RIP BENEVACANTISM: A Response to Patrick Coffin

By: Joe Moreaux

The latest theory to start making waves in the traditional Catholic world is known as Benevacantism, also referred to as Beneplenism, aptly dubbed as the Diet Coke of Sedevacantism. While several notable thinkers have expressed their support of this idea in the past, for example Fr. Paul Kramer and Dr. Ed Mazza, it has again made some waves now that former Catholic Answers Live host Patrick Coffin has come out stating he holds to it now as well.

Benevacantism will inevitably lead to a second wave of Sedevacantism in due time. There is no question about that. The first wave of Sedevacantism occurred as a misdirected overreaction to the errors of the Second Vatican Council. This new wave is being ushered in as a misdirected overreaction to the confusion caused by Pope Francis since he ascended the Chair of Peter in 2013.

There are many ironies concerning this second wave which I will explore in this article. The first is the assumption that the Church was radiant in its splendor and then, all of a sudden, in came Pope Francis, but Pope Francis was not born out of a vacuum. Closer examination shows that he is very much the natural progression from the theology of the Popes who preceded him, including Benedict XVI, tracing all the way back to Vatican II.

Proponents of this theory like to hold John Paul II and Benedict XVI in high esteem. They will even call him “St. John Paul II,” which is interesting considering he was canonized under Pope Francis, the same man whom Coffin now claims is not even a true Pope. They also overlook the realization that John Paul II and Benedict are both products of Vatican II theology as well, just like Pope Francis.

It ought to be noted as well, right off the bat, that the private opinions and speculations of Catholics does not equivocate to the authority of the Magisterium, as much as they wish it did. Put simply, these individuals are asserting positions that they have no authority to publicly promote.

Proponents of the Benevacantist theory will go to great lengths to argue that their theory does not hinge on whether Pope Francis is a bad Pope or not; rather, they claim, it hinges simply on a faulty resignation by Benedict. They will proceed to talk about how displeased they are with Pope Francis. Clearly, the position exists because people do not know how to process the errors and mishaps of Pope Francis. If Pope Francis were exemplary like Pius X, this theory would not exist. However, they try to pin it on Benedict’s resignation allegedly not being valid. But they ought to call a spade of spades and deal with the real issue at hand, which is Pope Francis himself.

Also, those who hold to this theory have to conjure up excuses for Benedict’s actions. From the best I can tell in my research, there exists three different opinions about Benedict, and all of them are radically different from one another. Either Benedict is extremely smart, or he is incredibly incompetent, or he was just horribly scared. Genius, ignorant, or coward. This is what you are left with in this theory. Of course, there is always option four, which is simply that Benedict chose to resign.

Sedevacantists believe the Church has not had a Pope since 1958. This new theory of Benevacantism employs the same arguments in a different format, and will argue that we have not had one since 2013. This is similar to the sentiments of the infamous Siri Theory, to which some Sedevacantists still hold. The claim is that Cardinal Siri was actually elected in 1958 but then pressured to recant, which he then allegedly did, and voting resumed. We then got John XXIII. It was argued that he was being very crafty and would admit to the world eventually that he was really the true Pope all along, thus undoing Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. But then he died in 1989, and to a degree, the Siri theory died along with it. There are still some who stick to this idea even to this day, and they use it as their basis for remaining Sedevacantist. Let us ask Benevacantists if they likewise holds to the Siri Theory.

There is also a strange connection to the Trumpets and their Qanon conspiracies, in which they will argue that Trump is still the President even though even he has admitted that he now recognizes Biden as the President. So too, with the Benevacantists, they say Benedict is still the Pope, even though Benedict himself recognizes Francis as the Pope.

Look at the obvious similarities between these two movements. I am quoting Nina Leone as she points them out:

Q: Trump is still President. Bennys: Benedict is still pope.

Random person on Q: If Trump is still President why doesn't he speak out about this? Them: They'd kill him. Us to Bennys: If Benedict is still Pope why doesn't he speak up and do something? Them: He can't, he had an assasination attempt.

Q: Trump DIDN’T actually concede. Bennys: Benedict didn't actually resign.

Bennys: Benedict saved the TLM. Q: Trump saves our country.

