Tag Archives: Feb 11 2013

Clamorous errors in the Latin of the Renunciation

THIS IS A REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL

DI SEGUITO LA TRADUZIONE ITALIANA

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and  on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.

And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!

Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.

So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.

I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.

And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.

I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.

First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.

  1. To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
  2. To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
  3. A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”.  Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
  4. The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative of possession for decisionem!
  5.  I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority.
  6. This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
  7. Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
  8. This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
  9. These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
  10. This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
  11. Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possessive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
  12. Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).

Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …

  1. The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
  2. Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
  3. Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
  4. The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
  5. This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
  6. Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
  7. And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celerium mutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
  8. And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
  9. Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
  10. Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
  11. Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
  12. Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.

qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

  1. In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
  2. Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
  3. It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before.  But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
  4. Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
  5. Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
  6. Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
  7. This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
  8. This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
  9. The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
  10. This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
  11. This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
  12. Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

  1. Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
  2. If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
  3. Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by de vobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
  4. Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
  5. Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
  6. In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).

CONCLUSION

I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.

Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!

Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.

ITALIAN TRANSLATION

Di frà Alexis Bugnolo

Ringrazio i miei collaboratori per il loro aiuto nella traduzione di quest’articolo

A pochi giorni dalla pubblicazione del testo latino ufficiale dell’Atto di Rinuncia fatto da Papa Benedetto XVI l’11 febbraio 2013 alcuni giornali titolavano così: “Errori clamorosi nel testo latino della Rinuncia”. ( qui e sul punto, qui ). Questi articoli citavano solo due errori, quelli di “commisso” al posto del corretto “commissum” e quello di “vita” al posto di “vitae”.

I giornali avevano ragione, ma io ho individuato almeno 40 errori, non solo quei due!

Eppure, la macchina della propaganda si è messa subito al lavoro e chiunque sui social media, nel 2013 iniziava a parlare di errori è stato immediatamente e brutalmente attaccato perché “osava giudicare il papa”!

Il vero scopo era che la “”Mafia della lavanda”, ovvero la lobby del clero gay, era molto preoccupata per chiunque mettesse in dubbio la validità della Rinuncia. Ricordo che il mio professore di Diritto Canonico manipolava le lezioni tenute in febbraio e marzo di quell’anno per insegnare cose su certi canoni in modo errato così da soffocare qualsiasi considerazione sull’invalidità. Ma lo faceva con tale sottigliezza che solo dopo tutti questi anni ho potuto riconoscere ciò che aveva fatto.

Le altre voci che criticavano quelli che hanno sollevato dubbi sul latino della Declaratio di Papa Benedetto parte appartenevano ai circoli di quei cardinali conservatori che l’anno scorso hanno distrutto la loro reputazione professando  indubbia obbedienza a Bergoglio persino dopo i suoi atti di adorazione e riverenza idolatrici (episodio della Pachamama etc). Fu allora che nacque l’opposizione controllata di Trad Inc. (Termine colletivo per parlare in modo generale dei siti che criticano Bergoglio per non essere cattolico ma insistono che egli è il Vero Papa). Fu il loro primo atto di lealtà verso il regime. E la loro azione indicava chiarament che già erano posizionati per rispondere e che gli era stato detto cosa fare.

Quindi, per fornire una verità storica più esatta, discuterò qui questi errori e fornirò una traduzione italiana di ciò che il latino di Papa Benedetto XVI ha detto.

Faccio questo per correggere qualsiasi malinteso dato dalla mia precedente traduzione inglese dell’Atto di Rinuncia, nell’articolo che ho intitolato “Una traduzione inglese letterale del discorso di Benedetto XVI dell’11 febbraio 2013“, dove per letterale intendo fedele nel senso, non nella grammatica del latino impiegato.

I miei commenti sul testo latino sono basati sulla mia conoscenza della lingua latina acquisita in 14 anni di traduzione in inglese di circa novemila pagine letterarie di testi ecclesiastici latini medievali. Sarò il primo a dire che non credo di essere un esperto in materia, ma penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che oggi nella Chiesa c’è solo una manciata di uomini che hanno tradotto più latino del sottoscritto. Ho anche pubblicato un popolare libro di testo e video per il latino ecclesiastico, che ho prodotto per la Mansfield Community TV, nel Massachusetts, negli Stati Uniti, e che The Franciscan Archive ha distribuito per alcuni anni dopo la pubblicazione di Summorum pontificum.

E così, pur ammettendo che posso sempre imparare dagli altri, citerò anche due studiosi tedeschi che hanno criticato pubblicamente il testo latino della Declaratio: il professore di filologia, Wilfried Stroh (vedi qui ) e l’avvocato viennese Arthur Lambauer, i cui commenti sono registrati in parte qui.

Posso anche dare una testimonianza personale del fatto che i latinisti che hanno lavorato in Vaticano durante i pontificati di Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI sono a conoscenza di tutti questi errori (e probabilmente di altri) e sono stati reticenti solo per motivi personali, così come mi è stato riferito da uno di loro durante un incontro a Bagnoregio, in Italia, nell’estate del 2016.

Evidenzio in ROSSO gli errori di espressione (numerando ciascuno), dopo di che commenterò ogni errore sezione per sezione, perché ce ne sono tanti. Il testo latino ufficiale è disponibile sul sito web del Vaticano ( qui ).

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.

