FIRST TODAY’S ARTICLE from Il Libero Quotidiano, by Cionci, then Br. Bugnolo’s Translation & Analsysis of the Original, now missing article by Canfora, which was published on Feb. 12, 2013 by the Corriere della Sera.

Those Strange Errors in Benedict’s Latin

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info.

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE APPEARED AT BOTTOM OF P. 12, IN THE MARCH 23, 2021 Printed Edition of Il Libero
(There is a longer version in Italian at Cionci’s official blog)

“I am an excellent Latinist”, said Benedict to the Corriere della Sera, after writing his Declaratio

But  same Newspaper has erased from the Web the article by Dr. Luciano Canfora, leading Scholar of Latinity in Italy, which faulted it for its numerous errors

There has come to light another indication in favor of the hypothesis that Benedict XVI never resigned and has remained that “one Pope” of which he is continually speaking (without saying who that is), and who, for 8 years, has been constantly giving subtle messages to “he who has ears to hear”: such as the errors studiously inserted in the Latin text of his Declaration of resignation, to draw attention to its juridical invalidity (viz. the munus-ministerium distinction, and the declaration which regards a future date).  As jurists, Latin scholars and theologians have said: an act camouflaged to undo the Masonic-Globalist Bergoglian “church” with a sort of “Catholic Reset”.

Here are the facts of the case:  On the 12th of February in 2013, just one day after the publication of the Declaratio, the celebrated philologist Dr. Luciano Canfora was shocked to find two horrible errors in its Latin text, and wrote about this in the Corriere della Sera:  “It is a shame, that on account of the oversight of his collaborators, in the very crucial phrase the syntax of the Latin was given a mortal blow, seeing that the dative form “ministerio” was placed in the same phrase with an accusative “commissum” which supposed to modify it.  On Feb. 22nd, of the same year, even the latinist, Attorney Wilifried Stroh, wrote of it in the pages of the Abendzeitung of Munich, Bavaria, and, in November of that year, Cardinal Ravasi, the minister of culture at the Vatican, spoke of it likewise to the newspaper of Verona, the L’Arena.

On the 7th of September 2016, several weeks after the Secretary of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Mons. Sciacca, has explained to the Vaticanista, Andrea Tornielli, in the pages of La Stampa, how the resignation of Ratzinger was perfectly regular, Benedict XVI published, in the Corriere, a letter in which he described his action in these words: “The text of the renunciation: I wrote it.  I cannot say, with precision, when, but at most two weeks beforehand.  I wrote it in Latin because something so important is done in Latin.  Moreover, Latin is a language which I know SO WELL that I can write it elegantly.  I should have also written it in Italian, naturally, but there was the danger that I might make some errors!”

Does all this seem plausible? After the “embarrassment” of 2013, when Canfora, Ravasi and Stroh had criticized him in front of the entire world for his errors of syntax, how can Pope Benedict affirm that , “Latin is a language which I know so well that I can write it elegantly”?  Even while admitting he wrote it all by himself.

Moreover, as we have shown in our analyses, the entire Letter of 2016 can be read in entirely the opposite sense (in the light of the Third Secret of Fatima, of which Ratzinger was the publisher):  for he never cited Francis as the true pope, but rather as a cardinal successor in a merely practical ministry, so much so that he wrote: “He did not want to wear the read mozzetta, but that did not bother me”!  A phrase which could easily be understood to mean, “He did not want to wear the red mozzetta of a Cardinal, which was his duty, and preferred instead to dress in white”.

But the surprises do not end there.  As I went to look online at Corriere.it, for the text of the article of Dr. Luciano Confora, which I read there in 2018, when the Libero published my first article on the Resignation intentionally done badly, to my surprise, I found that the article was no longer available. It could only be found in the PDF version of the paper edition of that day, in the email boxes of those who subscribed to the newspaper.

Today, on Google, one finds only traces of the article, in html, in an indecorous manner, in the Cronaca di Bari the regional edition of the Corriere, published at the city of that name in Puglia, where Dr. Canfora lives

Is it probable that whoever chose to erase that one article from the web, which appeared on p. 17 of the Feb. 12th printed edition of the Corriere,  failed to remember that it was published simultaneously on line in the Cronica of Bari?  And for what reason, at the special request of by telephone from someone outside of Italy? Who knows.

What is certain is that in these days, following the publication of the book by Attorney Estefania Acosta, “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?”, a lot of knots are unravelling.

Just two days ago, Bergoglio reminded us all:  “We need to sow seeds of love: clerical legalisms are barren ground”.  And yet, what harm is there in verifying if the “clerical legalisms” are correct? Has the Church not taught for 200o years, that “the highest Truth is charity?” (Veritas summa charitas est).

+ + +

And now for the Article which was Erased from the Web.

These are the images from the original paper edition of the Corriere, of Feb. 12, 2013.

Here, follows, the the Unofficial English translation of the same by FromRome.info.