Bennys: Benedict is the path to save the church. Q: Trump is the path to save the country.

And on and on the parallels go.

Let’s analyze key portions of Coffin's video wherein he presents the case for Benevacantism.

Patrick Coffin begins his argument by saying, “Every day is an opportunity to examine evidence is put in front of me. Every day in our 24-7 hyper media culture, someone makes a truth claim, someone else contradicts that truth claim... The goal is to rationally sift through the evidence, weighing out the arguments in your mind, thinking things through for yourself.”

Here is the first foundational pitfall, and it basically is the open door for every error that then follows in the remainder of the video presentation. The goal is not to rationally sift through the evidence of every theory that comes down the pike just because we happen to live in a world bombarded with information. The goal is to be holy, to strive to be saints. That is the goal. Topics like this are best left to the hands of the Magisterium to make a decision, which will most likely happen in the Triumph era. In the mean time, we reserve such judgment for the future, and we accept the chastisements He sends us to purify us. Francis has not bound us to anything in the interim, either way.

Coffin next goes on to say he is referring to Francis as an anti Pope, not as a “bad Pope” per se. Although, again, if he were being honest, it was Pope Francis not meeting the expectations of a Pope that led him to consider this theory. As well, he says there have been many antipopes in the past. This is true, and yet, in those eras, the definitive declaration was not made by the laity. We need to seriously know our role in such matters.

He then goes on to say that Canon 1404 says the Holy See is judged by no one, and that the context of the canon is that there must be a competent forum provided by a canonical trial, which, according to Coffin, has “nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether or not a given Sovereign Pontiff is the real Pope.” He says, “I am not conducting a canonical trial, and I’m certainly not judging the Holy See or anyone else.”

Well, that is a given, you are not conducting a canonical trial. Instead, you are doing exactly what Sedevacantists do, even using their same type of argumentation almost verbatim. You are assigning yourself the role of Judge and Jury in the court of private opinion by declaring, in a public video, that Francis is an antipope because you say so. Because you believe you put all the pieces of the puzzle together correctly, and thus, that means Francis is an antipope. I have been down this road before, back when I dabbled for several years in the Sedevacantist camp. It is a dark spiral that offers no actual solution for the present crisis in which we live. Coffin can say all he wants that he is not judging the Holy See, but again, this is exactly what Sedevcacantists say when they freely declare that we have not had a valid Pope since 1958. Patrick Coffin is not the Pope, he is not equivalent to an Ecumenical Council, he does not carry the authority of a canonical court. These types of investigations and decisions belong to a future Pope, not to any of us.

Patrick says, “So far, it seems a grand total of zero [Cardinals] are even interested in looking at this.” Correct, but then again, even Benedict himself does not seem interested in looking at this. And he is the one that Coffin asserts is the true Pope. Benedict himself continues to advocate, at times even cheerlead, for Francis’ papacy. As well, this only further justifies and bolsters the argument regarding the peaceful and universal acceptance of Francis as Pope, since a grand total of zero Cardinals have expressed interest in this theory. Even staunch critics of Pope Francis, such as Archbishop Vigano, have not advocated for the Benevacantist theory.

Coffin continues: “I am also not debating whether or not the Church has the authority to depose a Pope who is a heretic.” But if Coffin was being honest, this is exactly what he is attempting to do. As are all the proponents of this theory. They are overreacting to Francis’ pontificate, indeed one which is compromised with Modernism, and thus trying to find a convenient loophole to justify their desire to not call Francis a Pope. They have found their magic trick with Benedict’s resignation. But the reality is that the only reason they are trying to find a loophole to begin with is because they do not like Pope Francis. They paint the picture of Benedict being this champion of traditionalism and orthodoxy, as well as John Paul II before him. They are advocates of Vatican II, utilizing the “hermeneutic of continuity” argument. And yet, what they fail to realize is that Pope Francis did not magically appear out of a vacuum. He is the natural progression of Vatican II and the Popes who preceded him since that Council.

