BREAKING! — The From Rome Blog has received notice from a native speaker of German, that the German translation of the Act of Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, has in its final redaction been CHANGED by a non-native speaker of the German language.
That means that both Pope Benedict and Archbishop Ganswein cannot be blamed for the fact that the German translation MAKES THE ACT APPEAR TO BE CANONICALLY VALID.
It also means that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Ganswein CANNOT BE CLAIMED to be in favor of an act of renunciation of the Papacy, since the German text as published by the Vatican has traces that the prior version announced only a RENUNCIATION OF MINISTRY not of office!
Here is the report from our Correspondent in Germany:
Dear Brother Bugnolo,Regarding your question:
the German is definitely not the original text, nor is it a direct translation from the Latin. Rather it is a translation from another language, probably English.
The German word order of the first sentence should match more closely to the Latin than to the English, so it should start “Nich nur wegen (non solum propter). Instead the German is a direct translation of the English word order, a standard translating error even by professionals:
“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations….
“Ich habe euch zu diesem Konsistorium nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen zusammengerufen…”
This would be better put: “Nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen habe ich euch zu diesem Konsistorium zusammengerufen…”
(not only for three canonizations have I convoked you to this consistory….)Note that correct German matches the phrase structure in the LATIN which begins “non solum propter” So it makes no sense to have the Engilsh phrase structure in the German if the German was first!And the use of “Schifflein” for the Latin “navis” (ship) is wrong. Schifflein means “little ship”. (navicella). I can’t imagine Pope Benedict would have used such a word.
But there is another finding which is of great interest.
In German , the verb ausuüben and ausführen both mean “to carry out”.
However, you ausüben an Amt (office, munus) but you ausführen a Dienst (service / ministry /activity)
Now look again at the falsified words in the German text on the Vatican website:
A) “um in angemessener Weise den Petrusdienst auszuüben. Ich bin mir sehr bewußt, daß…
B) dieser Dienst wegen seines geistlichen Wesens nicht nur durch Taten und Worte ausgeübt werden darf
C) …… den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen.”
A) and B) as you noted in the article from April falsely translate Amt (office) as Dienst (ministry) but whoever did the falsification forgot in A) to change the term auszuüben to auszuführen, and in B) in change ausgeübt to ausgeführt.
C) remains correct of course, a Dienst is ausgeführt.
Or perhaps the translation was originally done correctly but Amt was changed for Munus quickly, and not by the original translator, since it neglects to match the appropriate verbs! I can’t imagine the original translator would have made such a blunder.Might be worth examining the Italian, Spanish & French to see if a similar error is detectable.