Patrick Coffin, former host of the radio show “Catholic Answers Live,” has declared that he thinks Pope Francis is an Antipope. This article will refute Coffin’s claim. Here is a link to Patrick Coffin’s article making this declaration: Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is an Antipope.

As it turns out, these 7 pieces of “evidence” do not really qualify as proof, nor even as the starting point for any kind of scholarly or theological argument. Here are all seven points Coffin presents:

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.

My reply follows, point by point:

“1) The term “pope emeritus” has no precedent and is confusing”

To the contrary, the use of “emeritus” or any other term to refer to a Pope who has resigned has no bearing on the claim that the subsequent Pope is valid or invalid. The lack of a precedent for mere terminology does not affect the conditions for a person to be a valid Roman Pontiff.

The Latin term emeritus has been used since before Christianity began by the Roman army for officers who retired in good standing, and therefore deserve the honor and respect due to their former position in the military. This term is fitting, on that basis alone, for a Pope who has validly resigned, and yet continues to deserve the honor and respect due to his former office of Roman Pontiff. Also, the Roman Catholic Church has taken some other terminology from the Roman empire, including the term Pontifex Maximus, referring to the Pope. In the early days of Christianity, the Pontifex Maximus was the highest of the high priests in the Roman pagan religion. So we see that the mere use of a term does not invalidate the holder of an office, including the office of Pope.

“2) Pope Benedict XVI seems to have resigned only part of the papacy, the active ministerium, not the office or munus of the papacy”

To the contrary, there is no precedent for any Pope to resign “only part of the papacy”. Also, no teaching of the Church divides the office of the Pope into ministerium and munus. Rather, these terms are used interchangeably to refer to the single office of the Roman Pontiff. Jesus chose Peter as the Rock on which the Church is founded; the Lord did not choose two Apostles to both be Rocks, nor has the Rock on which the one Church is founded ever been divided. The unity of the Church is one of the four essential characteristics of the Church: one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and since those characteristics can never be lost, the Church and Her Head, who is also the Rock on which She is founded can never be other than “one” — not two.

In Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII, he teaches that the Church has one Head, Christ and His Vicar. Pope Pius XII later commented on this teaching, saying that “Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head” of the one Church. And so Christ and His Vicar the Pope are mystically one Head. Boniface went on to deny that the Church can never have two heads:

Unam Sanctam: “And so, the one and only Church is one body, one head, (not two heads like a monster), Christ certainly, and the vicar of Christ, who is Peter and the successor of Peter. For the Lord said to Peter himself, “Feed my sheep.” [John 21:17] He said “my” generally, not solely of these or of those. By this, it is understood that all [universas] were committed to him. Therefore, if either the Greeks or others declare themselves not to be committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ, just as the Lord says in John, “there is one sheepfold, and only one shepherd.” [John 10:16]”

Since the Magisterium teaches that the Church cannot have “two heads like a monster”, but rather one shepherd over one sheepfold, the role of the Pope cannot be divided between two persons, Benedict and Francis, nor can the role be divided into ministerium and munus.

Moreover, when Coffin and others claim that the office of Pope was so divided by Benedict, this implies that Benedict and Francis each shared part of that office, making them both valid Popes — which is contrary to magisterial teaching as already shown. But the implication would be that both Benedict and Francis would be valid Popes. Yet Coffin foolishly claims, contrary to his own bad argument, that Francis is an antipope and yet a pope with part of the office. This is not only heretical, but also self-contradictory and absurd.

“3) Pope Benedict’s longtime personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein has made statements that appear to affirm Benedict’s continued papal identity”

Really? because Benedict, after resigning, continually accepted Pope Francis as the valid Roman Pontiff. Recall that Pope Benedict himself called for a papal conclave to elect his successor, thereby confirming that he had resigned the papacy in full, and he publicly accepted the result of that conclave. Not long after being elected, Francis published his first Encyclical “Lumen fidei (29 June 2013)” which was mostly written by Pope Benedict. This act shows the continuity between the two Pontificates. Then never did Benedict speak or act in any way so as to support the schismatic claim that Francis was not really a valid Pope. Finally, a papal secretary has no authority to decide the validity of a Pontificate.

“4) Pope Benedict’s correct form of address is still ‘Your Holiness’ ”

As noted in point #1, the term emeritus connotates continued honor and respect for the person who formerly held an office, such as Bishop emeritus or, in a parish, pastor emeritus. The term “your holiness” does not imply that Benedict is still the Roman Pontiff. And Benedict never exercised nor attempted to exercise any papal authority after his resignation. So the form of address is merely a way to show honor and respect to a former Pope.

