Tag Archives: Non solum propter

Clamorous errors in the Latin of Benedict’s “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

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

The Canonical Duty of Every Priest to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass

 

Most priests do not know that they have a canonical right to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass. They think wrongly that to do so would either be outside of their authority or would involve an act of schism. That it is not schism nor a sin, is proven thus:

Here is the canonical argument

First, a validly elected Pope must be named in the Canon of the Mass as a sign of communion. This is by tradition and liturgical law.

Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied.

No validly elected pope’s name must be omitted from the Canon of the Mass during his lifetime, or before he validly resigns.

Third: Pope Benedict XVI did not resign on Feb. 11, 2013, he merely retired from the active ministry, as he himself said on Feb. 28, 2013 in his final Allocution (see other evidence here). For extensive canonical information about this see ppbxvi.org.

Fourth: That Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign was the falsehood which emanated from the Desk of Cardinal Sodano. (See explanation here)

Now just as Cardinal Sodano should have acted, is how all priest should act. Namely,

In accord with Canon 40, Priests who are to say mass hold a munus which is merely executory, in regard to whom to name at Mass in the Canon as Pope. This is because they do not decide on their own authority who is the pope and who is not the pope. They follow the command of a superior. That superior is above all the Pope.

If a pope therefore does not renounce his office in accord with canon 332 §2, because he renounces his ministerium instead, that renunciation has no canonical effect, because there is no canon in the Church’s laws which regard the renunciation of ministries.

Therefore, in accord with canon 40 and 41 A PRIEST IS FORBIDDEN to alter the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. He cannot act on the basis of the declaration of Non Solum Propter in the same illegal manner Cardinal Sodano did. To do so would be to collaborate in his grave crime, deceive the faithful and enter into de facto schism with Pope Benedict. (see that article for a greater explanation of the crime and moral offence)

Therefore, a priest must continue to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.

Therefore, a priest must cease and desist naming Francis as soon as he recognizes the validity of this canonical argument.

+ + +

(This argument is not that of the Editor of FromRome.Info, who has merely expanded it for a fuller explanation — There are already a great number of priests who do not name Francis, but name Benedict instead, some openly, some secretly, some by saying for the Holy Father, without a specific name. God bless and strengthen and multiply these priests!)

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo taken by Br. Bugnolo of the Papal Altar at the Basilica of Saint Lawrence, here at Rome.

+ + +

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

 

 

Benedict’s End Game is to save the Church from Freemasonry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Or, what Sherlock Holmes would say about the case of the Incongruous Renunciation

I have always been a fan of Sherlock Holmes, the fictional private detective in late Victorian England, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, to popularize the new method of forensic investigation among the public police forces of his day.

As Sir Arthur writes in his Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important”.

This maxim is actually something the great Scholastic Theologians of the Catholic Church would readily agree too, because they held that every individual effect is marked by its causes.  Thus, every small detail about everything, says something about the causes of that detail. We have only to study the details to find the clues.

Here at the From Rome blog I have applied this method to the controversies over the vote rigging at the Conclave of 2013, which I have extensively examined. (You can see all the articles at The Chronology of Reports about “Team Bergoglio”), and to those about Benedict’s Renunciation (See the topical Index to Benedict’s Renunciation).

In this post, I want to share a lingering doubt I have about Benedict’s renunciation which I cannot shake, because it is seemingly confirmed by a host of details which have been overlooked by everyone, but which all point to the same conclusion, namely Benedict’s disgust with the College of Cardinals, not just as men, but as an institution.

Anomalies, Anomalies

As as translator of not a few Papal Bulls and Latin texts, when I examined the Latin of the Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, the first thing which struck me was the the phrase ab his quibus competit. This phrase stuck me, because in Latin, which is a Language which is eminently laconic, it is a lot easier to write ab Cardinalibus electoribus. Why say, that the new supreme pontiff is to be elected by those who are competent to do so, and not by the Cardinal electors?

This question grows with a sense of significance, when you realize that Pope Benedict, according to the testimony of Archbishop Gänswein, wrote the text himself. And even more so, when you consider he wrote this text to be read out in the presence of the Cardinals themselves! In the refined halls of power, such a statement is much more than a faux paux, it is a positive insult and reproof. It is as if he is saying that the Cardinal Electors are not competent to elect a supreme pontiff. It is even more like saying, that his successor will not be elected by Cardinals at all!

This one small detail is something over which Sherlock Holmes would have had a panic attack of brain storming, because it is so incongruous of a statement to make in such a situation as a papal resignation, that it has to have causes which are not yet so obvious but which are crucial to understanding what happened and why it happened and what it all means.

I get a lot of guff and criticism for my speculations at this blog, mostly from those who do not appreciate the forensic method or the power of observation. As a trained anthropologist I understand why they do not understand and I understand why they are wrong in being oblivious to small facts. I know from the history of Archeology that entire theories of explanation of ancient, long lost cultures, were over turned by the finding of a single artifact, or a common artifact in a bizarre position or location. So I know professionally, that the methodology of Sherlock Holmes is not a fictional fantasy, but a real life powerful method of investigation and discovery.

If you find one anomaly, look for others

A single anomaly is hard to interpret, because as the Scholastics say, the individual which is the sole member of its species cannot be understood in itself. This means that when you find one anomaly, you need to look for more evidence and try to seek its causes. Other anomalies are the most important things to find, because then they establish a network of causes which can reveal the true meaning behind each anomaly. This is because it is harder to hide something in everything, than in a single thing.

The second anomaly which I noticed as translator of the Declaratio is that the Vatican had falsified all the vernacular translations. I reported this in the Article, The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s Renunciation was invalid as written, and here is the proof. A brief summary translation of which, can be found in Italian at ChiesaRomana.info.

The obvious inference is that those who came into power after Benedict’s renunciation were trying to hide the evidence. But the less obvious inference is that Benedict wrote a renunciation which was obviously invalid and they were trying to hide the obviousness of it. And from that we can safely infer that there was a conflict between Benedict and whom he knew or suspected would come into power after his resignation. This final inference supports an understanding of the first anomaly, that Benedict was calling the Cardinal electors incompetent to elect a supreme pontiff.

This leads to an understanding which like a key can be used to decode the Declaratio.  Now it is clear why Benedict calls himself the Successor of Saint Peter, but calls the one to be elected the new Supreme Pontiff. “Supreme” smacks of dictatorship and thus points to a Peronist. We can be certain that Benedict knew that Bergoglio was going to be elected because Bergoglio was the leading candidate in the previous conclave, and because Benedict was elected in opposition to Bergoglio. That opposition having crumbled in the College of Cardinals, it was obvious who would prevail. Benedict also as Pope had the resources of the Vatican spy network so he probably always knew what Bergoglio was up to prior to the conclave to suborn others and expand his power networks.  The recent history of the European Bishops’ Conference, written by the the Bishop of St Gallen, shows that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger knew well of the existence of the St Gallen Group even before 1992. So we can be sure that Ratzinger maintained a dossier on them and kept his eye on them.  We know now, that as Pope, most of his Pontificate was in preaching against the very errors, heresies and deviations which Bergoglio is now promoting. We know this by comparing what he was teaching with what Bergoglio is teaching, and it is a direct contradiction of it.