“Whether or not Francis is a heretic has nothing to do with the evidence that Benedict XVI is still the real Pope.” Again, this displays the dishonesty of Coffin’s rhetoric. If Francis were as holy as Gregory the Great, Pius V, Leo XIII, or Pius X, then such evidence would not be sought after to justify Benedict still being the Pope. The only reason they are looking for such evidence is because they do not know what to make of Pope Francis, but this unspoken starting principle is the wrong route to go from a Catholic perspective. We are called to pray and fast for Pope Francis’ repentance and conversion, not claim we know he is an antipope.

Coffin says that his seven pieces of evidence, taken as seven actual individual pieces, do not provide a slam dunk for his thesis. Rather, he argues, the cumulative effect will get others to at least consider the possibility. This is a rather weak foundation to build a thesis on and then promote it publicly to the world. If they are wrong (and the burden of proof is on him to show he is right) then they are committing the sin of scandal by publicly promoting this idea. How can they do this without a slam dunk? We are talking about the identity of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. And all they can offer us are “possibilities” based on speculation and private interpretation? No slam dunk piece of evidence? This ought to be a major red flag for every pious Catholic watching this scandalous video. Coffin is going to publicly promote a “possibility” based on some personal ideas, and he is going to do exactly what the Sedevacantists do. He is not privately speculating; he is publicly promoting. And all of this is based on 100% pure speculation, nothing more.

We now get to some of the key “evidences.” Evidence # 1: The term “Pope Emeritus” is confusing and has no precedent.

Coffin offers an analogy that proves the very point I just made regarding Francis being a bad Pope. The Benevacatists will argue ad nauseam that it has nothing to do with Francis being a bad Pope, but then they spend lengths of time trying to demonstrate that Francis is a bad Pope, showing that this definitely does factor in to their argumentation, even if they want to give the impression that it is an indifferent point. In his analogy, he mentions President Nixon leaving office, circling around Washington, and then landing back on White House property. Coffin then asks us to imagine if President Ford was royally screwing up the country as this all happened. This analogy proves the point behind the real motives. I thought it had nothing to do with Francis being a bad Pope? Using his analogy, what would it matter if President Ford was royally screwing up the country or serving her according to the exact constitutional requirements? It should not matter. The only point that ought to matter is whether Nixon was legitimately still a President or not. It should not matter whether Francis is a bad Pope or a phenomenal Pope. It is a moot point. He has the universal and peaceful acceptance of the Church as Pope, he has the moral unanimity. Even Coffin admitted that the number of Cardinals who hold his view are zero.

As well, the simple reason Benedict preferred the title “Emeritus” is because there is precedent for it in the episcopacy, with older bishops assuming the title of Bishop Emeritus which keeps them in some way spiritually united to their flock even when they are retired according to the requirements of Canon Law. While this precedent did not exist for the Papacy, Benedict thought he could utilize it as the Bishop of Rome, choosing to step down and retire from active ministry as a Pope Emeritus. Whether one argues he can do this or not is not relevant; the only factor relevant to this discussion is that this was Benedict’s express intention.

According to Antonio Socci, Benedict consulted an authoritative canonist to inquire about what his proper title should be once he resigned from the office. The canonist told him, “Bishop Emeritus of Rome.” Thus, Benedict went with his suggestion. In 2017, Benedict wrote in a letter, “You said that with ‘pope emeritus,’ I had created a figure that had not existed in the whole history of the Church. You know very well, of course, that popes have abdicated, albeit very rarely. What were they afterward? Pope emeritus? Or what else?” Again, this demonstrates the intention behind his decision for the title. Benedict continued in the same letter, “With ‘pope emeritus,’ I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one pope.” Interesting. So he chose that title specifically to make clear that there was only one Pope, and he has continued to express his support for Pope Francis since resigning up to the present day.

If we look up Oxford Dictionary, “emeritus” is defined as the former holder of an office, having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor. We see that Coffin’s first Evidence falls flat to the ground, since Benedict contradicts it with his own express intention and words.

Let’s check out the next Evidence, which seems to be the hallmark proof for the Benevacantists. Evidence #2: Pope Benedict XVI resigned the ministerium but not the munus of the Papacy.

Coffin says, “Pope Benedict seems to have only resigned part of the Papacy. The active ministerium… so he stopped ‘doing,’ but he didn’t in a sense stop ‘being’ the Pope. He did not seem to resign the munus, or the office.” Coffin then explains that, even since the 1960’s, Fr. Ratzinger had begun to theorize that the Papacy could be bifurcated into two separate elements, between the munus and the ministerium. He then notes that it is “odd that decades later he would attempt to act on this.”