“5) There are at least three errors in the official Latin “declaratio” read by Pope Benedict on February 11th 2013”

There are no errors in that declaration. I have already refuted those claims here. But in addition, errors in such a resignation would not invalidate the resignation itself. It is sufficient that the Roman Pontiff intends to resign and publicly expresses that resignation. There is no complex set of rules for a valid resignation, such that failing to follow the details of said rules would make the Pope’s public declaration of his resignation invalid. Pope Benedict stated publicly his resignation and called for a papal conclave, and then he accepted his successor as Roman Pontiff. Nothing else matters.

“6) Universal peaceful acceptance by the Church of Francis has never really occurred.”

The above claim is manifestly factually false. To the contrary, the body of Bishops, almost without exception, have accepted Pope Francis as the true Pope. Then the body of the faithful, as well, with few exceptions, have also accepted Pope Francis as the true Pope. Even those who say “Recognize and Resist” do in fact recognize that Pope Francis is the valid Roman Pontiff.

Since the Church is indefectible and apostolic, the acceptance of Pope Francis as the valid successor of the Apostle Peter by the body of Bishops who are the successors of the other Apostles necessarily means that Pope Francis is the valid Pope. Otherwise, the Church would have ceased to be apostolic and would have defected, which is contrary to dogma and contrary to the Lord Jesus’ promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church.

“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.”

To the contrary, just as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said: “The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.”

Problems with a conclave do not invalidate the election or pontificate of a Roman Pontiff. Rather, the acceptance by the body of Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles, of an elected new Pope “heals in the root” any problems, insufficiencies, or worse in that election. See my article here.

Patrick Coffin goes on to make other claims, related to his rejection of Pope Francis as an antipope.

Coffin: “Catholics who refuse to even consider this evidence are forced to defend and domesticate the worst pope in history”

The ancient and constant teaching of the Church, confirmed at Vatican I, and found in both the new and old Codes of Canon law, is that the First See is judged by no one but God. So a claim by Coffin that Pope Francis is supposedly “the worst pope” is nothing but the opinion of a fallen sinner, and one who has fallen into schism due to his rejection of Pope Francis. Furthermore, an evaluation as to which Pope is, in some sense, the worst does not imply an invalid Pontificate. These discussions, as reprehensible as they are, as to which Pope is worst always consider only valid Popes. So an alleged worst Pope is still a valid pope, not an antipope. Here, again, Coffin’s argument is self-contradictory.

Coffin: “Catholics, especially conservative or traditional-minded ones, are in an abusive relationship with a passive-aggressive dictator”

See above, the First See is judged by no one but God. Also, this type of claim is contrary to the exercise of the virtue of charity and contrary to the commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. It’s also a merely rhetorical argument, which uses name-calling in place of any type of scholarly or reasonable argument.

Coffin: “The list of the evils and diabolical confusions perpetrated by Bergoglio is long, comprehensive, and disturbing”

This assertion is empty rhetoric. It assumes that every complaint against Pope Francis is true, in the extreme. It also supposes that God would permit an antipope to take control of the worldwide Church, permit the body of Bishops to support and follow him, and thereby permit the gates of Hell to prevail over the Church. Patrick Coffin is directly contradicting the words of Jesus in the Gospel. For Jesus says that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church. But Coffin claims that the currently-accepted Roman Pontiff is perpetrating a long list of evils and “diabolical” confusions on the Church, while being accepted as the Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church, the Head of the body of Bishops, and the Rock on which the Church is founded.

If all that Coffin claims were true, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed over the Church. For Coffin even uses terms like “evil” and “diabolical” to describe the person who in fact is ruling over the Church and teaching the faithful worldwide. Pope Francis in fact prevails over the Church, so Pope Francis must be the true Pope, who is not teaching any grave error, otherwise the verse of Scripture quoting Jesus that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church would be false. Thus, the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church proves that Pope Francis cannot be leading the Church astray.

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

The wise and holy Pope Benedict XVI resigned, called for a conclave, and ever accepted the person elected at that conclave as the true Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis. The wise and holy Pope Benedict never said that he did not want to be Pope, and such a claim, in any case, has no effect on the validity of his successor.

Patrick Coffin is now in a state of public formal schism, and is automatically excommunicated under Canon law for rejecting Pope Francis as the true Pope and refusing submission to his authority as Pope.

Ronald L Conte Jr