Nearly everything in this 47 minute discussion has been reported years ago here at FromRome.Info. But this presentation takes a different take: it presents facts as certain but laws as doubtful and conclusions as uncertain, which is a very different approach from FromRome.Info.
In fact, it is a grave philosophical error and gaslighting, to present facts and yet insinuate doubt in the human intellect’s capacity to reason from facts to true conclusions. Saint Thomas Aquinas would have never written his Summa Theologica if he had the same uncertainty of mind.
See if you can spot how this presentation moves between what is socially acceptable and what is true. Comment below, if you spot errors, problems, or inconsistencies, since, you, the readers of FromRome.Info are probably better informed than these two men.
But what is really cheeky, is that both these men said that they were persecuted for speaking the truth about these things, when in truth, they were both some of the principle censors of this truth and hid the truth and discussion for nearly 10 years.
FromRome.Info was and is the leading source of news coverage of the invalid Conclave of 2013 and the Conclave of 2025, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. Use our search function to find what can be found no where else.
+ + +
+ + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +
At 30:57 Coffin says, “This is all going to be worked out by those who have the competence to do so“, which is straight out of the Declaratio. PBXVI put the world on notice regarding cardinals and “competence”, and now Coffin directs us to trust in the competence of the collective members of the Vatican Court to work this out. Hmmmmm…
Exactly. Though, Westen for his part, does admit that before the Cardinals elected the pope there was another way: though he claims it was election by the clergy of Rome. And he does not mention Pope Nicholas II’s Bull, which contradicts his selective quotation.
The fact is that from the time of Saint Peter until 1059 A. D., all the Faithful participated in the election of the Roman Pontiff, equally, that is, one vote for each member of the Faithful, whether they were clergy, religious or laity. The only requirements were that you were a Catholic and a resident of Rome. Why? because Saint Peter adopted the Roman system of election for officials of the City: by popular suffrage. All that Nicholas II did, was that the deliberation about who should be the candidate be reserved to the Cardinal Bishops, in normal cases: but the right to elect returns to common suffrage in the extraordinary case of an illegal, invalid election.
For anyone to say that there IS now another way to elect the Pope, if all the Cardinals are complicit in an illegal election, and says that that way is ONLY for the clergy to participate, or only Bishops, or for anyone who is NOT a Catholic resident at Rome, they are simply making it up, or intentionally lying.
The Catholics at Rome last year exercised their right. And what they did is approved by the Most Holy Trinity, as the events of history are showing and will show, because God is not a deceiver and will not go along with the pretenses of heretics, schismatics or antipope lovers.