Again, what this clearly shows, first and foremost, is that Benedict knew what he was seeking to accomplish by resigning. He intended to do just that… retire and resign. This is further confirmed by Benedict’s very own resignation in which he clearly said that the Seat of Peter would be vacant until a new Pope had been elected by the Cardinals. Of course, we know that they eventually ended up electing Francis. All arguments aside regarding munus and ministerium, which I will address shortly, we see off the bat what Benedict’s clear express intention was with this act of resignation. It is not some top secret conspiracy theory straight out of a Hollywood film, nor is it Benedict being ignorant and not understanding what he wanted. No, this is a clear indication that Benedict’s intention was to resign, since he was already speculating on these sorts of matters even in his days as a priest.

Here is Benedict’s actual resignation speech: “With full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”

Let us look at this at face value. Benedict, in his very own resignation, in his very own interpretation of events, declares that with “full freedom” he is renouncing the ministry of Bishop of Rome. He then goes further and says that, “In such a way that… the See of Rome will be vacant.” And then just to ensure no one confuses this, he explicitly states that a Conclave will be needed so a “new Supreme Pontiff” can be elected.

This literally solves the entire issue, right here. Do not twist and distort them to your own destruction, as Protestants do with Sacred Scripture. Show us, prove to us, that your position is true. Because here we have Benedict himself, in plain words, stating that he is exercising full freedom in renouncing the ministry of Bishop of Rome, that the See will be vacant, and that a new Pope will need to be elected. Game over. Tell us why poor Benedict does not know what he is talking about. Educate and enlighten us. You can not. There is no argument to be made. This right here solves the entire issue. Benevacantism is false.

The argument they attempt to make, and it really is the only single argument that binds Benevacantists together, is the munus vs. ministerium argument. Everyone reading this should know that this is seriously their only real attempted argument. If they can not swing this one, then they strike out. The argument asserts that Benedict intentionally kept the munus (Office) of the Papacy since he only resigned from the ministerium (Ministry) of the Papacy. This is the nutshell of their argument. They seek to promote this by noting that Benedict mentions the munus twice in his resignation letter, but then in the specific section dealing with the actual resignation, he uses the phrase ministerium. Thus, they argue, he still retains the munus.

First, this argument overlooks the point just made above which is that Benedict made it clear that his resignation would leave the See vacant, thus necessitating a new Pontiff to be elected. There is no way around this obvious point, and they know this. You can try to spin munus and ministerium all day, but the fact remains that Benedict made it clear that the See would be vacant and that the Cardinals would have to elect a new Pope to fill it, which they then did with Francis.

Second, Ryan Grant notes that the terms munus and ministerium are essentially synonymous. He writes, “Munus can mean a gift, although even there it is not disconnected from the notion that it is a gift that carries responsibility. In ecclesiastical parlance, it typically means an office or duty. Thus, the episcopate, and the papacy, is considered a munus, properly speaking. In this sense, it is roughly synonymous with officium, which is the Roman word for duty. Ministerium can mean a ministry or service, but it also means office or duty, in the sense of the essence of what the munus entails. In fact, Forcellini uses the word munus to describe ministerium in the Lexicon Totius Latinitatis.”

We also have Stelton’s dictionary of ecclesiastical Latin, which notes that the term ministerium is defined as “ministry, service, office, duty.” Collins Latin Dictionary defines munus as: service, duty, gift; it defines ministerium as service, office, duty. Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary defines munus as service, office, post, function, duty, work; it defines ministerium as the office or functions of a service or ministry, an office and a work. Sounds like the terms carry the same functions. Benevacantists try to argue that Benedict is fluent in Latin and knew what he was doing. Yes, apparently he does.

The real nail in the coffin for Coffin’s argument (and the central argument of all Benevacantists) comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who writes that the ministerium of the Papacy refers explicitly to its office. The Angelic Doctor teaches, “Some power was also conferred to ministers of the Church, who are dispensers of the Sacraments, to remove the obstacle, not of itself, but by the divine power and the power of the passion of Christ, and this power is metaphorically called the key of the Church (clavis ecclesiae), which is the key of service (clavis ministerii).”