From all this, then, we can say decisively and with great certitude that the Declaratio was written to oppose the St Gallen Mafia and to lay down a maneuver against them. It was not a surrender, but it was made to look like a surrender. I explained my theory about this in the Article entitled, How Benedict has defeated “Francis”.

And because this was its primary motivation, for it to be successful Benedict had to decide from the beginning to be extremely discrete and divulge his intention with no one, not even Gänswein. I have long thought that this inference was improbable, but I recently obtained proof that Pope Benedict does not tell his private secretary everything, in the video prepared by Bavarian State TV, entitled, Ein Besuch bei Papst Benedikt XVI. em. Klein Bayern im Vatikan, which aired on January 3 in Germany. For in that video, Benedict reveals that there are things in his office of which he never told the Archbishop. And the Archbishop expresses both surprise and dismay.

The Crown of all Anomalies

It was only, however, when I took it upon myself to examine the Latin text with the eye of a Latin teacher correcting the homework of a student, that I found the crown of all anomalies. Yes, I found more than 40 grammatical, syntactical and stylistic errors. So many that it seemed to me impossible a pope could write such a thing. Either he was handed it to be signed, or he wrote it in haste, or he intentionally made it sloppy Latin to conceal something from obvious view.  For, if you have ever watched British TV, and were a fan of Doctor Who, then you know, that the best place to hide a key is on a wall designed to hang dozens of keys, for there you can not only hide it in plain view, but hide it in such a way that it cannot be found or stolen.

And thus I was led to infer that Benedict was hiding something in the text, something more than just an invalid resignation of ministerium instead of munus. So I re-read the text and looked for anomalies, and now I wish to speak openly of what I found, of which I did not speak openly before in my Articles entitled, Clamorous Errors in the Latin Text of the Renunciation and A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says.

And Benedict hid this anomaly right up front, in the place you would least expect to hide anything. I refer to the very first sentence of the Declaratio:

Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem.

As I said before, I have always thought it significant that Pope Benedict was promoting the study of Saint Bonaventure’s Scholastic Theology more and more during the later years of his Pontificate. That Doctor of the Church is an expert on the interpretation of textual statements. But that Doctor of the Church has his own way of using Latin. So being the translator of his Commentarii in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, I just happened to have a great familiarity with the Latin of Bonaventure. And that made me see something of which I think no other has taken notice.

It is the word decisionem.

Latinists were focusing on the word immediately prior to this, vobis, because the Latin verb communicem takes an object with the preposition cum and thus requires vobiscum not vobis.

They then proceeded to simply fault Benedict for his poor choice of words, in writing decisionem instead of consilium. And in my critique I reported their opinions of this matter.

But what I did not report is my shock at the seeing the word decisionem, because in the writings of Bonaventure this word always means a “cutting off”, and has the sense of an amputation or pruning, as is done to a vine. Recall that in Scripture, Our Lord Himself says that He has to occasionally prune His people to take away dead branches and promote regrowth and fruitfulness. If you know anything about Joseph Ratzinger, then you know that as a theologian he likes to weave discourses around the meanings of Biblical images and words. Thus, one is led to the conclusion that he chose decisionem for reasons more significant than apparent.

If you combine that meaning with vobis and ignore the presumption that the latter was intended as vobiscum, the entire meaning of the sentence changes to something so radically unexpected, that only one having unraveled the chain of inferences and made a study of the anomalies in the text could possibly be prepared to accept that Benedict might indeed have meant that which the Latin actually says. Which is as follows:

Not only for the sake of three acts of canonizations, have I called you to this Consistory, but also for the sake of the life of the Church to communicate something of great importance: your being cut off.

As I just said, this reading seems incredible, but it explains all the anomalies which I have heretofore found in the text and in the history of the Renunciation. The purpose of the Declaratio was NOT to renounce the papal office, it was to Uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution from the Church, so as to save the Catholic Church from the complete Masonic infiltration of that institution.

We know now, seven years on, that the College of Cardinals has shown perfect compliance with the Freemasonic regime of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and even its most conservative Cardinals have pledged unswerving loyalty to that regime. We also know that it has been a century long project of Freemasonry to infiltrate the College so as to take over the Catholic Church from the top down. We also know that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI were well informed by Saints and private revelations of the coming battle with the Anti-Church and False Prophet. Finally, we know that both collaborated decisively to renew the canonical penalties of excommunication against Freemasons in the Church (Declaration on Masonic Associations, Nov. 26 1983.) in forma specifica, that is, in the most solemn and authoritative manner of an express Papal approbation of a notice given the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

It makes sense, then, if you know a key fort containing the greatest treasure of your kingdom is going to fall to the enemy, because of a complete treachery and rebellion of the military commanders holding it for you, the wisest council is to allow it to fall, without advising those commanders, while secretly removing the treasure, so that they are deceived in thinking they have triumphed and so that your removal of the treasure can be conducted in safety and during the confusion of their gleeful and exuberant seizing of the fort.

And this is what it seems Benedict did and intended to do. It also explains why Benedict acts the way he does and refuses to clarify his situation. Why he does not even take the Archbishop into his confidence. It also explains a lot of other things, which did not seem entirely anomalous before. For example, in his final year of pontificate, he made both Muller and Ganswein Archbishops, but not Cardinals, as if for his closest of friends he somehow did not want them to be members of that College.

If all these observations and inferences are correct, then one can with great probity conclude that it is the intention of Pope Benedict that after his earthly demise, that the Church of Rome, and not the College of Cardinals, who are held fast in a solidarity of dissent with Bergoglio, elect his successor: a thing about which I speculated about in my Article, Whether with all the Cardinal electors defecting, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Pope? And a thing of which even Pope John Paul II alludes in a most cryptic manner in the papal law on conclaves in his introduction, where he says, that it is a well established fact that a conclave of Cardinals is not necessary for a valid election of a Roman Pontiff (Universi Dominici Gregis, Introduction, paragraph 9).

Indeed, a study of the history of papal renunciations and the canons of the Church shows, that it was Pope John Paul II, in 1983, who by adding munus as the canonically required object of the verb “renounce” in canon 332 §2, actually created the canonical possibility of an invalid renunciation in the case of a pope who renounced something other than the petrine munus! A very small alteration, but one which not only prevented the office from being shared, according to the loony and heretical speculations of German theologians, but allowed a Roman Pontiff to give the appearance of a valid resignation, so as to deceive the forces of Freemasonry in the Church.

