10 thoughts on “Patrick Coffin: That absurd thesis that presumes Benedict XVI erred”

  1. When “open discussion” begins by couching one contributor’s stance as “absurd,” there is reduced the spirit of charity. Mr Coffin’s “frame,” as it were, does disservice to the elegantly gentlemanliness of Mr Cionci’s open letter. It remains to be seen whether Ms Barnhardt possesses that degree of feminine graciousness which would ignore Mr Coffin’s insulting spar & accept Mr Cionci’s modest invitation to pursue truth ensembles for the sake of souls’ clarity & peace of mind.

    1. That title was not created by Patrick Coffin, it was indeed the title of Andrea Cionci’s second letter to Ann Barnhardt. Patrick Coffin only published the English version of the Italian original:
      https://www.romait.it/lassurda-tesi-dellerrore-sostanziale-di-benedetto-xvi-papa-ratzinger-ha-errate-concezioni.html

      The discussion is extremely serious, and the gentlemanly professionalism that Mr. Cionci had exhibited in his initial letter to Ms. Barnhardt was not met with any degree of cooperation, but only one of obstinacy and mockery. To get to the “meat” of the thesis Ms. Barnhardt refuses to let go of, I don’t see why one would be offended by a relatively mild description of its “absurdness”, especially in view of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, and her unwillingness to honestly engage said evidence.

  2. “O truly necessary sin of Adam, which the death of Christ has blotted out!
    O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”

    Just 40 days ago, these words were proclaimed at the Easter Vigil Exultet.

    So, what if Pope Benedict XVI were in error?

    Perhaps it was another “necessary sin” and “happy fault” that will ultimately merit such and so great a restoration of the Church?

    1. If Benedict were in error by thinking he did abdicate, then he certainly would not say there is only one pope and fail to say who that is for 9 years….

    2. Paul, that is an interesting question and I understand where you are going with it. Your “so what” applies to an outcome regarding a greater church.

      But I think the problem is that your comment reads as if this is done at the expense of a man’s soul. And that price, to us, is too great! There is no “so what” that compensates for the loss of his soul. Any soul! When we object to Francis being pope, it is because we care for the souls being lost. Francis’ soul. Benedict’s soul. And all of those in their care. Their value is infinite. All of them. There can be no “so what.”

      You may have meant the first, but the second is too strongly implied, imo.

      1. My question had an important comma after So. This totally changes it’s meaning – at least in British English which I use – to make a speculative statement.

        So, let us suppose that Benedict XVI were in error?

        Catholic Tradition teaches that Adam and Eve are in Heaven.

        The Easter Exultet would be rather inappropriate to put it mildly if it were celebrating a sin of someone damned, such as Judas Iscariot.

  3. Everyone debating in print (in any language) needs to be polite for a reason most aren’t noticing:
    The Curia, the prelates, and the clergy have many reasons for their uneasy national silences– the least dishonourable being fear of “cancelation” by superiors.
    So (with some honourable exceptions like Bp Gracida, Bp Lengha, &t. ) prelates aren’t loudly (or even softly) clamouring for an “Irregular council” to formally examine the facts of the situation of “2 living successors of St Peter”, and to declare Francis an antipope.

    SO: in the absence of meaningful leadership in the hierarchy, it falls to the Catholic laity: lay theologians & Canonists academic and autodidact, (and a few brave and outspoken religious)
    to read and explore Canon Law apposite to ascertaining who is the one, legitimate Pontiff & Vicar of Christ .

    SUMMARY: the current, most important spiritual and historical debate in the world, is being decided in the public square of the internet by laypeople because of the failure of prelates to be Good Shepherds and fearless leaders and teachers of the Magisterium.
    (Ven. Bishop Sheen said that in the 21st century, it would be the laity who would save the Church.)
    And don’t think that craven Bishops’ Synods around the world aren’t watching and listening to forums & websites like this one, noting the Faithful’s reaction; whilst hiding behind curtains of internet anonymity.
    Bergoglio’s appointees might (and should) be shaking in their expensive boots as the Truth becomes somewhat more known and accepted by the generality of the Church militant. That’s why the those participating in this public debate should, in respect to the Truth they seek, –conduct and express themselves with more decorum than “their betters” .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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