It is obvious to anyone with the capacity to think that whether Benedict uses the phrase office or ministry, in his mind, the terms each express the same function. They are inseparable. Thus, again, the reason why he calls for an election of a new Pontiff in his resignation, an action that would make no sense if he believed there was a distinction between munus and ministerium. In fact, in a General Audience from April of 2010, Benedict said this: “the munus docendi of the Church, exercised concretely through the ministry of each priest.” Look at his own phrasing. He says that the teaching office of the Church is exercised concretely through the ministry of each priest. The terms can not be extracted apart from each other. The ministry is linked to the office, and vice versa. This is why both terms carry the same definitions and meanings in lexical sources.

The office is exercised through the ministry. Remove the office, and no ministry to be exercised. Remove the ministry, and the office is dormant. The two go hand in hand together, even in his own words. We could even switch the sentence and it would carry the same import: the teaching ministry of the Church is exercised concretely through the office of the priest. “Office” is the functional noun form, while “Ministry” is the functional verbal form. Both exist together. Just as DNA does not exist without RNA, so too, the Office does not exist without the Ministry, and vice versa since they are intimately linked and connected. So when Benedict uses the exact same terms in his resignation, when he says he is resigning from the ministry, which as we have seen is also defined as office, then that means he no longer will possess the unique office. Hence, the reason why he declares the See will be vacant and a new Pontiff will need to be elected.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this assessment of munus and ministerium, it is not pertinent. What is actually pertinent is how Benedict understands it, because he is the one who made the resignation. If he understands the terms to be linked and interwoven, then the case is over for the Benevacantist, as we will see shortly. The only salient factor here is what was Benedict’s intention in his act, not what private interpreters think about munus or ministerium.

Fr. Kramer tries to pose the argument this way: “When Benedict XVI renounced his ministry, by distinguishing between the ministerium and the munus, and between the active and passive aspects of the munus, and expressing his intention to continue to exercise the passive aspect of the munus even after the juridical cessation of the active exercise of the munus goes into force, he thereby expressed the intention that his act of renunciation of the ministerium does not intend the unconditional and total revocation of the munus he received upon his election to the papacy on 19 April, 2005.”

Look at how Fr. Kramer flips Benedict’s actual words upside down. He asserts that Benedict intentionally (or unintentionally) expressed his intention to maintain the munus he received when he was elected. Well, either Benedict is either being very crafty, or he is just a complete simpleton. Take your pick. Whichever you pick, Kramer’s point is refuted by Benedict's own express intention to freely resign from the Papacy which then resulted in a vacated See and the need to elect a new Pontiff. Where does Benedict express this intention to maintain the munus? The answer is, he does not. He expresses the exact opposite. He expresses his free desire to resign.

Even Benevacantist Dr. Mazza is forced to admit that Benedict sees no distinction between the terms munus and ministerium. Mazza quotes him prior to his Pontificate when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: “While the medieval text…saw the ordination as resulting from the indicative of the conferral of power, ordination is accomplished according to the 1947 text…in the manner…of a prayer. Thus, it is apparent even in the external form that the true conferrer of power is the Holy Spirit, to whom the sacramental prayer is addressed, not the human consecrator. The medieval rite is formed on the pattern of investiture in a secular office. Its key word is potestas… [however, since 1947] the key word is now ministerium or munus: service and gift.”

Dr. Mazza is attempting to make the argument that Benedict maybe thinks he resigned but he actually did not, unbeknownst to poor Benedict. So in this warped view, Benedict is still Pope even though he does not realize that he is. Mazza argues that Benedict is trying to convince the two terms to mean the same thing (which, bingo, is the very point I have proven thus far in this article) but he argues that the terms are separate and thus Benedict did not really resign. Mazza further quotes Benedict: “Benedict does not see the priesthood, or better yet, the papacy as ‘consisting exclusively in a particular activity, so that if that activity is missing, the ministry [munus] itself ceases to exist.’” This yet again gives us an insight into Benedict’s intention in resigning. Mazza’s argument again is that Benedict is wrong in trying to unite the terms munus and ministerium as one and the same. But wait a second, I thought Benedict spoke fluent Latin and knew exactly what he was doing? Well, Mazza says otherwise. Again, the inconsistencies and discrepancies of the Benevacantists.