Now all this seems absurdly immoral, but in truth it is neither illegal nor illicit. For since the man who is the pope has the canonical right to renounce the petrine munus, it follows ex maiore that he has the moral right to renounce anything less than the munus. In cases of grave threat, he also has the moral right to dissimulate. Thus by renouncing the ministerium, not the munus, Pope Benedict posited an act which power hungry men without respect for the law or for the truth or for the person of the pope, would overlook during their rush to convene an invalid conclave. And thus their own fault and sin and haste would result in their canonical separation from the Church through an act of schism and usurpation. Yet, by renouncing the ministerium and not the munus, as required by Canon Law, Pope Benedict left sufficient evidence for all the Catholic faithful in the world to discover the truth, a thing of which he was confident they could do, because the quasi soul of the true Church is the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Inspirer of all truth, Who guides His faithful always to and in the truth.

In this way, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have acted with great foresight and angelic prudence over the last 4 decades to enable that the Office of Saint Peter pass, not through the hands of men who have betrayed Christ en masse, but through the hands of the faithful of the Church of Rome, who precisely on account of their fidelity to the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of law, recognize what he has done and why he has done it.

 + + +

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

Pope Benedict’s Renunciation is invalid for 6 Canonical Reasons

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Catholics begin the effort to make known to the clergy that they were defrauded of their loyalty to Christ’s Vicar on Feb. 28, 2013, it is important to have at hand a short summary of the canonical problems in Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Non solum propter. (Official text here at Vatican website)

Here is such a short summary.

6 canonical errors in the Act of Renunciation

  1. In the Act, the Roman pontiff renounces “the ministry committed to him through the hands of the Cardinals” on the day he was elected. But canon 332 §2, in the official Latin text of that canon, requires that the renunciation be of the petrine “munus”, that is the Papal Office (cf. canons 331, 333, 334, 749). Therefore, the act is NOT a renunciation of the papacy. Thus, in regard to canon 332 §2, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS. And if it  be said or thought to be an act of renunciation of the papacy, then the assertion or estimation is false by reason of Canon 188, which declares IRRITUS any renunciations of office vitiated by substantial error, that is by an error which touches the substance of the act (which, in this case, is constituted by the essence of the act as an act of renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium).*
  2. In the Act, the Roman Pontiff does not name the office by any proper canonical term, and thus the act is also an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be duly manifested (rite manifestetur), since that which is not named is not manifest.
  3. In the Act, the Roman Pontiff’s liberty regards that which he does, not that which he does not do, which, since he does not do it, whether he be free to do it or not, is not expressed. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be freely executed (libere fiat).
  4. In making a declaration of renunciation, instead of renouncing, the act is also an ACTUS NULLUS, because canon law does not regard declarations to be canonical acts. They are merely announcements. (cf. Penal section on announcements regarding persons who have incurred latae sententiae excommunications ipso iure).
  5. In making what appears to be a renunciation of the papacy, without naming the papal office as required by Canon 332 §2, the man making the declaration, inasmuch as he is the man, who received the office and who is attempting to separate himself from the office, had need to obtain from the man who is the Pope, an express derogation of the terms of canon 332 §2, in virtue of canon 38, and since he did not, since no concession of derogation of that requirement is mentioned in the act, then by reason of canon 38, the act, which is both contrary to the law of Canon 332 §2 and gravely injurious of the right of the faithful to know who is the true pope and when he has canonically resigned, is an ACTUS SINE EFFECTU, that is an act which lacks all effect.
  6. Finally, in renouncing “the ministry”, the Roman Pontiff posits a legal act which is not foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, since no canon therein speaks of a renunciation of ministry. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS according to the norm of law. Therefore, in accord with canon 41 no one with an office in the Church has any duty to recognize it.

__________

* I do not include substantial error as one of the canonical errors in the Act, because the act was never one of a renunciation of the papal office. The argument that substantial error vitiates the act, technically, has more to do with the mis-perceptions or false claims made about the canonical value of the act, than with the act itself. Speaking of substantial error is thus necessary when discussing it with someone who is operating under the false premise that the Pope renounced the papacy, but eventually one must talk about the reality of what the Pope actually said on that day, and distinguish that reality from the misperception which was published to all the world.

POST SCRIPT: Note that in the title of this post I use the word “invalid” in the common sense of an act which does not effect what one thinks it effects, but properly speaking the term should be “vitiated” or “erroneous”, because as you can see from the list of 6 canonical errors, 3 regard nullity, 2 regard invalidity, and 1 regards being without effect.

 

The German Translation of the Renunciation falsified by a Non-German

BREAKING! — The From Rome Blog has received notice from a native speaker of German, that the German translation of the Act of Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, has in its final redaction been CHANGED by a non-native speaker of the German language.

That means that both Pope Benedict and Archbishop Ganswein cannot be blamed for the fact that the German translation MAKES THE ACT APPEAR TO BE CANONICALLY VALID.

It also means that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Ganswein CANNOT BE CLAIMED to be in favor of an act of renunciation of the Papacy, since the German text as published by the Vatican has traces that the prior version announced only a RENUNCIATION OF MINISTRY not of office!

Here is the report from our Correspondent in Germany:

Dear Brother Bugnolo,

Regarding your question:

the German is definitely not the original text, nor is it a direct translation from the Latin. Rather it is a translation from another language, probably English.

The German word order of the first sentence should match more closely to the Latin than to the English, so it should start “Nich nur wegen (non solum propter). Instead the German is a direct translation of the English word order, a standard translating error even by professionals:

English:

“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations….

German:

“Ich habe euch zu diesem Konsistorium nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen zusammengerufen…”

This would be better put:  “Nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen  habe ich euch zu diesem Konsistorium zusammengerufen…”

(not only for three canonizations have I convoked you to this consistory….)

Note that correct German matches the phrase structure in the LATIN which begins “non solum propter”   So it makes no sense to have the Engilsh phrase structure in the German if the German was first!
And the use  of “Schifflein” for the Latin “navis” (ship) is wrong.  Schifflein means “little ship”. (navicella).   I can’t imagine Pope Benedict would have used such a word.

But there is another finding which is of great interest.

In German , the verb ausuüben and ausführen both mean “to carry out”.

However, you ausüben an  Amt  (office, munus)  but you ausführen a Dienst  (service / ministry /activity)

Now look again at the falsified words in the German text on the Vatican website:

A) “um in angemessener Weise den Petrusdienst auszuüben. Ich bin mir sehr bewußt, daß…

B) dieser Dienst wegen seines geistlichen Wesens nicht nur durch Taten und Worte ausgeübt werden darf

C) ……   den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen.”

A) and B) as you noted in the article from April  falsely translate Amt (office) as Dienst (ministry) but whoever did the falsification forgot in  A) to change the term auszuüben to auszuführen,  and in B) in change ausgeübt to ausgeführt.