  1. Dire propter tres canonizationes significa per o a causa di tre atti di canonizzazione. Tale struttura grammaticale in latino significa, non che il Papa abbia convocato i Cardinali per condurre o annunciare la canonizzazione di tre gruppi o individui, ma che in qualche modo i Cardinali  siano stati convocati per onorare gli atti di canonizzazione o perché gli atti stessi non possono essere completati senza di loro. Ma l’atto di canonizzazione è un atto pontificio che non richiede i Cardinali. Pertanto, il latino corretto dovrebbe essere in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, cioè per annunciare la mia decisione di decretare tre atti di canonizzazione, poiché la costruzione latina che inizia con la preposizione in è usata per esprimere uno scopo. Questo è un errore comune di coloro che non hanno mai letto attentamente alcun testo latino e che impongono un significato moderno a ciò che pensano che significhi una preposizione latina.
  2. Dire ad hoc Consistorium potrebbe benissimo essere un’usanza della corte pontificia – non posso commentare – tuttavia, in latino, poiché consistorium un atto di stare insieme, non un luogo in cui vengono convocati i cardinali, ma un modo solenne di radunarsi, la corretta struttura grammaticale dovrebbe essere in hoc consistorio.
  3. In un atto ufficiale un papa parla in prima persona plurale, cioè adotta il pluralis maiestatis. L’uomo che è il papa, in quanto uomo e non papa, parla con la prima persona singolare, “io”. Pertanto, la forma corretta del verbo qui dovrebbe essere convocavimus.
  4. Il verbo latino communicem prende la preposizione cum, non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi invece di vobis si dovrebbe leggere vobiscum . Così com’è, l’unica possibile funzione grammaticale dei vobis sarebbe quella di un dativo di possesso per decisionem!
  5. Concordo qui con il dott. Stroh, che la parola dovrebbe essere consilium, non decisionem, perché quest’ultima parola latina significa un “atto di separazione” come nella parola “potatura”, o tutt’al più un “atto di prendere una decisione”, che chiaramente non è qui appropriata, perché il Papa non li ha compresi nel processo decisionale, dichiarando solo una decisione che ha già preso. E consilium è la parola giusta per una cosa del genere, se fatta da un superiore con autorità.
  6. Questo è l’errore più assurdo di tutti. La persona che ha scritto questo non capisce nemmeno che in latino non usi il dativo di riferimento in una frase che inizia con una preposizione come nelle lingue moderne. Questo dovrebbe essere Ecclesiae vitae, poiché, così com’è vuol dire a nome della vita della Chiesa o per il bene della vita della Chiesa ; a meno che, naturalmente, non si riferisca a una grave minaccia alla vita della Chiesa per la quale questo atto intende difendere quella vita. Può essere, ma poiché quasi tutti i moderni sbagliano in questo modo, si presuma che in se stesso sia prodotta dall’ignoranza, non mediante allusione.
  7. Dato che la rinuncia è della persona, non del papa, nella frase successiva vediamo che inizia a parlare in prima persona come uomo, ma penso che poiché questa clausola subordinata è ancora quella parte del testo detto dal Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, dovrebbe essere in prima persona plurale: communicemus. La frase che segue, quindi, in prima persona, dovrebbe cominciare un nuovo paragrafo, al fine di mostrare questa distinzione di potere.
  8. Questa parola è completamente sbagliata perché in latino si riferisce all’esplorazione di un luogo o di una regione o all’indagine sulla grandezza di una cosa o su sua dimensione fisica, o è il termine militare per spiare o guardare qualcosa per ottenere informazioni. Non viene mai usato con le cose spirituali, perché certamente la propria coscienza non è un mondo a sé stante, a una facoltà del conoscere. Il termine corretto dovrebbe essere uno che significhi esposto o risolto, a causa del riferimento all’essere davanti o alla presenza di Dio.
  9. Queste parole non sono soltanto scelte male, ma insufficienti per sostenere il discorso indiretto che segue. Il modo latino corretto per dire questo è nunc bene cognosco quod (ora ben ravviso che) invece di ad cognitionem certam perveni (sono pervenuto alla certezza).
  10. Questo verbo non ha il senso di “essere pervenuto” nelle materie che riguardano la conoscenza. Significa piuttosto raggiungere, il che avrebbe senso se si stesse spiando il nemico, ma dire che sei pervenuto alla certezza esaminando la tua coscienza è assurdo, perché la coscienza riconosce solo verità morali, non è la fonte della conoscenza o della certezza .
  11. Qui c’è una clausola nel discorso indiretto che segue cognitionem certam . La forma corretta, se tale espressione deve proprio essere mantenuta (cfr. N. 9 sopra), dovrebbe essere introdotta con quod ed essere nel nominativo, non nell’accusativo, perché l’oggetto di una certa conoscenza è un fatto noto, non un “sapere che”. E quindi, a causa dell’errore nel n. 9, il verbo qui dovrebbe essere sunt , leggendo l’intera frase: vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. Penso che si sarebbe dovuto usare il dativo enfatico di possesso mihi piuttosto che l’aggettivo possessivo meae, perché la forza di cui parla è intima al suo essere fisico, non solo un possesso esteriore.
  12. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che questo è l’avverbio sbagliato. Quello corretto dovrebbe essere recte o apte o — io propongo —  constanter (correttamente, appropriatamente o coerentemente).

Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …

  1. L’uso di conscius è più comune parlando della conoscenza che si ha degli altri, ma quando si parla della conoscenza di sé, nel raro uso del poeta latino, Terenzio, questa costruzione deve essere formata così: mihi sum conscius, e non conscius sum, per dimostrare che la conoscenza è di se stesso ma l’aggettivo provoca il discorso indiretto. E quindi una virgola dovrebbe essere posta dopo conscius per conformarsi ai moderni livelli di interpunzione latina.
  2. Qui c’è semplicemente l’errore di qualcuno che pensa in italiano, perché l’aggettivo possessivo per la terza persona, in latino, non è MAI usato per una cosa in una frase, solo per il soggetto di un verbo. Il latino corretto, quindi, dovrebbe essere eius sebbene possa essere omesso del tutto poiché la frase secundum essentiam spiritualem è una misura e il suo oggetto è implicitamente compreso. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che naturam dovrebbe essere usato al posto di essentiam . Sono d’accordo, perché San Bonaventura afferma che la natura si riferisce all’essere di una cosa come un principio di azione.
  3. Qui chi ha scritto il testo ignora che in latino  agere si riferisce a tutte le azioni, fisiche o spirituali, e perciò è impropria la accoppiata con loquendo, che è pure un atto. È difficile capire a cosa si riferisca agendo, poiché quasi tutto ciò che fa un papa è parlare. Non è come se pulisse i bagni o facesse qualsiasi lavoro manuale. Forse, la parola migliore sarebbe scribendo , cioè scrivere.
  4. Il verbo latino qui è mal scelto male, perché exsequi si riferisce a un lavoro svolto, ma il soggetto non è un lavoro ma un munus o una carica, il che è una cosa. Quello giusto sarebbe geri, cioè ”condotto” nel senso del moderno di “adempiuto” o “eseguito”.
  5. Questo è il verbo sbagliato per esprimere ciò che si intende. È giusto o necessario che i doveri dell’ufficio siano adempiuti. Ma non è un debito, che è ciò che debere significa. Il latino corretto dovrebbe essere oportere, cioè adatto o necessario a raggiungere l’obiettivo prefissato.
  6. Chiunque abbia scritto questo non ha esperienza nella lettura del latino, poiché tempus si riferisce alle stagioni. Il concetto di tempo in latino non è lo stesso dei moderni. Sembra voler dire “nel nostro mondo contemporaneo , ma in latino si direbbe in saeculo nostro, perché saeculum è il termine latino per definire il mondo nel senso del tempo, di generazione o cultura, non mundum, che si riferisce al cosmo come realtà fisica o luogo.
  7. A causa dell’errore n. 6, questa frase deve essere interamente riscritta, come velocium o celerium mutationum usando il genitivo della descrizione e non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi non c’è necessario di subiecto . Il latino rapidus viene usato per cambiamenti rapidi o affrettati, semplicemente non accurati storicamente.
  8. E così, allo stesso modo, a causa della caduta del subiecto questa congiunzione può essere completamente omessa.
  9. Qui magni, ”di grande valore” , sembra poco opportuno, perché le questioni di fede nei tempi moderni sono quasi interamente il prodotto di non credenti che si agitano con la loro immaginazione senza Dio; magnis concordato con quaestionibus oppure magni momenti sarebbe più corretto. Ma magni può reggere perché è così Ratzingeriano come chiunque può dire dai suoi scritti.
  10. Qui c’è lo stesso errore di prima, e quindi in latino si dovrebbe dire fidei vitae o fidei .
  11. Qui si ha l’errore di uno studente latino di primo anno che dimentica che il complemento oggetto in latino vada prima dei verbi, non dopo: dovrebbe essere Evangelium annuntiandum.
  12. Qui viene scelta la parola sbagliata, perché chiaramente l’anima non invecchia o si indebolisce con l’età, ma lo fa lo spirito. E quindi il latino corretto dovrebbe essere animi. Il dottor Stroh è d’accordo con me.

qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

  1. In latino si indicano le cose recenti dicendo praecedentibus, non ultimis. Il dottor Stroh suggerisce: his praeteritis poiché si dà molta importanza al recente passato.
  2. Qui il tempo è sbagliato, poiché il riferimento è a ciò che è accaduto negli ultimi mesi, e sta ancora accadendo;, il tempo giusto è l’imperfetto minuebatur e prende mihi come dativo di riferimento non in me.
  3. Non ha senso dire che si sta amministrando un ministero, la parola migliore dovrebbe essere gerere, come prima. Ma l’intera frase è formata in modo errato, poiché incapacitatem dovrebbe seguire la regola del capax e prendere un infinito (come nella Vulgata) o un genitivo (Seneca) con aggettivi o gerundi, quindi il tutto dovrebbe scriversi ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
  4. Visto che il testo viene letto come se fosse già stata presa una decisione, dire che “si dovrebbe riconoscere” è contestualmente e temporalmente incorretto, secondo il tempo. Inoltre, come clausola subordinata a un imperfetto, deve trovarsi nel congiuntivo perfetto. La frase dovrebbe riportare qualcosa come iustum fuerit , “era proprio quello”.
  5. L’avvocato Lambauer sottolinea giustamente che questa costruzione con conscius prende il pronome riflessivo mihi prima di essa. Ma nella giusta sintassi ponderis huius actus dovrebbe precedere  conscius . Qui ci sono ben due errori.
  6. Ora arrivano gli errori che riguardano la nullità, l’invalidità e l’irregolarità dell’atto. Perché la rinuncia deve essere fatta liberamente. Che sia dichiarata liberamente va bene, ma ciò è presunto e non necessario, a meno che non ci sia qualcuno incline a pensare che sia stato costretto. Perché dire questo? Quindi questa frase, se mantenuta, dovrebbe essere con il verbo renuntiare , ed entrambi NON dovrebbero essere in discorso indiretto, perché annunciare o dichiarare di rinunciare non significa rinunciare a qualcosa, ma annunciare qualcosa, e quello non è l’atto specificato nel Canone 332 §2 che richiede una rinuncia come atto essenziale, non una dichiarazione.
  7. Questo verbo, se lasciato, dovrebbe introdurre una frase che prepara gli ascoltatori circa l’intenzione o qualcosa di simile, non all’atto della rinuncia.
  8. Questo è l’oggetto sbagliato dell’Atto di rinuncia, che secondo il Canone 332 §2 dovrebbe essere muneri. Il dott. Stroh, scrivendolo a febbraio 2013, osserva che questo errore rende invalida la rinuncia. Sono d’accordo!
  9. Il Munus petrino e il Ministerium non sono affidati al papa eletto, ma vengono immediatamente ricevuti da lui nella successione petrina dicendo: “Sì, accetto la mia elezione”. Questa è la teologia papale rudimentale. Se uno sbaglia, si può in modo sensato mettere in dubbio se al momento dell’atto fosse compos mentis (sano di mente). A meno che ovviamente l’intera frase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso non abbia lo scopo di rimproverare i Cardinali per avergli concesso un ministero ma non gli ha concesso alcuna vera autorità. Anche se una tale intenzione implicherebbe sia sarcasmo e sia inciderebbe sull’invalidità della rinuncia. Quindi si dovrebbe leggere in successione petrina o qualcosa di simile.
  10. Questo dovrebbe essere a me accepto o a me recepto, cioè “da me accettato” o “da me ricevuto”.
  11. Questa è l’unica frase che è corretta, ma che nessuno se non un esperto del Segretariato di Stato saprebbe, perché, come mi ha detto un eminente latinista vaticano, è il modo consueto di indicare il fuso orario romano in latino. Il dottor Stroh e l’avvocato Lambauer, scrivendo dalla Germania, non lo sapevano.
  12. Qui il discorso indiretto dovrebbe finire, o meglio, l’espressione della prima persona, io, dovrebbe finire, perché la chiamata di un conclave è un atto pontificio, l’uomo che è papa, che ha appena rinunciato, non ha l’autorità di convocarlo. Quindi qui il latino dovrebbe riprendere con il NOI pontificio, et declaramus.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

  1. Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno. La frase dovrebbe leggere gratias vobis agimus . In primo luogo a causa del corretto ordine delle parole del latino, in secondo luogo perché ora li sta ringraziando come il Romano Pontefice, perché hanno collaborato con lui, non come uomo, ma come Papa, il verbo dovrebbe tornare alla prima persona plurale. Due errori qui.
  2. Se uno è grato per il loro servizio e collaborazione, non dice amore et labore, che si riferiscono al lavoro materiale e all’affetto fisico; ma piuttosto omnibus amicitiabus operibusque per dimostrare che l’amicizia e le opere erano molteplici e unite l’una con l’altra. Quattro errori qui.
  3. Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno che sbagliare l’ordine delle parole. Si dovrebbe leggere: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto e la frase dovrebbe essere introdotta da de vobis o de omnibusDue errori qui. È anche imbarazzante tornare all’uso della prima persona singolare qui, anche se è necessario riguardo alla confessione fatta.
  4. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che è il verbo sbagliato: il latino corretto è committimus.
  5. Il dottor Stroh ricorda ancora che la corretta espressione temporale latina è in futurum.
  6. In latino non c’è condizionale. Il congiuntivo è usato per esprimere i desideri, ma non con il verbo desiderare! Si direbbe piuttosto serviam , “che io possa servire” non servire velim , “possa io desiderare di servire” che non ha senso; si può semplicemente essere più diretti e dire: “desidero servire” (servire volo). Ma San Bonaventure nei suoi Commentarii su Lombardo fa lo stesso errore.

IN CONCLUSIONE

Penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che se qualcuno avesse visto anche solo parte di questi errori e non ha chiesto al Santo Padre di correggerli prima della pubblicazione dell’atto, avrebbe peccato mortalmente contro il suo dovere di lealtà verso il Romano Pontefice. Penso anche che il numero di questi errori sia una prova forense qualificata che SE Benedetto ha scritto questo testo e lo ha letto liberamente, o che non era in uno stato mentale adeguato o non ha agito con deliberazione matura.

Infine, se qualcuno dice che l’Atto di Rinuncia non ha errori o deve essere accettato come una rassegnazione papale, non semplicemente una rinuncia al ministero per dedicarsi alla preghiera, allora stanno chiaramente parlando di un altro documento, perché ci sono molti errori in questa dichiarazione che nessuna persona sana di mente potrebbe mai affermare che è vincolante per nessuno. Perché se era inteso come un atto di rinuncia papale, ed è stato scritto dal Papa, allora è chiaro che non era in possesso delle sua facoltà mentali per rinunciare validamente, perché per rinunciare validamente devi almeno sapere come scrivere un intelligibile frase, in qualsiasi lingua tu abbia scelto di rinunciare, e devi nominare l’ufficio con una parola che significa ufficio. E dai!

Avviso pubblico: ho trascorso solo 2 ore ad analizzare il testo, quindi il Vaticano ha sicuramente avuto abbastanza tempo per correggerlo prima del 28 febbraio 2013, diciasette giorni dopo! Io suppongo che non l’abbiano comunque fatto, perché altrimenti avrebbe potuto che la parola ministerio doveva essere cambiata in muneri, e la realtà era che papa Benedetto insisteva che non lo fosse, perché non aveva intenzione e non aveva mai avuto intenzione di rinunciare all’ufficio papale o sua grazia.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Modern “Marriages” and fake Papal Renunciations

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the things I love about Our Lord Jesus Christ is how He crafts parables and uses comparisons to help us understand the things of Heaven.

That is what I find also so delightful in reading the Scholastics like Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure, the use of analogy.

Following at a great distance behind all three, I want to help everyone understand how wrong it is to say that the act contained in the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 caused him to be separated from the Office of the Roman Pontiff on Feb. 28, 2013.

Modern “Marriages”

Back in the year 2000, I found myself invited to an engagement party. What I did not realize, until it began, that it was a modern marriage. I was not told the whole truth, because the one inviting me, who was a close friend of the couple, knew that if they told me the truth, I would not come.

It had all the ceremony of a wedding. There was the Bride and Groom in proper and elegant attire. There were the Bride’s maids and a great host of friends and family. There was a large banquet hall and a beautiful Wedding Cake. There was a minister of some sort, and then came the central act.

Both the woman and the man read out personal statements how they were giving up the single life and starting a life together. The man then proposed to the woman, and the woman accepted.

They they began celebrating as husband and wife.

At this point I asked those who invited me, what was going on. All the appearances were of a wedding, but the essence of the act was that of an engagement. The statements of the man and woman clearly indicated they were going to begin from that night onwards a life together. But there was no exchange of vows.

Once I realized the reality of what I was participating in, I left, as I wanted no part in it.

Fake Papal Renunciations

Imagine an analogous case of a Pope in the future who decides to organize a papal renunciation with all the pomp and ceremony which is due such a solemn occasion. He convenes the College of Cardinals, the Swiss Guard stand at attention, the cameras are turned on, and the whole world listens to the Pope read his statement. Then everyone expresses their sorry to see him go and they go off and celebrate a Mass for the end of his pontificate. And he flies off in a helicopter, dressed as a regular Bishop, to Fiumicino Airport and then returns home to his native land.

But, there is a problem, because in the statement the Pope does not say, I renounce that which he needs to renounce according to the Code of Canon Law.

What happened, therefore, is not a papal resignation. But it is understandable that all those who participated in the celebration might have a hard time realizing it, because, why, they were there, they partied and the pope left.

Canonical Acts

A canonical act, whether juridical or administrative, is an act expressed in words which have an objective meaning. Like marriage vows they have to have the correct signification, and for that reason certain words have to be used. If those words are lacking, the marriage vows will be invalid. Many annulments are granted on this grounds.

A papal renunciation is no different. A pope by renouncing separates the office he holds from himself. If what he says does not signify such a separation, then he has not renounced, howsoever much he or those around him celebrate or solemnize the occasion.

Celebrating a wedding is one thing, taking vows is another. Likewise, solemnizing a papal renunciation is one thing, actually renouncing is another.

February 2013

Nearly all of us were not paying attention to anything but the celebrations and the solemn ceremonies. The text of the Declaratio was in Latin and nearly no one was reading it. I did not read it, and I am a Latinist. We all assumed it meant that which was fittingly being celebrated. And it was in that, that nearly all of us were deceived.

This is the great historical fact we all need to confront.

Epistemology of a Historical Event

Epistemology is the philosophy about how we know what we know. In regards to a historical event, which is controversial, it is necessary that we strip away all knowledge we have about it, and go back to the actual documents, videos, TV reports and radio broadcasts, interviews and anything else which might record the event and events surrounding it, to understand the event objectively and not according to hearsay.

A lot of Catholics, however, simply took the word of a few persons and never examined the evidence. As such, they never really accepted what happened, because you cannot accept anything without true knowledge. Just as you cannot validly marry another person unless you know who they are and they are whom you know them to be.

We all  need to do this in regard to the events of Feb. 2013. I think a lot of ink is being spilled and a lot of arguments and insults are being hurled because everyone has not yet done their homework.

As someone who has a degree in Anthropology and has studied the principles of Archeology, I know that it is very dangerous to assume anything before you begin an excavation. You need to approach the evidence in a forensic professional manner, free from an preconceptions. Historical events need to be approached in this manner too.

I firmly believe that all who want to be faithful Catholics will receive the grace from the Holy Spirit to know the truth, if they seek the truth. Let them put aside any claim by anyone as to what that which happened means, and examine what actually happened and what the Code of Canon Law says should happen. That is they way forward.

Ignore, for the time of your investigation, how anyone reacts to those events. Because the reactions to events which are canonical have no power to alter their meaning, just as at a modern marriage, the celebrations surrounding an engagement do not make it a marriage, howsoever much they appear to be wedding celebrations.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of a video taken by Vatican TV on Feb. 28, 2013, showing Pope Benedict XVI leave the Vatican on an Italian State Helicopter, dressed and escorted as a Head of State, the Roman Pontiff. The helicopter took him to Castle Gandolfo a papal estate. Those with eyes open saw the problem. On Feb. 28, Pope Benedict gave some speeches, but made no act of renunciation.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

Dialogue with a Cardinal, who refused dialogue

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Christian charity requires that we not refuse to speak with our superiors or inferiors. The Crisis in the Church now is so grave that we should all be seeking to speak with our superiors about it and about how to remedy it. One thing we must discuss is the canonically erroneous declaration of Feb. 11, 2013 by the man who is Pope Benedict XVI.  Erroneous, manifestly, because no one had the respect for his Office or person to point out that the act needed to be redone, IF it was his intention to posit an act in conformity with Canon 332 §2.

For this reason I have written more than 50 Cardinals, I think — I am not sure I have lost count — to raise the issue. And recently one of them had the Christian charity to respond to me in writing. I cannot divulge the actual text, for the sake of my respect for his person and office, but I can divulge my text in reply, because I think it addresses a problem we all are having when we speak with out superiors about Pope Benedict’s Declaratio.

The Cardinal wrote to me that we must presume that Pope Francis is validly elected and holds the petrine munus, and therefore, he told me that he did not want to speak with me in person about the Renunciation.

Here is my reply to this prince of the Church:

Your Eminence,

If you ask any Doctor of Law, you will see that the reason you give, namely, “We must assume Pope Francis is a validly elected pope, who actually represents the petrine munus”, is a statement which compounds several errors:

1. First, that a man is the pope is not a presumption of fact, but the conclusion of law. For example, he is not the pope, whom the Cardinals say is the pope, rather, he is the pope who was elected according to the norm of Universi Dominici Gregis. To say the first, that is, that he whom the Cardinals says is the pope, is the pope, confuses the means whereby we know a canonical fact with the cause of the legitimacy of a canonical fact. They are two different things.

2. Second, in all law, whether Roman, Napoleonic or Common, the cessation of power is never presumed. This is an ancient principle, the ignoring of which would cause chaos in society. The corollary is that the cessation of right is never presumed. Now a Papal renunciation is the first moment in a petrine succession. And a succession of legal right is judged as a cessation of power. As Mons. Arrieta, of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, affirmed in my presence on Dec 11, 2019, such an act of renunciation must be clear in itself, it cannot be interpreted to be valid, because no one has the right to interpret it. This is because, interpretation of a law is the cause of its being understood other than what it is. And the Code of Canon Law does not grant that right, in papal renunciations, since they must be manifestly a renunciation of petrine munus.

3. Third, your affirmation that Pope Francis must be assumed to be validly elected, is the supposition of a conclusion as the first premise of your thought. In other words, you have taken what you should, in virtue of a series of illations based on facts and law, hold as a conclusion, and make it the first principle whereby your mind refuses to presuppose that from which it is illated. This is the logical error called petitio principii.

4. In truth, if you read Universi Dominici Gregis n. 37, Pope John Paul II required that a sede vacante be verified as a legal one. But Mons Arrieta assured me that no such verification was done in Feb. 2013. In fact, canon 40 invalidates everything done by a subject receiving an administrative act, before he verifies the integrity of the act itself. Yet the Vatican was publishing different versions of the Declaratio for many days, so an integral act was never had prior to the announcement minutes after the Consistory of Feb. 11, that the act meant a renunciation of the papacy. Indeed, as a Latinist who has published both a Grammar and translated over 9000 pages of Scholastic texts, I have found more thn 40 errors in the Latin text. There are moreover at least 6 canonical errors in the central act, which render it invalid, null or irritus. Furthermore, canon 41 gives each of us the duty to refuse an actus nullus and requires that we have recourse to the authority issuing the act. As Mons. Arrieta affirmed again to me, in the case of a papal resignation, if the act is null it must be redone, and if it is unclear the recourse to the superior must be to solicit another valid act, since he himself cannot make it valid by an interpretation. Thus, the mere fact that Pope Benedict said he renounced the ministerium, when Canon 332 §2 requries the renunciation of munus, means that the act is also irritus in virtue of canon 188, for substantial error, and irritus in virtue of canon 38 for not containing a derogation of the requirement to name the munus.

I can understand that as a Cardinal you would be disinclined to broach the issue of the legitimacy of the previous apparent Conclave, in which you never participated, but as Catholics we risk the penalty of eternal damnation, if we allow the Petrine Succession to falter for reasons so grave. Words have meaning, and if we reject that, then we will not find mercy before the terrible seat of Judgement of the Divine Word, who said of Pope John Paul II when he foresaw his Code of Canon Law in 1983: Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven.

Finally, I have not demanded a meeting with Your Eminence, but I have pointed out the grave reasons why you should act, and at least do the due diligence required of you in Canon 41 and seek a private audience with Pope Benedict, before he loses his mental faculties. I assure you that he will tell you that it was never his intention to renounce the petrine munus, only to renounce the petrine ministerium and office. I say this based on a complete study of everything he said from Feb. 11, 2013 to today. And Antonio Socci agrees with me, as he said in his interview with Aldo Maria Valli just last week.

Sincerely in Saint Francis,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

_____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is my own photo of a bas-relief in the Basilica of the Most Holy Savior, here at Rome, showing a Pope kneeling in adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Truth Incarnate.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

An Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

So much has been written about Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, that it is easy to forget or miss important articles. Since a lot of visitors who come to The From Rome Blog want to read about Benedict’s renunciation, it is helpful to have in one post, a list of all the Articles published here.

This is a topical, not chronological list: that is, it lists articles according to what aspect of the controversy they principally deal with, not according to the date they were published.

Before reading any of the Articles, see this public notice about FACTS VS CONJECTURE

And make sure to read the last section, which is the MOST important: What we must now do!

header

An Index to our Articles on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

The Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013

Latin Text of Non Solum propter

Vernacular Translations of Non solum propter

The History of the Claim that the Text means Benedict resigned the Papacy

Why Pope Benedict Renounced the Ministry which He had received from the Cardinals

What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant

  1. Pope Benedict XVI says that it was never his intention to resign the Veranvortung (Munus, spiritual Mandate)
  2. Pope Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 said in every way possible that He had not resigned the Papacy
  3. Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 14, 2013 explained to the Clergy of Rome how to see that He had not resigned the Papacy
  4. How the Vatican’s attempt to get Benedict to call Bergoglio the Pope failed in June 2019
  5. Dr. Mazza’s study of Pope Benedict’s writings shows conclusively he knew what he was doing, and that he never intended to resign fully, which is explained in the analysis of Dr. Mazza’s study.

What in truth does the Act of Renouncing the Ministry mean or effect?

  1. Jesus Christ’s Point of view on this.
  2. Pope John Paul II admitted that a Papal renunciation could be invalid.
  3. The 6 Canonical Errors in the Act of Renunciation, which deprive it of all effect.
  4. The Canonical Argument that the Act does not cause the loss of the Papacy (ppbxvi.org)
  5. Video Explanation, prepared by Brian Murphy with input from Br. Bugnolo
  6. Ann Barnhardt’s authoritative Video on Substantial Error
  7. L’argomento canonico che dimostra che la Rinuncia non effettua la perdita del papato
  8. What Pope John Paul II taught about Munus and Ministerium, and how it binds the whole Church.
  9. The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Boniface VIII regarding the necessity of renouncing the Munus
  10. Why Saint Alponsus dei Liguori would say that the Renunciation, as written, is invalid.
  11. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry, Pope Benedict made it dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio be the Pope
  12. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry. Pope Benedict made it canonically impossible that Bergoglio’s election as pope was valid.

A Scholastic Investigation into the Canonical Meaning of the Resignation

Here Br. Bugnolo has gathered all the major arguments for and against and shows which side has the better argument.

The Dubious Arguments and outright Falsehoods used to defend that the renunciation caused Benedict to lose the Papacy

CONFIRMATIONS FROM ROME THAT BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE

WHAT CATHOLICS SHOULD DO IN RESPONSE

A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says

hqdefault

Let us read Non solum propter
according to the rules of Latin grammar

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In my previous article, Pope Benedict’s Forced Abdication, I spoke of the evidence which seems to indicate that Pope Benedict’s resignation was demanded and that the text of Renunciation was hurriedly prepared, which left it full of errors: at the end of which, I promised to examine the text and expose these errors. I did this yesterday in my article entitled, Clamourous Errors in the Latin of the Renunciation, wherein I detailed and identified more than 40 grammatical and canonical errors in the text.

Now, I will fulfill the promise I made yesterday to give an English translation of what the Latin really does say, rather than what most translators (including myself here) attempt to make it say, to make it intelligible. So, I warn my readers, what follows is a discourse, written by someone with scarce knowledge of Latin, and thus, that the English translation will appear to be a poor translation, when it is in fact an exact rendering of the sloppy and erroneous Latin.

Since I am a published translator, however, I will try to give the document the best possible English syntax within the rules of Latin grammar, without however altering the Latin signification.

The Translation

Not solely for the sake of three acts of canonization, have I convoked you towards this Consistory, but also to communicate on behalf of the life of the Church your act of decision-making of great importance. Having scouted out my conscience again and again before God, I have arrived at certain cognition — my strengths by my worsening age are no longer apt — to administer the Munus petrinum equitably. I am well conscious that this Munus according to his spiritual essence ought to be pursued not only by doing and speaking, but no less by suffering and by praying. Yet, however, in the world of our season, subjected to hasty acts of change, and perturbed by questions of great value on behalf of the life of faith, a certain vigor of body and soul is necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and the Gospel to announce, which (strength) in me in these furthest months is lessening in such a manner, that to well administer the ministry committed to me, I ought to acknowledge my incapacity. On which account, well conscious of the weight of this act I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th of April, 2005, to vacate from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time, the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those who are competent.

Dearest Brothers: from my whole heart you I thank for all your physical love and the work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry and I ask pardon for all my failings. Moreover, now We completely trust the Holy Church of God to the care of the Most High Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His holy Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness, the Cardinal fathers in electing a new supreme pontiff. As far as regards myself, may I also wish to serve with my whole heart in a future by a life dedicated to prayer for Holy Mother Church.

DISCUSSION

The Act is confused by switching between the first person singular and plural. It is signed with the name of the We, the Pope, but most of it is said by the I, who is Ratzinger. It contains the glaring errors which render the act canonically nullus (null), namely, it is a declaration of the man, Ratzinger, that he is going to renounce on Feb 28. But he never did renounce on that day.

It is also canonically, invalid, because it refers to a renunciation, never made, of the ministry received from the Cardinals. But what is that. That is canonically nothing, since a ministry flows from an office, or if it does not flow from an office, it is like being a lector or acolyte. Neither of which is the Papal Office.

It is also canonically, irritus, that is improperly manifested, because what on earth does it say and mean and why is the man who is the Pope saying that which has no effect in Canon Law?

It is also a nonsensical act of declaration by the man, Ratzinger, that a Conclave must be called. And that he is going to renounce to make the chair of Peter vacant or go on vacation (the Latin is ambiguous). Why add the consequences or intent of the act of renunciation, which is going to be made, but which was never made, UNLESS there is some doubt that the act you are making will cause the Chair of Peter to be vacant and necessitate a Conclave?

The Latin text obviously was NEVER shown to a Latinist who had the authority and opportunity to correct it. The Latin text was also obviously never shown to a canonist, who had the authority and opportunity to correct it.

I think it is safe to presume, therefore, that the text was never shown to anyone to be recognized according to the norm of Canon 40 nor acted upon according to the norm of Canon 41. For Canon 40 requires that all subordinates determine whether the written administrative act of their superior is authentic and complete. And this act is so rife with errors one can doubt a Pope wrote it, seeing that he has dozens of experts to help him write his acts. On that basis, one should have asked if he was handed this act and forced to sign and read it! Also, on account of Canon 41, since it is an actus nullus, one has no obligation to put it into effect, and if he does put it into effect he is guilty of the usurpation of power; likewise, by the same Canon, every subordinate is obliged to omit its execution until he confers with the superior who posited it regarding the inopportune commands contained in it, such as seeming to call for a Conclave when you have not yet renounced the Papal office.

Finally, if the act meant something, it meant that on Feb 28, 2013, the Pope was going to renounce the Petrine Ministry. Since the Pope never did that at that hour, it does not even effect a renunciation of ministry!

Thus, Pope Benedict XV remains the only true Pope with all his rights an privileges as before Feb 11, 2013. This act will go down in history as an embarrassment to the papacy. That the Cardinals pretend nothing was or is wrong with it, either means that they certainly are not competent to elect a Roman Pontiff, or that they were complicit in forcing his resignation. Both may explain the ‘what’ they have not been doing since Feb. 11, 2013.

 

Clamorous errors in the Latin of the Renunciation

Resignation

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and  on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.

And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!

Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.

So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.

I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.

And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.

I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.

First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.

  1. To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
  2. To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
  3. A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”.  Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
  4. The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative of possession for decisionem!
  5.  I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority.
  6. This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
  7. Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
  8. This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
  9. These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
  10. This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
  11. Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possesive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
  12. Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).

Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …

  1. The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
  2. Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
  3. Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
  4. The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
  5. This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
  6. Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
  7. And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celerium mutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
  8. And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
  9. Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
  10. Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
  11. Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
  12. Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.

qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

  1. In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
  2. Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
  3. It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before.  But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
  4. Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
  5. Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
  6. Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
  7. This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
  8. This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
  9. The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
  10. This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
  11. This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
  12. Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

  1. Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
  2. If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
  3. Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by de vobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
  4. Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
  5. Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
  6. In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).

CONCLUSION

I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.

Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!

Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.

 

 

Feb 14, 2013: Pope Benedict warned Roman Clergy that He had not resigned

The evidence is there for all who want to see it. But you can only see it if you pay attention and think about what you are looking at and hearing.

Thus it was that 3 days after His declaration of renouncing the Ministry, Pope Benedict calls together all the Clergy of Rome to give them an impromptu talk, nearly an hour long.

On what?  His renunciation of the Papacy?

NO NOT AT ALL!

On what then?

On the history of Vatican II and how what it intended to do was overcome by the Conspiracy of the Main Stream Media of that day to present the Council as advocating and teaching something entirely different.

Sound familiar?

Yes, because that is what exactly happened THREE DAYS BEFORE, when upon announcing His decision to renounce the petrine ministry, so as to dedicate himself to prayer, the Main Stream Media depicted what he did as a renunciation of the Papacy!

Thus, on Feb. 14, Pope Benedict to correct this error speaks to the entire Clergy of Rome and explains how Vatican II was misinterpreted and how the truth must come out by presenting the reality of what it did and said and not repeating what the Media claimed had happened.

During which discourse he says explicitly, “Now that I have decided to retire…”!

Note what he says.

He never says, “Now, that I have announced my renunciation of the Papacy”.

He is speaking for nearly an hour with eyes raised in the air, NOT reading from a script.

Does that sound like someone who has to resign because of frailty?

In short, Pope Benedict was giving the Roman Clergy all the information and principles of discernment to realize one day in the future, that He had not renounced the Papacy and was still their Bishop.

This is the brilliant mind of a man who can think 10 steps ahead of his enemies, and spill the beans in broad daylight without them realizing that he is undermining their coup d’etat.

This is a man who also profoundly realizes that he does not know, whether anyone around him can be trusted with the truth, so he speaks in parables. And it fits perfectly with all the other things he did that fateful month of February, 2011, as you can see from my report, “Benedict said in every way that He he did not resign“.

Finally, he indicates His trust in the Clergy of Rome that they will discover the truth one day, when, while referring to the preparations for the Second Vatican Council, he points out that the real fruitfulness of that ecclesial meeting lay in the fact that all the Bishops took the responsibility to join in prayer, action and small group meetings to discuss what was to be done, thereby indicating that the Clergy of Rome will be able to resolve this problem when they begin to do the same.

The original talk of Our Holy Father was in Italian, but an English translation is available:

__________

La Stampa, one of the leading Marxist papers of Italy, did not realize it at the time, but as of the Spring of 2019, when the proof that the Renunciation was invalid was widely publicized, they removed their entire report and left only the photo of the event.

How Cardinal Sodano robbed the Papacy from Pope Benedict!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I have reported before, in February 2013 there was a de facto coup d’etat at the Vatican, the result of which was the imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, and the convocation of an illegal, illicit and invalid Conclave, which resulted in the illegal, illicit and invalid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Now, I invite the entire Church to examine more carefully what happened in the 58 minutes after the Consistory of February 11, 2013, which ended just before noon, Rome time, on that day.

According to Canon Law, it was the grave and solemn duty of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to approach Pope Benedict and ask for a written copy of his act of Renunciation.

Here are the relevant Canons of the Code of 1983 which regulate what should have been done:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

Needless to say, I have added some color to the letters of the text to make it clear that, in the very 2 Canons which Cardinal Sodano should have carefully read and acted upon, there is made by the Code itself the distinction between munus and ministerium. And yet for 6 years, and especially during the last 12 months, those who have sustained that the renunciation was valid, dared use the argument that there no distinction between the terms!

It seems so true, that it is almost a law, that whatever one investigates about the Pontificate of Bergoglio, one uncovers nothing but lies and frauds. This is clearly the greatest.

The Laws which governed what Cardinal Sodano should have done

Because in that key moment, before Sodano through Father Lombardi gave the Sig.ra Chirri the go ahead to publish to the world that Benedict had resigned, He will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28 (B16 è dimesso. Lascia il Pontificato Feb 28), he HAD TO read these 2 canons, or at least recall them.

Let us therefore take a closer look at these 2 canons, which regard what is to be done when someone, with mere Executive authority, receives notice from someone, with the jurisdiction to posit an adminstrative act, that he is to take an action.

My English translation of the Canons:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

What Cardinal Sodano did

First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read out-loud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grievous of which was the enunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act.

Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads:

Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

My translation:

Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contains the terms munus and ministerium, but renounces only the ministerium!

Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act!

For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! That is, of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office!

This is especially true, because Canon 41 forbids (“let him omit the execution“) and Canon 40 invalidates the action of the executor to proceed to any action, not only because the core act of renunciation was invalid, as per canon 188 (for substantial error), to effect the loss of papal office, but also because, being invalid, the Cardinal Dean could NOT recognize that the command to call a conclave was opportune.

There are other anomalies in the Act of Renunciation which also should have caused the Cardinal to stop and refer to Pope Benedict, namely:

  1. The Act of Renunciation is not an act of renunciation, but the declaration of an act of renunciation. As such it lacks the formal quality of a canonical act per se, since it is one thing to announce, another to enact!
  2. The Act of Renunciation contains what appears to be a command to call a conclave. But this command is NOT a command, because it is a declaration not a command, and it is made in the First Person singular, which signifies the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, NOT the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the pope. But the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, whether he has renounced or not cannot call a Conclave, since he has no authority to do so!
  3. The Act of Renunciation contains no derogation of any terms of canon law which it violates as is required by canon 38.
  4. The errors in the Latin demonstrated clearly that the Holy Father had prepared the Act in secret without the counsel of canon lawyers and Latinists, and that therefore, it may lack formal interior consent or be based on other errors of fact or law or comprehension of Latin.

Thus, for Cardinal Sodano to proceed to act as if the renunciation were valid, violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power or right is NOT to be presumed.

This is a general principle of jurisprudence and is even found in Canon Law, in an applied form, in Canon 21:

Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae.

Canon 21In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them.

In a word, Cardinal Sodano by acting was claiming a munus to act (Canon 40) and using that authority to exercise a ministry (Canon 41) to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced (Canon 332 §2)!

Thus the Act of Renunciation appeared to be null from MANY manifest aspects of the terminology and grammatical structure. Canon 41 therefore required that he confer with the Pope to have them corrected! Canon 40 invalidated any action he took prior to recognizing the act as authentic and integral, that is, not canonically invalid, irritus or null. — And in Canon Law, as per canon 17, to recognize something as valid, does NOT mean insisting it is valid, when it is not! That is fraud.

By omitting the honest fulfillment of his duties, he acted with reckless disregard for his own office as Dean. He exploited the canonical defects in the Act to perpetrate a horrible crime of misrepresentation. This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority, so as to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation!

Thus, according to the terms of Canon 40 and 41, Cardinal Sodano should have acted differently. The act of renunciation was of ministry, not of munus, and therefore was NOT an act of resignation. Therefore the declaration of a resignation, which had to have emanated from Cardinal Sodano’s desk, was a canonical lie and fraud! And since, ignorance of the law in those who should know the law is not presumed, Cardinal Sodano cannot be excused from an abuse of his office (munus).

What Cardinal Sodano should have done!

Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have (1) asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, (2) in the case that he indicated that it was his intention to resign the papal office, he then should have asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio and correcting all the other errors, whether of form, of Latin, or grammatical structure etc.. To have done anything less would be a grave sin of disrespect for the Office of the Successor of St. Peter, to which the Cardinal was bound by solemn vow to protect and defend.

Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!

(Photo Credits: CTV)

 

The Vatican Coup d’Etat of Feb. 2013

5519e18e9bf7c330a36ba3b3d1181423-1024x683

December 18, 2018 — A silent secret Coup d’Etat occured at the Vatican nearly 6 years ago, the facts of which case have only recently come to light.  The leading figures in the takeover were Cardinals Sodano and Bergoglio.  Sodano, the former, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, charged with calling a Conclave in the event of the death or valid resignation of the Roman Pontiff; the Latter, the head of the Saint Gallen Mafia, which had plotted since 2004 to take over the Church and transform the Catholic Religion into a hollow mockery of the Gospel.

The coup d’etat was put in motion by the decision by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to resign from active ministry on February, 11th, which he announced to the world in the Latin text, “Non solum propter”. (For the original text and English translation, see here).  The carefully worded text, based on the distinction put forward by Karl Rahner in 1974, in his work, Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis, that one could retain the munus petrinum and share the ministerium petrinum, renounced the latter and explicitly affirmed the holding of the former.

This very obscure distinction in the Latin text allowed a coup d’etat, that is an unlawful take over of the Vatican. Because, according to the norm of Canon Law, the Cardinal Deacon was NOT empowered by the act of resignation to call a Conclave. Nay, he was obliged to confer with his Holiness as to the nature of the Vicar he wanted to appoint to govern the Vatican in his retirement, and ask direction on how the institution of the College of Cardinals could accomplish this, since the rules of a Conclave only regard the election of a successor not a Vicar sharing the active ministry.

No sooner had Pope Benedict XVI read his text, that Cardinal Sodano began to play up the event, by saying out-loud in Italian: “‘Holiness, this news catches us like a lightning bolt in a clear blue sky.’” (source)

Then the Italian journalist, Giovanna Chirri, a pool reporter for the Italian News Cooperative, ANSA, after attempting to speak with Cardinal Sodano by phone, following the consistory, and receiving the go ahead from Fr. Lombardi, ran the fake news story that the Pope had resigned his office.  She went to far in later reports to claim that she understands Latin perfectly, and that the renunciation was unequivocal!

Amazingly, Chirri announced this “news” via Twitter! Here is the historic tweet, upon which the entire Catholic world bases its idea that Benedict resigned the papacy!

However, the full responsibility and liability for the decision to call a Conclave to elect another Pope — during the lifetime of a Pope who only retired from active ministry, but did not resign his office — must be laid at the feet of Cardinal Sodano. That he was urged to this by the Saint Gallen Mafia may be supposed, but the evidence from the Law of the Church is indisputable.  As Canon 332 §2 reads in its official form, which in Latin — a Latin in which Cardinal Sodano is fluent, says:

CANON 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

The law of the Church is clear: a pope resigns when he resigns his Munus (muneri suo renuntiet). And the validity of such a resignation arises from the act itself when it is conform with the norm of law (rite manifestetur) and is free.

The crime of Sodano consists in the pretense he made, based on the common translations of that Canon into modern languages, that you could renounce the office of the papacy without renouncing the petrine munus.

Obviously, canonically speaking, its impossible to demonstrate that a renunciation of ministerium is a due and proper manifestation of a renunciation of munus according to the norm of law, when the law itself says that papal resignations regard only the munus.*

Cardinal Sodano was of an age in which he could not vote in any further Conclaves, but by summoning a Conclave to elect another pope AND omitting a conference with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, he set in motion a revolution which resulted in Jorge Mario Bergoglio seizing control of the Vatican government and presenting himself to the world as the Vicar of Christ.

How many of the Cardinals who attended the Conclave of 2013 raised questions about this is not yet publicly known. However, its not a question of any form of secrecy to which they were or are bound, since if any of them noticed the sleight of hand of Sodano, he would have spoken about it before the Conclave began.

Today it is evident to the whole Catholic world that Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope in the sense that he has not the Faith of the Church and daily attacks the Faith. May God grant that Catholics everywhere read the Latin text of Canon 332 §2 to see that a renunciation of active ministry does not renounce the papal office, and that therefore the Conclave of 2013 was illicity convened and uncanonical, and that Bergoglio was never the Pope, never the Bishop of Rome, never the Successor of Saint Peter.

___________________________

NOTES

For further reading, I recommend:  How and Why the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 is invalid by the law itself.

* Can. 17 — Leges ecclesiasticae intellegendae sunt secundum propriam verborum significationem in textu et contextu consideratam; quae si dubia et obscura manserit, ad locos parallelos, si qui sint, ad legis finem ac circumstantias et ad mentem legislatoris est recurrendum.

Cardinal Sodano was obliged, by this canon, in the matter of any doubt concerning whether the act of Benedict XVI was valid per canon 322 §2, to look in the Code itself for the usage of ministerium and munus. However, in the Code there is no equation of these two terms. Not finding one, he would be obliged to look at the canonical history of the term munus in papal resignations, in which in previous resignations the word munus, not ministerium, has always been used. So he had no grounds to call a Conclave. (cf. Dos graves razones, by Juan Suárez Falcó, and Fr. Stefano Violi, The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience)

 

Literal English Translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.

07-Ratzinger-ciao-OR

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There being few in the Church today who know the Latin tongue well enough to read and analyze a canonical text, I offer here my own translation of the discourse which Pope Benedict gave during the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013 A. D..  You can find modern translations of this discourse at the Vatican Website, with notable errors and seemingly purposeful misrepresentations.  Compare my own with theirs, if you like, to know which words have been altered in the vernacular versions.

– – – –

Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI, Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.

Not only for the three canonizations have I called you to this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate to you a decision of great moment for the life of the Church. Having explored my conscience again and again before the Lord, I have arrived at certain recognition that with my advancing age my strengths are no longer apt for equitably administering the Petrine Office [munus Petrinum].

I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying.  Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me.  On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 28, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].

Dearest brothers, I thank you with my whole heart for every love and work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry [ministerii], and I ask pardon for all my failings.  Moreover, now We confide God’s Holy Church to the care of Her Most High Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness the Cardinal fathers in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.  In my own regard, I wish to serve in the future by a life of prayer dedicated to the Holy Church with my whole heart.

[From the halls of the Vatican, Feb. 10, 2013]

 


Translator’s Commentary

As can be seen from Ganswein’s talk at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016, and from the other comments made by Benedict XVI afterwards, this text regards the resignation of ministry, not office. If one were to say it effects the resignation of office, he would be in substantial error, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

Unlike Archbishop Ganswein, when he spoke at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016,  I translate munus as office, following not only all the Latin Dictionaries which I have at my disposal, but the Latin text of Canon 145, which defines every office in the Church as a munus. See also, Pope Paul VI’s decree, Christus Dominus, which uses the same term for office.

I translate vacet as the main verb of a subordinate subjunctive clause of purpose, introduced by ita ut, “so that”. Those who opine that such a form of vaco, vacare can be translated as could be vacant know nothing about Latin and how as a Classical tongue it lacks the conditional mood. (Cf. my Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar, for an explanation on how to translate the subjunctive mood in Latin, into English).

Having spoken with one of the most eminent Latinists who has worked at the Vatican, I note that the Sedes Romae refers to the time Zone, and is not an appositive to Sedes Sancti Petri. Note there are 2 things declared:  that I renounce... and that a Conclave be convoked….  Note also, that in the original text the commisso in the phrase, “committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals” was erroneously written and spoken as commissum.  (Cfr. Pope Gregory XIII’s 1582 edition of the Decretales Gregorii IX. Book. I, Tittle III, de Rescriptis, c. XI.)

Finally, if you find any typographical errors, let me know. as I understand there are some out there who hate the truth so much, that if they find one, they believe the rest of a text by a translator is of no value.