An Example of Modern Latin

by Dr. Luciano Canfora

The original text of the communique with which Benedict XVI has announced his resignation has been written, as is obvious, in a Latin constructed with phrases dug up by the author from diverse epochs.  It is a kind of mosaic which embraces nearly two millennia of Latinity: from the Ciceronian “ingravescente aetate” to the informal “ultimis mensibus” which is found in 18th century writings (namely of the Calvinist, Bachofen), even to the “portare pondus” which is found in Favio Vegezio’s, Epitoma rei militaris, but more frequently in authors like Raymond Lull (Ars amativa boni), Thomas à Kempis or even in the sermons of Bernard of Clairvaux.

Noteworthy as an allusion to the learned and bold Rufinus, translator of Origin, is the expression, “incapacitatem meam”. Moreover, in regard to a solid witness to the Classical era, from Quintilian to Pliny, there stand the most important phrases of the text such as, “declaro me ministerio renuntiare” (“I declare to have renounced my role as Pope — Ed. note, this is Canforas invented interpretation!).  Too bad, however, that by an unthinkable oversight, imputable to some collaborator, upset at the gravity of the announcement, a wound has been inflicted upon the Latin syntax of the crucial phrase, seeing that the dative ministerio is placed intollerably in apposition with the accusative commissum (the “task entrusted to me” — Ed. Note: Once again Canfora plays with the signification). There should have, necessarily, been  an agreement there, with the dative commisso.

How can one console oneself with this lapsus? By considering, for example, of the rare but disturbing errors in Latin which stained the Quaestiones calilmacheae of a great philologist such as Giorgio Pasquali, but corrected in the reprint done by the excellent Florentine grammarian, Giovanni Pascucci. But is it not impertinent to compare a philologist with a reigning Pontiff?  Error — as one knows — is always insinuating itself.  As in the Germand period, so also in the Latin there is “ein Bild” (a picture), in which every tassel has its place and the wound inferred upon the harmony becomes all the more painful.

An analogous incident occurred, amazingly, in the opening phrase, where the Pontiff says to his “dearest brothers” that he has convoked them “to communicate a decision of great moment for the life of the Church”: but one reads pro ecclesiae vitae where one would have wanted pro ecclesiae vita.  Whether it was upsetting or it was done in haste, it remains uncomfortable on account of the imperfections of a text destined to pass into history.  And though, it be true that the Latin of moderns reflects the richness and novelty of the language of moderns, nevertheless, some of the pillars of syntax cannot be transgressed, not even out of respect to the “new which advances”,

+ + +

And now for the

COMMENTARY BY BR. BUGNOLO

I will pass over the frivolity with which Canfora renders the Latin. Though he be one of the great Latinists in Italy, he clearly is more limited by the ruin wrought upon Italian by centuries of foreign domination.

But I will remark, that he points out clearly that the text as it was read aloud on Feb. 11, 2013, was rife with errors.

And that is not inconsequential.

Because though it is true that “error insinuates itself everywhere”, yet a philologist has not the sensibility of a theologian, who knows well that the apparent errors in the Biblical text are in fact sources of mystery and future revelations.

Canonical error in an administrative act is important to NOT ignore. Because, in accord with Canon 40 and 41, it can render an act null and void, and make invalid any action taken by subordinates.

By mispronouncing at least 2 Latin words, when He read it, Benedict XVI invalidated any response made by any of his listeners in accord with Canon 40, which requires them to have whole text in its final form, in hand, before acting.

And by including errors of syntax, He placed them under the canonical obligation of Canon 41 to seek from Him their correction.

This we know they did, to some extent, since the published version of the Declaration underwent several updates on the Vatican website from Feb. 12 to Feb. 17, or there abouts.

That means that they did act upon canon 41, but the failed to withdraw their public announcements.

Indeed, if they had time to ask and obtain correction of at least 3 errors, which were reported in editions published by the Vatican Press Office, they clearly CANNOT be excused if they failed to seek the corrections of the other 37 grammatical, syntactical or juridical errors.  Now either they did seek their correction or they did not. And if they did not, they failed in their duty, and should not be listened to or followed in their negligence by the rest of the Catholic world. But if they did, AND Benedict XVI refused to correct them, then they were NOT simply errors, but RATHER intentional signs or purposeful statements.  And thus anyone who says that Benedict XVI’s intention was clearly to resign (e.g. Cardinal Burke) is clearly and intentionally misrepresenting the historical record.

Indeed, in this regard Pope Benedict XVI would rebuke the press, in off the cuff remarks, at the close of His meeting with the Clergy of Rome, on Feb. 14, as I reported before, when He told the clergy to look at the Latin of Church documents, not at what the journalists say.

Thus it was, in His letter to the Corriere della Sera of Sept. 7, 2016, when He “boasted” of how good His Latin style was, it cannot be ignored that he was replying to the outrageous statements made by Mons. Sciaccia a month earlier, that there is no distinction in Canon Law between ministerium and munus, and that if your renounce the one, you have renounced both.