C) remains correct of course, a Dienst is ausgeführt.

Or perhaps the translation was originally done correctly but Amt was changed for Munus quickly, and not by the original translator, since it neglects to match the appropriate verbs!  I can’t imagine the original translator would have made such a blunder.

Might be worth examining the Italian, Spanish & French to see if a similar error is detectable.

God bless,

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.

 

 

The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon of the Mass

Most priests do not know that they have a canonical right to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass. They think wrongly that to do so would either be outside of their authority or would involve an act of schism. That it is not schism nor a sin, is proven thus:

Here is the canonical argument

First, a validly elected Pope must be named in the Canon of the Mass as a sign of communion. This is by tradition and liturgical law.

Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied.

No validly elected pope’s name must be omitted from the Canon of the Mass during his lifetime, or before he validly resigns.

Third: Pope Benedict XVI did not resign on Feb. 11, 2013, he merely retired from the active ministry, as he himself said on Feb. 28, 2013 in his final Allocution (see other evidence here). For extensive canonical information about this see ppbxvi.org.

Fourth: That Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign was the falsehood which emanated from the Desk of Cardinal Sodano. (See explanation here)

Now just as Cardinal Sodano should have acted, is how all priest should act. Namely,

In accord with Canon 40, Priests who are to say mass hold a munus which is merely executory, in regard to whom to name at Mass in the Canon as Pope. This is because they do not decide on their own authority who is the pope and who is not the pope. They follow the command of a superior. That superior is above all the Pope.

If a pope therefore does not renounce his office in accord with canon 332 §2, because he renounces his ministerium instead, that renunciation has no canonical effect, because there is no canon in the Church’s laws which regard the renunciation of ministries.

Therefore, in accord with canon 40 and 41 A PRIEST IS FORBIDDEN to alter the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. He cannot act on the basis of the declaration of Non Solum Propter in the same illegal manner Cardinal Sodano did. To do so would be to collaborate in his grave crime, deceive the faithful and enter into de facto schism with Pope Benedict. (see that article for a greater explanation of the crime and moral offence)

Therefore, a priest must continue to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.

Therefore, a priest must cease and desist naming Francis as soon as he recognizes the validity of this canonical argument.

(This argument is not that of the Editor of this Blog, who has merely expanded it for a fuller explanation — There are already a great number of priests who do not name Francis, but name Benedict instead, some openly, some secretly, some by saying for the Holy Father, without a specific name. God bless and strengthen and multiply these priests!)

_______________

NOTE BENE: There is a lot of misinformation out there, from Vatican News, which falsifies things attributed to Pope Benedict. Here is one glaring case from last June, WHEN Vatican News claimed that Pope Benedict said, “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”, which never actually happened. Click the links in the Twitter Card, below, for more on this.

 

 

The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s renunciation was invalid as written, and here’s the proof!

AP_18073530041706.1521468116
The Falsified Letter of Pope Benedict was not a novelty, the Vatican had already falsified all the translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

April 8, 2019 A.D. — The Vatican has known all along that Pope Benedict’s Act of Renunciation was not in conformity with the requirements of Pope John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law, and the documentary evidence to prove it has been published by the Vatican for 6 years.

The Code of Canon Law requires that the man who is Pope resign in a specific manner, in in the Canon 332 §2:

§ 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 literal English translation of this Canon reads:

§2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his MUNUS, there is required for validity that the renunciation be made freely and manifested duly, but nto that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

But the text of the renunciation in the Latin original reads thus:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

The correct translation of this key text is:

On which account, well aware of the weight of this act, I declare with 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, …

This glaring ERROR of mistaking the ESSENTIAL object of a papal renunciation as regarding the Petrine Ministry instead of the Petrine Munus (office) made the act have no legal effect (cf. canon 126 and 188).

BUT TO HIDE THIS INVALIDITY, the Vatican HAS PUBLISHED FALSIFIED translations into the vernacular of the act, which specifically ALTER the nature of the act and conceal that invalidity.  This was one of the key and necessary acts of the Coup d’etat, of February 2013, of which I wrote previously.

The FALSIFICATIONS are these:

  1. In all the translations, the double occurrence of the word MUNUS, in the Latin original is CONCEALED by translating it with the same word used to translate the Latin MINISTERIUM, which occurs thrice in the text.
  2. The syntax of the clause of effect which follows the verb RENUNIET in the Latin, has been altered to make it appear to allow a metanymic manner of signification, when in the Latin it permits NO SUCH reading.
  3. The syntax of the second independent clause following the DECLARO has been altered to make it appear as definitive command to convene a Conclave.

These 2 errors make it appear that in the mind of Pope Benedict there is NO distinction between the Petrine Office (which must be resigned) and the Petrine Ministry (which you can resign without resigning the office).* It also makes it appear that his act of resignation of the ministry effects the loss of office.

Now since ALL the vernacular translations have this error, its clear that the Vatican has DELIBERATELY AND WITH AFORETHOUGHT publicly misrepresented the nature of the Papal Act to make it appear to be in conformity with the Code of Canon Law.

But don’t take my word for it, see the Vatican Website to review each translation. In the texts below which I have cut and pasted directly from the Vatican Website, I have colored in RED the falsifications of munus and ministerium, and/or the alterations of the Syntax, and placed in BLUE the correct translations of MINISTERIUM or the syntactical forms where they occur in each.

The Falsified English

The English as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

The Falsified Italian

Italiano as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Carissimi Fratelli,

vi ho convocati a questo Concistoro non solo per le tre canonizzazioni, ma anche per comunicarvi una decisione di grande importanza per la vita della Chiesa. Dopo aver ripetutamente esaminato la mia coscienza davanti a Dio, sono pervenuto alla certezza che le mie forze, per l’età avanzata, non sono più adatte per esercitare in modo adeguato il ministero petrino. Sono ben consapevole che questo ministero, per la sua essenza spirituale, deve essere compiuto non solo con le opere e con le parole, ma non meno soffrendo e pregando. Tuttavia, nel mondo di oggi, soggetto a rapidi mutamenti e agitato da questioni di grande rilevanza per la vita della fede, per governare la barca di san Pietro e annunciare il Vangelo, è necessario anche il vigore sia del corpo, sia dell’animo, vigore che, negli ultimi mesi, in me è diminuito in modo tale da dover riconoscere la mia incapacità di amministrare bene il ministero a me affidato. Per questo, ben consapevole della gravità di questo atto, con piena libertà, dichiaro di rinunciare al ministero di Vescovo di Roma, Successore di San Pietro, a me affidato per mano dei Cardinali il 19 aprile 2005, in modo che, dal 28 febbraio 2013, alle ore 20,00, la sede di Roma, la sede di San Pietro, sarà vacante e dovrà essere convocato, da coloro a cui compete, il Conclave per l’elezione del nuovo Sommo Pontefice.