Here is the point that Mazza, Kramer, and Coffin are all missing, or rather the point they are choosing to ignore. Canon 332 of the Code of Canon Law states: “If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.” Did you catch that? All that the Pope needs to do for a valid resignation is to make it freely and make it manifest, both of which Benedict did in his resignation. Whether others refuse to accept it is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say “munus” or “ministerium” needs to be used. It states that it must be made freely and it must be publicly manifest. There you go. Again, case closed. All the fussing and whining over munus vs. ministerium amounts to nothing, according to Canon Law. Benedict freely resigned and made it known that his intention was to resign and to leave an empty See that would be filled upon another election.

There is no specific formula a Pope is required to use in order to resign. He does not need to use the word munus, nor does he need to use ministerium. He only needs to say he is doing it freely, and he must make it manifest. Thus, Benvacantism is proven utterly false. There is literally no way around it. And, no: Coffin, Kramer, and Mazza are not a higher authority than Canon Law. And whether they want to accept the resignation or not, Canon Law tells us their private opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

So much for their biggest argument. The power and office is called the key of service, ministerii in Latin, according to St. Aquinas. So whether Benedict used the phrase munus or ministerium, his point is the same. He is resigning from the Papacy, the See will be vacant, and a new Pontiff will have to be elected. This is backed up by the actual linguistics of ecclesiastical Latin, the lexicons, the dictionaries, previous speeches by Benedict himself, as well as St. Aquinas. We have now just removed the only plank they tried to stand on. One has to wonder if it is even worth going through any of Coffin’s further arguments, since his primary “evidences” have now all crumbled.

In a nutshell: whether Benedict knew the Latin (as Kramer suggests) or somehow did not know the Latin (as Mazza suggests), it is not relevant at all. It suffices that Benedict himself thought both words mean the same thing, and even if he was wrong, the words are not pertinent for a valid resignation. So either he thought they were the same, which means his intention was to resign. Or his thinking was flawed, but either way, his intention was to resign. In either circumstance, Benevacantism is proven false. Without a leg to stand on. It is false whether Kramer’s suspicions are right or whether Mazza’s suspicions are right. Either way, the theory is demonstrably proven to be false. And it is irrefutably false.

Well, lets address the one other argument that some make, which is that Benedict resigned out of fear (in other words, he was a coward and fled from the wolves). I am going to quote Grant again, word for word, to shut this one down very simply, in a way that, again, even elementary school students could understand.

Grant notes: “The difficulty is that in all acts done out of fear, there is in fact a consent to the act that is, in principle, actual consent. This is attested to also in Canon Law: ‘An act placed because of grave fear, which has been unjustly inflicted, or because of fraud is valid unless the law makes some other provision; but such an act can be rescinded by the decision of a judge, either at the instance of an injured party, or at that party’s successor’s in law, or ex officio.’ The import of this is that if the pope were pressured by some nebulous fear, arising from some nebulous threat, as certain blogs have opined, it would be necessary for this to be shown in a canonical court, by that party or someone succeeding to his claims, and at that point, when this fear is demonstrated in the external forum, then, and only then, could we have such a confirmation. The result of this is that unless the Benevacantists want to go back to Gallicanism or Conciliarism, there is only one person who could possibly put into effect a canonical trial of this matter, and that is Pope Francis.”

In other words, according to Canon Law, if an accusation is made regarding an act being performed out of grave fear, then it must be weighed out and investigated in a canonical court with a decision being determined by none other than the Pope himself. Thus, it would be up to Pope Francis to look into this, or even potentially a future Pope. Until then, grave fear is not assumed to have been present. And either way, Benedict has yet to say grave fear even played a factor. Quite the opposite; he said he was freely choosing to do this after his own personal reflection on the matter. The burden of proof is on the Benevacantists to prove that Benedict acted under duress, something he has yet to say or even hint. And even if he did, it would only mean a trial would need to be called, and the Church would need to make a ruling. Not Coffin, not Mazza, not Kramer. The Church would have to.