Benedict XVI sardonically replied in his letter of September, to that, saying, bascially, that he was inspired by God to renounce in the way he did (invalidly), and the more he sees of Bergoglio’s pastoral approach, the more he is convinced that it was God who inspired him.

Why Benedict XVI continues to wear the White Soutaine, even without the mantle and sash

by Andrea Cionci

English Translation published by FromRome.Info

Today Bergoglio declared that “seeds of love must be sown and CLERICAL LEGALISMS are dry soil.” HERE

It is a bit striking that this invitation comes in the very days in which the resignation of Ratzinger and therefore his election as “Pope Francis” is being questioned – at the legal level.

Sinning with a certain aridity, or trusting in the fact that, as the Church has been repeating for 2000 years, “Veritas summa charitas est”, we try to examine an event in which several accounts do not add up.

The world has never explained why Benedict XVI did not abandon the white robe after his Declaration of resignation – now presumed (since no one responds to the many legal challenges) – in which he announced a renunciation of the throne of Peter that was never ratified, HERE and that, moreover, seems to have been constructed in an invalid way HERE .

One hypothesis could be that he continues to wear white because he never resigned. He has given up only two accessories of the pope’s robe, the cape and the sash, as a symbol of the factual renunciation of two practical functions: to govern the boat of Peter and to proclaim the Gospel, as written in the Declaratio. Otherwise he keeps the robe white because he continues to be the only legitimate pope.

DETAILS

The issue of the white robe also aroused the public stigmatization, in December, of Card. Pell: “A resigning pope should be reinstated in the College of Cardinals so that he is known as ‘Cardinal X, pope emeritus’ SHOULD NOT DRESS WHITE and should not teach publicly.” HERE

To date, the only official explanation for this “outfit” has been one that Ratzinger himself sent, in 2014, to vaticanist Andrea Tornielli (later the Vatican press office chief appointed by Bergoglio). HERE

“In the letter he sent us,” Tornielli reports, “the Pope Emeritus also answers questions about the meaning of the white habit and the papal name. “The maintenance of the white habit and the name Benedict is something simply practical. At the moment of renunciation there were no other clothes available. After all, I wear the white habit in a way that is clearly distinct from that of the Pope.'”

What would you think? Given that the title of the article is: “Ratzinger: my renunciation is valid, absurd to speculate”, however surreal the answer, one is inclined, at first, to imagine that, after the abdication, Benedict had not put back on the cardinal’s BLACK robe edged in red because he had only white clothes in his closet.

Yet, reading in Peter Seewald’s 2016 interview book “Ein Leben,” Ratzinger recounts how his choice had been planned for several months and, as per his 2016 statements sent to Corriere della Sera, he thought about writing the Declaratio as much as two weeks in advance.

Could it be that with all this anticipation Benedict had not provided himself with a black cardinal’s robe? Had he not kept any black cassocks from the old days? Was there no ecclesiastical supplier who could rent one to the Pope? And over the next eight years did he not find a tailor who was up to the task?

Then a question to ask H.E. Card. Pell is legitimate: “Is it possible that Benedict XVI continues to wear white precisely because he is NOT a RESIGNER, as he has never validly resigned?”.

Several books have been written on this subject: HERE AND HERE

So, let’s try to change perspective and make a hypothesis: Benedict has renounced his sash and cape only because he has factually renounced two practical functions of his office, but he is still the pope and therefore the robe remains white.

In fact it is true that he has renounced the ministry, but understood as ministerium (exercise). In fact, he has been inactive for eight years from the practical-administrative point of view, how can we deny it?

WARNING: As already explained in the past, canon law divides the role of the pope in munus (divine assignment) and ministerium (practical exercise), but in Italian both are translated with the word ministry.

So, that Benedict has renounced one of the two “ministries” (the ministerium, not the munus) and that he does not practically administer the Church, nor does he announce the Gospel (practical functions) is well established.

This is why he wrote to Tornielli: “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The speculations about it are simply absurd.” No, indeed, there is no doubt.

However, it is different from interpreting this sentence as: “My Declaratio was a ratified act with full juridical validity of renunciation of the ministry understood as munus, and therefore it was a renunciation of the papacy”.

Example: let’s imagine a guy whose car has been stolen. If he says: “There is no doubt that I am now disoriented” it is true, but this cannot be interpreted tout court as: “I sold the car, and for this reason I am disoriented”. In the first case, an accident suffered leads Tizio to not be able to use the car, in the second case it is a legally valid act signed by him that makes him stay on foot. It is true that Ratzinger freely wanted to renounce the practical exercise, as he himself says, but this does not imply that he ratified it, nor does it imply that this made him resign as pope.

IN SYNTHESIS: a logical explanation for why Benedict XVI today continues to wear white, with a cassock lacking two accessories, could be because he has actually renounced two functions of the practical exercise, but WITHOUT resigning as pope.

It is common practice for prelates not to wear a cape and sash when indoors. It is no coincidence that Pope Emeritus Ratzinger wears the impaired cassock because he is always indoors, while still remaining the pope. “A practical solution,” as, indeed, he points out.

Alternative explanations, do we have any?