Carissimi Fratelli, vi ringrazio di vero cuore per tutto l’amore e il lavoro con cui avete portato con me il peso del mio ministero, e chiedo perdono per tutti i miei difetti. Ora, affidiamo la Santa Chiesa alla cura del suo Sommo Pastore, Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo, e imploriamo la sua santa Madre Maria, affinché assista con la sua bontà materna i Padri Cardinali nell’eleggere il nuovo Sommo Pontefice. Per quanto mi riguarda, anche in futuro, vorrò servire di tutto cuore, con una vita dedicata alla preghiera, la Santa Chiesa di Dio.

The Falsified Spanish Text

The Spanish as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Queridísimos hermanos,

Os he convocado a este Consistorio, no sólo para las tres causas de canonización, sino también para comunicaros una decisión de gran importancia para la vida de la Iglesia. Después de haber examinado ante Dios reiteradamente mi conciencia, he llegado a la certeza de que, por la edad avanzada, ya no tengo fuerzas para ejercer adecuadamente el ministerio petrino. Soy muy consciente de que este ministerio, por su naturaleza espiritual, debe ser llevado a cabo no únicamente con obras y palabras, sino también y en no menor grado sufriendo y rezando. Sin embargo, en el mundo de hoy, sujeto a rápidas transformaciones y sacudido por cuestiones de gran relieve para la vida de la fe, para gobernar la barca de san Pedro y anunciar el Evangelio, es necesario también el vigor tanto del cuerpo como del espíritu, vigor que, en los últimos meses, ha disminuido en mí de tal forma que he de reconocer mi incapacidad para ejercer bien el ministerio que me fue encomendado. Por esto, siendo muy consciente de la seriedad de este acto, con plena libertad, declaro que renuncio al ministerio de Obispo de Roma, Sucesor de San Pedro, que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales el 19 de abril de 2005, de forma que, desde el 28 de febrero de 2013, a las 20.00 horas, la sede de Roma, la sede de San Pedro, quedará vacante y deberá ser convocado, por medio de quien tiene competencias, el cónclave para la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice.

Queridísimos hermanos, os doy las gracias de corazón por todo el amor y el trabajo con que habéis llevado junto a mí el peso de mi ministerio, y pido perdón por todos mis defectos. Ahora, confiamos la Iglesia al cuidado de su Sumo Pastor, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, y suplicamos a María, su Santa Madre, que asista con su materna bondad a los Padres Cardenales al elegir el nuevo Sumo Pontífice. Por lo que a mi respecta, también en el futuro, quisiera servir de todo corazón a la Santa Iglesia de Dios con una vida dedicada a la plegaria.

The Falsified French

The French as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Frères très chers,

Je vous ai convoqués à ce Consistoire non seulement pour les trois canonisations, mais également pour vous communiquer une décision de grande importance pour la vie de l’Église. Après avoir examiné ma conscience devant Dieu, à diverses reprises, je suis parvenu à la certitude que mes forces, en raison de l’avancement de mon âge, ne sont plus aptes à exercer adéquatement le ministère pétrinien. Je suis bien conscient que ce ministère, de par son essence spirituelle,  doit être accompli non seulement par les œuvres et par la parole, mais aussi, et pas moins, par la souffrance et par la prière. Cependant, dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, sujet à de rapides changements et agité par des questions de grande importance pour la vie de la foi, pour gouverner la barque de saint Pierre et annoncer l’Évangile, la vigueur du corps et de l’esprit est aussi nécessaire, vigueur qui, ces derniers mois, s’est amoindrie en moi d’une telle manière que je dois reconnaître mon incapacité à bien administrer le ministère qui m’a été confié. C’est pourquoi, bien conscient de la gravité de cet acte, en pleine liberté, je déclare renoncer au ministère d’Évêque de Rome, Successeur de saint Pierre, qui m’a été confié par les mains des cardinaux le 19 avril 2005, de telle sorte que, à partir du  28 février 2013 à vingt heures, le Siège de Rome, le Siège de saint Pierre, sera vacant et le conclave pour l’élection du nouveau Souverain Pontife devra être convoqué par ceux à qui il appartient de le faire.

Frères très chers, du fond du cœur je vous remercie pour tout l’amour et le travail avec lequel vous avez porté avec moi le poids de mon ministère et je demande pardon pour tous mes défauts. Maintenant, confions la Sainte Église de Dieu au soin de son Souverain Pasteur, Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, et implorons sa sainte Mère, Marie, afin qu’elle assiste de sa bonté maternelle les Pères Cardinaux dans l’élection du Souverain Pontife. Quant à moi, puissé-je servir de tout cœur, aussi dans l’avenir, la Sainte Église de Dieu par une vie consacrée à la prière.

The Falsified Portuguese

The Portuguese as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Caríssimos Irmãos,

convoquei-vos para este Consistório não só por causa das três canonizações, mas também para vos comunicar uma decisão de grande importância para a vida da Igreja. Depois de ter examinado repetidamente a minha consciência diante de Deus, cheguei à certeza de que as minhas forças, devido à idade avançada, já não são idóneas para exercer adequadamente o ministério petrino. Estou bem consciente de que este ministério, pela sua essência espiritual, deve ser cumprido não só com as obras e com as palavras, mas também e igualmente sofrendo e rezando. Todavia, no mundo de hoje, sujeito a rápidas mudanças e agitado por questões de grande relevância para a vida da fé, para governar a barca de São Pedro e anunciar o Evangelho, é necessário também o vigor quer do corpo quer do espírito; vigor este, que, nos últimos meses, foi diminuindo de tal modo em mim que tenho de reconhecer a minha incapacidade para  administrar bem o ministério que me foi confiado. Por isso, bem consciente da gravidade deste acto, com plena liberdade, declaro que renuncio ao ministério de Bispo de Roma, Sucessor de São Pedro, que me foi confiado pela mão dos Cardeais em 19 de Abril de 2005, pelo que, a partir de 28 de Fevereiro de 2013, às 20,00 horas, a sede de Roma, a sede de São Pedro, ficará vacante e deverá ser convocado, por aqueles a quem tal compete, o Conclave para a eleição do novo Sumo Pontífice.

Caríssimos Irmãos, verdadeiramente de coração vos agradeço por todo o amor e a fadiga com que carregastes comigo o peso do meu ministério, e peço perdão por todos os meus defeitos. Agora confiemos a Santa Igreja à solicitude do seu Pastor Supremo, Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, e peçamos a Maria, sua Mãe Santíssima, que assista, com a sua bondade materna, os Padres Cardeais na eleição do novo Sumo Pontífice. Pelo que me diz respeito, nomeadamente no futuro, quero servir de todo o coração, com uma vida consagrada à oração, a Santa Igreja de Deus.