Some try to make much ado about Archbishop Ganswein’s interview in which he was purported to have said that he believed that Benedict believed in an expanded Petrine office, with him and Francis as two Popes. This argument is quite easily shut down by Ganswein himself, when he clarified in a future interview, “Pope Benedict was – and to this day all the more is – very much at peace with his decision to resign, and that it was the right step to take. That helped me personally to overcome my initial resistance and accept what Pope Benedict truly realized after much struggle and prayer, what he found to be the right thing and then decided on.” He further stated, “I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say. Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate and legitimately elected pope. Any talk of two popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is therefore incorrect… When applying common sense, faith and a little theology, that should be clear.”

What are Benedict’s thoughts on Pope Francis? Well, on the 65th anniversary of his ordination to the Priesthood, Benedict addressed Francis and said, “Thank you, Holy Father, for your goodness, which from the first moment of your election has struck every day of my life.” He has also stated glowing support for Francis elsewhere, saying that that they both have a “deep communion and friendship.” And also, “At the moment of his election I experienced, as many, a spontaneous feeling of gratitude toward Providence. The Lord was turning, so to speak, his gaze to the Universal Church and invited us to a more extensive communion, more Catholic.”

The following exchange comes from Benedict's Last Will and Testament book in 2016:

Seewald: So you do not see any kind of break with your pontificate?

Benedict: No. I mean, one can of course misinterpret in places, with the intention of saying that everything has been turned on its head now. If one isolates things, takes them out of context, one can construct opposites, but not if one looks at the whole. There may be a different emphasis, of course, but no opposition.

Seewald: Now, after the present time in office of Pope Francis – are you content?

Benedict: Yes. There is a new freshness in the Church, a new joyfulness, a new charisma which speaks to people, and that is certainly something beautiful.

In a 2021 interview, regarding his resignation, Benedict said, “It was a difficult decision, but I made it in full awareness, and I believe it was correct.” In the same interview, when asked about the conspiracy theories floating around (as we have been examining in this article) he effectively shut it down by saying, “They don’t want to believe in a conscious choice. But my conscience is fine.” In 2019, he was quoted as saying, “There is one pope, he is Francis.” The burden of proof again falls on the Benevacantists to explain why Benedict continues to defend his resignation and offer his glowing support for Francis as the Pope.

Clearly, what is happening here is nothing new. The Devil is up to his old tricks. He is trying to divide the Remnant. He hates the traditional Catholic Resistance. Thus, he crafts together baseless arguments like this in order to further divide Catholics that are faithful to Tradition and loyal to Eternal Rome. We ought to be praying and fasting for Pope Francis, and growing as Saints in our vocations. We should be united on opposing rampant Modernism. Not having to squabble over conspiracy theories.

You can really see the devil's hand stirring the pot in these movements because these people really really want to pretend that they posses the same authority as the Magisterium in making these theories they bind others to.

The peaceful and universal acceptance of Francis as Pope by the hierarchy suffices to prove definitively that Francis is the currently reigning Pontiff. 19th century theologian Cardinal Billot teaches: “The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself.” As Coffin said, there have been zero Cardinals interested in this theory. And we could add that 0.005% of Catholics does not equivocate to the universal Church, much less to the bulk of Catholics faithful to Tradition. This teaching is backed up and confirmed by many theologians. The peaceful acceptance of a Pope is itself an infallible sign. Even Benedict peacefully accepts Francis. Again, case closed.

In the 17th century, Dominican theologian John of St. Thomas taught: “Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic.”

Benedict himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger, essentially said that movements like Benevacantism put someone into schism and outside the Church. In 1989, in regards to those who reject the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff, he stated, “Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.” So Benedict himself names the Benevacantists as not in full communion with the Church. The irony is astounding.

We might not be thrilled with Francis as Pope, but he is the Pope that the Church deserved. Consider it a chastisement of sorts from Heaven. We can use the time wisely to grow even stronger in sanctity. Let us not waste the time by inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories. Let us pray for the restoration of Holy Mother Church and let us put aside childish fables. The salvation of souls is at stake, and the sanctification of our own souls is likewise at stake. We have no time to waste. Benevacantism has been effectively dismantled point by point. Let us move onward.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. We love you. Save souls.

Reference as well my previous articles on: