Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10

Author Topic: Patrick Coffin goes Bennyvacantist  (Read 5175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Patrick Coffin goes Bennyvacantist
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2022, 12:25:41 PM »
Quote from: PAT317 on February 11, 2022, 12:16:47 PM
FWIW, all the Bennyplenists I've ever heard speak to the issue give reasons such as Sean listed (from Coffin).  I've never heard one say, "it's because he's more conservative" or "he freed the Latin Mass."

Coffin’s list, not mine 
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Patrick Coffin goes Bennyvacantist
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2022, 12:26:12 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 11, 2022, 12:15:52 PM
Lad and Matthew-

The 7 pieces of evidence are from COFFIN, not me.

They are posted by him at the link Lad posted in the OP.
Bump
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Patrick Coffin goes Bennyvacantist
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2022, 12:27:17 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on February 11, 2022, 12:19:15 PM
Right, I understand.  I'm just reacting to the comment he made.

Roger that; we’re all posting at the same time
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Patrick Coffin goes Bennyvacantist
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2022, 12:27:53 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on February 11, 2022, 12:21:46 PM

So Bergoglio is in fact, by being so over the top, exposing the entire conspiracy ... as that one prophecy indicated would happen "about 12 years after the millennium has passed) ... Bergoglio took office in early 2013.
Is this the spurious St. Malachy prophecy, or something else?
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Patrick Coffin goes Bennyvacantist
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2022, 12:28:36 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 11, 2022, 12:24:47 PM
Here’s how I would appraise Coffin’s 7 pieces of evidence:

1) Neither here not there;

2) A canonical defect would be “healed in the root” by Francis’s acceptance (Billot);

3) Immaterial;

4) False: He is Cardinal Ratzinger (His Eminence is his proper title);

5) See #2;

6) He is making an argument of fact.  What exactly is his argument to support this claim??

7) See #2.

Overall, a very weak list.  The only possibility I can see is demonstrating #6 (but nobody in the conciliar church has made this claim thus far).
Bump
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
« previous next »