The Falsified German

The German as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Liebe Mitbrüder!

Ich habe euch zu diesem Konsistorium nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen zusammengerufen, sondern auch um euch eine Entscheidung von großer Wichtigkeit für das Leben der Kirche mitzuteilen. Nachdem ich wiederholt mein Gewissen vor Gott geprüft habe, bin ich zur Gewißheit gelangt, daß meine Kräfte infolge des vorgerückten Alters nicht mehr geeignet sind, um in angemessener Weise den Petrusdienst auszuüben. Ich bin mir sehr bewußt, daß dieser Dienst wegen seines geistlichen Wesens nicht nur durch Taten und Worte ausgeübt werden darf, sondern nicht weniger durch Leiden und durch Gebet. Aber die Welt, die sich so schnell verändert, wird heute durch Fragen, die für das Leben des Glaubens von großer Bedeutung sind, hin- und hergeworfen. Um trotzdem das Schifflein Petri zu steuern und das Evangelium zu verkünden, ist sowohl die Kraft des Köpers als auch die Kraft des Geistes notwendig, eine Kraft, die in den vergangenen Monaten in mir derart abgenommen hat, daß ich mein Unvermögen erkennen muß, den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen. Im Bewußtsein des Ernstes dieses Aktes erkläre ich daher mit voller Freiheit, auf das Amt des Bischofs von Rom, des Nachfolgers Petri, das mir durch die Hand der Kardinäle am 19. April 2005 anvertraut wurde, zu verzichten, so daß ab dem 28. Februar 2013, um 20.00 Uhr, der Bischofssitz von Rom, der Stuhl des heiligen Petrus, vakant sein wird und von denen, in deren Zuständigkeit es fällt, das Konklave zur Wahl des neuen Papstes zusammengerufen werden muß.

Liebe Mitbrüder, ich danke euch von ganzem Herzen für alle Liebe und Arbeit, womit ihr mit mir die Last meines Amtes getragen habt, und ich bitte euch um Verzeihung für alle meine Fehler. Nun wollen wir die Heilige Kirche der Sorge des höchsten Hirten, unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, anempfehlen. Und bitten wir seine heilige Mutter Maria, damit sie den Kardinälen bei der Wahl des neuen Papstes mit ihrer mütterlichen Güte beistehe. Was mich selbst betrifft, so möchte ich auch in Zukunft der Heiligen Kirche Gottes mit ganzem Herzen durch ein Leben im Gebet dienen.

This German translation is even more falsified than the others, becuase it INVERTS the translations for Munus (Amt) and Ministerium (Dienst) to make it appear that the resignation was a resignation of office!

Finally, I concede that I cannot read Arabic or Polish, but perhaps you can bet how those texts were also falsified?

____________________________

FOOTNOTE

* See my Scholastic Question: “Why the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI must be questioned,” (English, Espanol) for the philosophical, theological and canonical explanation. As for renunciations of ministry, Priests, Bishops and even Deacons resign the ministry when they retire or lose the clerical state. In such cases they may or may not retain the faculties of the priesthood, but continue to be Priests, Bishops or Deacons. Before Vatican II, when Bishops continued in office until death, it was very common to see reigning Bishops who could not exercise the episcopal ministry in matters of governance or liturgical functions, because they became totally senile or bed ridden or incapacitated. The modern concept of a co-Adjutor Bishop reflects this reality, wherein a reigning Bishop no longer feels capable of exercising the ministry which flows from the office, which he, however, continues to hold. — Note, however, that there is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which regards a papal renunciation of ministry, because, since the Office of Peter is necessary for the Church by Divine Promise, the exercise of its ministry is a necessary good for the Church and consequently a grave obligation for the one who holds it. Thus, he who holds the munus can always exercise the ministry, even if he personally renounces it. Furthermore, its not really necessary even to declare such a renunciation, as the Pope can delegate many of his powers to Cardinals, Vicars and Legates apostolic, even as his physical powers fail him. — For all the rest, see the Scholastic Question in which I consider in its second part, all the reasons for holding the act of renunciation as it appears in the Latin original, and refute them point by point.

La validez de la renuncia de Benedicto debe ser cuestionada, Parte II

hqdefault

Por el Hno. Alexis Bugnolo

En el artículo anterior titulado La validez de la renuncia de Benedicto debe ser cuestionada, Parte I, recité la historia de la controversia sobre la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI sobre el tema del error sustancial en la renuncia y luego procedí a explicar más de 20 argumentos en contra de validez.

Aquí, enumeraré los argumentos para la validez, en la medida en que los encuentre y los entienda. Si usted conoce sobre más argumentos, favor de avisarme en la sección de comentarios a continuación. Después de cada argumento a favor de la Validez, publicaré, para conveniencia del lector, el argumento en contra, que se desvía de esta pequeña manera de la forma escolástica adecuada. No hay un orden particular entre los argumentos, pero los más fuertes están al final.

¿Ya sea que el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció a la oficina del Obispo de Roma?

Ad contrarium:

Y parece que lo hizo:

  1. Porque, el Papa Benedicto XVI como Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, no necesita renunciar según la forma del Canon 332 §2. Por lo tanto, renunció válidamente.

Ad obj. 1: Argumentar que el Papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, y por lo tanto la renuncia es válida, es un sofismo, que cuando se examina es equivalente a otras 2 proposiciones erróneas, a saber: “El Papa como Papa está por encima de la ley canónica, ergo etc.” y “El Papa como el hombre que está por encima de la ley, ergo etc.”  A la primera, le diré: En primer caso, es verdad que el Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Sin embargo, el Papa, al renunciar a su cargo, no renuncia como Papa, sino como el hombre que es el Papa. Por lo tanto el argumento es praeter rem. Al segundo, digo: es falso decir que el Papa como el hombre que es papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, porque la mente del Legislador del Código de Derecho Canónico, el Papa Juan Pablo II, en el canon 332 §2, expresamente declara cuándo una renuncia papal es tal y debe considerarse válida. Por lo tanto, si un Papa renunciara de una manera que fuera válida, pero que los Fieles tuvieran que considerar como inválida según la norma de ese Canon, habría caos en la Iglesia. Sin embargo, al interpretar la mente de un legislador, no se puede suponer ninguna tesis que haga que la ley sea defectuosa. Por lo tanto, el Papa Juan Pablo II tuvo la intención de atar al hombre que es papa, en una resignación papal. Por lo tanto, el segundo es falso también.

  1. Porque está claro que el papa Benedicto quiso renunciar. Por lo tanto, él renunció. Por lo tanto, su renuncia es válida.

Ad obj. 2: Argumentar que el Papa quiso renunciar, por lo tanto renunció, es emplear un sofismo que oculta un término medio no distribuido. Porque si el Papa quería renunciar al ministerio del oficio, entonces renunció al ministerium. Pero tal renuncia no se conforma con el Canon 332 §2, ya que el canon no renuncia al munus. Por lo tanto, no es válida. Del mismo modo, si el Papa quería renunciar al munus, entonces NO renunció al munus si es que dijo ministerium. E incluso aunque él creyó haberlo hecho, es inválido, según el canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con el acto, y de acuerdo con el canon 188 debido a un error sustancial.

  1. Debido a que el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, entonces renunció válidamente.

Ad obj 3: Argumentar que el Papa renunció válidamente porque después de su renuncia declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, es emplear un subterfugio. Porque en esa declaración pública declara que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino. Que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino, no se disputa. Pero si eso es lo que él renunció, entonces no renunció al munus. Por lo tanto, ese acto no efectuó una renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, si se afirma que es una renuncia papal válida, la afirmación es falsa según el canon 332 §2.

  1. Porque, el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció libremente, por lo tanto renunció.

Ad obj. 4: Es cierto que la libertad en una renuncia es una de las condiciones necesarias para una renuncia papal según el Canon 332 §2, pero no es cierto que sea la única condición. La primera condición es que sea una renuncia de munus. No era. Por lo tanto, este argumento es praeter rem.

  1. Porque el Cardenal Sodano, como Decano del Colegio de Cardenales, al convocar al Colegio, actuó como si fuera válido, por lo tanto, es válido.

Ad obj. 5: No hay un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Cardenal Diácono de llamar a un cónclave eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo haya hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.

  1. Debido a que el Colegio de Cardenales se reunió para elegir un Sucesor del Papa Benedicto, por lo tanto, mediante ese acto declarado o hecho, la renuncia fue válida.

Ad obj. 6: No existe un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Colegio de Cardenales de conciliar o elegir a un Papa, eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo hayan hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.

  1. Porque todo el Colegio de Cardenales después de la renuncia y después del Cónclave de 2013 actúa y sostiene que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el verdadero y válido Papa.

Ad obj. 7: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 7.

  1. Porque todo el mundo acepta que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el Papa Francisco.

Ad obj. 8: El canon 332 §2 al decir, “y no que sea aceptado o no por nadie” en su frase final, lo niega expresamente. Por lo tanto, es falso.

  1. Porque, un católico debe sostener como papa, a quienquiera que los cardenales, o los obispos, o el clero de Roma, sean el papa.

Ad obj. 9: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 8.

  1. Porque la elección de un Papa por los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático, que todos los católicos deben aceptar.

Ad obj. 10: Si bien es cierto que la elección válida de un Papa por parte de los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático que todos los católicos deben aceptar, no es cierto si la elección no fue válida. Pero una elección no es válida si el Papa anterior aún vive y aún no ha renunciado válidamente. Por lo tanto, esta objeción no es válida, en la medida en que la renuncia sea inválida. Por lo tanto, de su propio ser es insuficiente para probar el punto argumentado.

  1. Debido a que la renuncia del papa Benedicto XVI es un acto papal, que no puede ser cuestionado, según el anexo: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.

Ad obj. 11: Si bien es cierto que los actos del Romano Pontífice son actos jurídicos que no pueden ser cuestionados, no es verdad que las declaraciones hechas en primera persona por el hombre que es Papa, que son la materia de tales actos o declaraciones, no pueden ser juzgadas. El canon 332 §2 demuestra que tal acto puede ser juzgado ya que el canon juzga tales actos. Que tal materia del acto papal no es un acto del papa como papa, ya se ha demostrado anteriormente. — Si dice que el acto de declaración es un acto papal, no el acto del hombre, por lo tanto, debe considerarse válido, ya que el Papa es el legislador supremo y el árbitro del significado de los actos canónicos, debe responderse que la declaración (“Yo declaro”) se hace en la primera persona del singular, no en la primera persona del plural, por lo que el legislador supremo ya ha renunciado explícitamente a su papel en la declaración de renuncia.

  1. Porque, un católico con buena conciencia debe suponer que si la renuncia no era válida debido al uso de la palabra ministerium no munus en la frase clave del acto, los Cardenales, de acuerdo con el canon 17, se demostraron a sí mismos que el Santo Padre, El Papa Benedicto renunció lo suficiente al papado, o que celebraron un consejo privado con el para conocer su sentido y significado, momento en el que significó en privado que había renunciado al papado al renunciar al ministerio del papado.

Ad obj. 12: Si bien es cierto que un católico debe estar dispuesto a presumir tal cosa, tal presunción no hace válida una renuncia inválida. No, de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, se debe tener en cuenta que la causa final de una renuncia inválida es que no se manifiesta de acuerdo con la norma de la ley (rite manifestatur). Cuya norma requiere un acto público que es un acto presenciado por lo menos con 2 testigos y hecho verbalmente.  Tal acto nunca ha sido publicado. Entonces, incluso si se hiciera, es un acto secreto y no haría una renuncia inválida, válida.

  1. Debido a que el Papa Benedicto dijo: declaro que renuncio al ministerio, …que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales, … , asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante en”, indicó claramente que su renuncia era para efectuar una perdida al oficio (munus). Por lo tanto, su renuncia estuvo de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, a pesar de no usar explícitamente la palabra munus, ya que ese Canon requiere su validez. Por los tanto, la renuncia fue válida.

Ad obj. 13: Esta objeción fue refutada en los argumentos de la Primera Parte, pero su complejidad merece una respuesta más completa para aquellas mentes que no pueden entender cómo es inválida. Primero, como se demuestra en la Primera Parte de este Artículo, una renuncia es válida si incluye una renuncia de munus, no es válida si no lo hace. Y de acuerdo con Canon 17, si hay alguna duda sobre si munus está incluido en el Canon 332 §2 como una condición sine qua non o de acuerdo a su significado en un sentido más amplio, uno debe tener recurso a otras partes de del Derecho, la tradición canónica, y a la mente del Legislador (Juan Pablo II) del Código. Como se ha mostrado en otra parte, no hay base para un argumento del canon 17 de que ministerium puede significar munus. Sin embargo, como ministerium es seguido por 2 cláusulas subordinadas, el argumento de que no es válido, debe responder a esa condición. En latín, algunas cláusulas subordinadas pueden alterar el significado de la cláusula principal. Y es cierto que hay una forma poética, en la que parte de una cosa puede sustituir al todo, como cuando en la Misa en el Rito Latino decimos: “Entres a mi casa” para que signifique “Vengas a mi alma”. Sin embargo, con respecto al latín del texto de la renuncia, decir, “que recibí de las manos de los Cardenales” no impone ninguna necesidad de referencia al Ministerio Petrino per se, porque Ratzinger también en ese momento recibió el ministerio Episcopal y Pastoral de la Diócesis de Roma. La segunda cláusula, “asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante”, se ha demostrado en la Parte I que no requiere ninguna necesidad. Para aquellos que no entienden la gramática latina, esto necesita ser explicado. Porque, en una cláusula subordinada como “asi que … quedará vacante”, la cláusula es una cláusula de propósito del tipo que comienza con la partícula “ut“, y por lo tanto es una cláusula pura de propósito que indica solo una meta. Si la clausula subordinada de propósito hubiera comenzado “de tal manera que” (quomodo) o “de tal manera como para” (in tali modo quod) hubiera sido una cláusula de propósito de tal característica que tuviera el poder de alterar la manera de significado en la clausula primaria, y permitir el uso de significado metonímico, eso es, cuando una parte refiere al todo. Como el Papa Benedicto no dijo nada de ese tipo, esta forma de leer la cláusula subordinada no es posible. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo inválido. Sin embargo, incluso si se tuviera un significado metonímico, sigue siendo inválido según el Canon 332 §2, ya que no se manifestaría debidamente. Porque como si alguien pronunciara los votos matrimoniales diciendo: “Te tomo como mi empanada vienesa” en lugar de decir “Te tomo como mi esposa”, sería necesario recurrir a una interpretación para hacer que la frase signifique tomar una esposa, por lo que en un acto de renuncia, cualquier forma de significado metonímico rendiría inválido el acto porque públicamente no manifiesta la intención debidamente.

