered to be dry as dust!

    Being ignorant of the intracacies of canon law and so forth, I would simply like to point out a few observations I made while listening to the above conversation, for whatever they are worth.

    1) Benedict resigned under duress. You can see it on his face and in his body language at the moment of so-called resignation, and he is still under duress not to speak forthrightly about the circumstances of that resignation. Instead, he gives clues to ” those who have eyes to see”, as Patrick puts it. To those who do NOT have eyes to see, his behavior is eccentric/inexplicable.

    2) Tim’s inability to understand the pontiff’s use of white or the excuse ” there were no black cassocks” clearly shows that he, Tim, does NOT have eyes to see.

    3) A careful screening of the entire conversation will illustrate to the viewer that while Tim professes to be the great and good friend of Patrick, he is at the same time subtly undermining and contradicting much of Patrick’s work. Behavior such as this, in certain circumstances, is called “controlled opposition.”

    4) I find it VERY interesting that while Tim opposes the notion, every chance he gets, that Benedict is still the one and only pope ( is that supposed to be capitalized?), he just as strongly promotes the notion that Franlcis goes ” beyond” the definition of anti-pope, even unto something apocalyptic, as he puts it.

    5) I recently watched a video made by an extremely erudite Christian man, who takes the viewer step-by-step through Biblical prophecy to the almost inescapable conclusion that the anti-Christ is or will be the pope.
    Which pope? Not Benedict!

    I have known a number of Catholics in my life, both before I became a Christian and afterwards. In fact, my father was raised Catholic. I am aware of the tenacity with which many Catholics are devoted to the Church. I would have to say that many, if not most, are unaware that there are two Churches, the organization and the organism.

    If they are aware, I suspect they believe, or would like to believe, that they are one and the same. I’m glad to tell you, as part of the organism, that that is not so. Because it seems that the organization may be disintegrating at last, or at least going its own way, apart from the organism that is the body of Christ.

    When that happens, I suspect that those outside the Catholic church are going to be amazed at how many true believers are left standing within it, and the true believers within Catholicism are going to be amazed at the number of true believers who stand outside it, lol!
    Pax, brothers and sisters.

    1. It is true, that in Catholic prophecy and commentary by our Saints, there are many who sustain the opinion that the Antichrist will be a Roman Pontiff, yet I hold that this is impossible according to the power of Christ’s prayer, “I have prayed for thee Simon that thy faith may not fail”, which means the only conclusion left is that the Antichrist will be an anti-pope.

  5. My memory of Benedict XVI :s explanation of why he kept his white clothes was that ” there were no other suitable clothes available”. (So he did not lie or tried to deceive anyone, rather he chose his words carefully, so anyone that wanted and tried to understand would be able to do so).

  6. “… true believers within Catholicism are going to be amazed at the number of true believers who stand outside it, lol!”

    Deborah, of the necessary means of salvation, the first is supernatural Faith: no one can believe everything Christ has revealed and remain outside His Church. You owe it to yourself to ask what it is that keeps you outside the Catholic Church — and whether those arguments can be demonstrated to be genuine or tendentious.

  7. As Catholic laymen in such trying times we must learn and follow Church teaching and receive the Sacraments. We must keep our eyes on the ultimate prize: Heaven.

    By doing so we will not fall for the heresies coming from Pope Pachamamma and his heretical Cardinals.

    These times are diabolical. We have no leaders. The Globalists are satanists and have infiltrated every single institution possible.

    They are trying to change Church teachings and lead us all astray.

    Pope Benedict XVI is a brilliant theologian. He knew what was coming. Seeing him still wearing his white papal cassock is very telling. I remember a couple of years ago on his birthday he posed wearing his golden ring. Archbishop Gänswein was holding his hand showing us the ring.

  8. I believe Ann Barnhart could provide some reasoning to the logical questions Tim proposes around the apparent contradictory nature of Patrick’s 7 points. One theory she has offered in the past is that Benedict, apparently for decades, has held this belief that the papacy could be divided into separate pieces of munus and ministry. Therefore, his resignation, in his mind, was indeed both partial AND valid. It is an error on his part, but it would explain some of the apparent contradictions. He wouldn’t be trying to fool anyone, or leave bread crumbs, etc. He would simply mistakenly believe that he could remain in the office while no longer exercising the ministry. To me, that is the only plausible explanation and really explains many of the questions and fills in most of the gaps. I would love to see Ann on a forum like this explaining that position further to see what people like Tim, Patrick, Michael Voris, and even those at CA think about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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