  1. En su acto de renuncia, el Papa Benedicto XVI declaró dos cosas. El primero con respecto a su renuncia, el segundo con respecto a la convocación de un cónclave “que un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Sumo Pontífice sea convocado por aquellos cuyo deber es”. No habría dicho esto si su intención no fuera renunciar a la oficina del papado. Por lo tanto, renunció a la oficina del papado.

Ad obj. 14: Este argumento es una combinación de dos argumentos, uno de los cuales se ha refutado previamente, a saber, aquel que se refiere a su intención, que fue refutado en Ad obj. 2.  Aquí responderé al otro que se refiere al comando papal de convocar un cónclave. Dado que el Papa declaró que se convocaría un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Romano Pontífice constituye la segunda cláusula independiente de su verbo, “Yo declaro”. Por lo tanto, es lógicamente independiente y no tiene ninguna necesidad en la alteración del significado de la primera cláusula, que se refiere a la renuncia.  Por lo tanto, si la renuncia no se manifiesta debidamente de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, que el Papa declara que se debe llamar cónclave es una declaración papal que está totalmente viciada por el error sustancial en su primera declaración. Así, el canon 188 invalida la ejecución de este mando. Esto es especialmente cierto, ya que en la declaración de convocatoria, no requiere que la convocatoria se realice antes o después de que el Papa deje de ser, ni en una fecha específica o incluso durante su vida. Para ver esto más claramente, recuerde el ejemplo de los argumentos en contra de la validez, en donde un papa hipotético declara: “Renuncio a los plátanos para que el 28 de febrero, a las 8 p. M., Hora romana, La Sede esté vacía” y simplemente agregue “y que se convoque un cónclave para elegir un nuevo pontífice romano”. Como se puede ver en esta hipotética, la segunda declaración no hace válida la primera, simplemente continúa con el error sustancial: un error sustancial que también hace que el Cónclave de 2013 y todos los actos de Bergoglio como Papa sean inválidos.

  1. Canon 332 §2 requiere la renuncia del oficio. Pero ministerium también significa oficio. Por lo tanto, cuando el Papa Benedicto renunció al ministerium, renunció al munus.

Ad obj. 15 : Canon 332 §2 lee de la siguiente manera: “Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su munus, se requiere para la validez que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste rite, pero no que sea aceptada por nadie.” Como se puede ver en este Canon, que es el único que se ocupa de las renuncias papales, la condición fundamental es que el Papa renuncie a su “munus“. Ahora, mientras que algunas traducciones modernas lo traducen como oficina (inglés), otras como cargo (español), otras como función (italiano), está claro en el Código de Derecho Canónico que su significado canónico principal es oficio. Esto se puede ver en su uso en los Encabezados del Nuevo Código para los capítulos sobre las Oficinas eclesiásticas. Esto se confirma mediante una cita directa del canon 145 §1, donde cada oficio eclesiástico es llamado un “munus“, no un “ministerium”. Un examen del Código también revela que un ministerium nunca se llama una “oficio”. Ahora, como el Código de Derecho Canónico requiere en el Canon 17, que el Código mismo se lea de acuerdo con la tradición de los textos canónicos, las fuentes del derecho canónico y la mente de su legislador (el Papa Juan Pablo II), estos hechos deberían ser suficientes pruebas para excluir la posibilidad de que “ministerium” se pueda leer como munus. Esto se confirma mediante la comparación del Canon 332 §2 con el canon correspondiente en el Código de Derecho Canónico promulgado bajo el Papa Benedicto XV, donde se habla de un Papa que renuncia, pero no dice a qué renuncia. Es evidente y significativo que el Papa Juan Pablo II en el código de 1983 agregó la palabra “munus” para especificar a qué se debe renunciar para efectuar una renuncia papal. También es evidente que en ese Código de Derecho Canónico “ministerium” se refiere al ejercicio de una oficio. Además, si uno examina todas las renuncias papales anteriores para las cuales hay evidencia textual de la fórmula de renuncia, siempre se encuentran las palabras que significan oficio: onus, munus. No se encuentra ministerium. Los nombres propios para los oficios se encuentran como epicopatus y papatus. O la dignidad que resulta de la oficina se nombra con las palabras honor o dignitas. Así, de acuerdo con el Canon 17, todas las fuentes de interpretación autorizada concluyen sobre 1 resultado: que un Papa solo renuncia cuando renuncia al munus, al oficio, no a la ejecución del oficio, ministerium.  Por lo tanto, incluso si el Papa Benedicto pretendía, y en privado después afirmó, afirmaba o afirmaría, que pretendía usar “ministerium” para munus, su acto de renuncia no es válido debido a ese error sustancial, en virtud del canon 188, y no puede hacerse válido por ningún acto posterior. Tendría que ser rehecho con la palabra, “munus“. Entonces, el argumento es inválido por un sofismo, de leer “munus” en su mayor según su significado en latín, pero leer “ministerium” en el menor de acuerdo con su uso vernáculo. Por lo tanto, su conclusión se alcanza a través de un término medio no distribuido, y por lo tanto también es inválida.

  1. No hay ministerium petrino sin un oficio petrino, ya que los dos son inseparables en cuanto a su derecho y ser [secundum ius et esse], según el Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, aunque el Canon 332 §2 requiere que un Papa renuncie a su munus para que renuncie válidamente, sin embargo, una renuncia a su ministerium es suficiente para efectuar esto porque aunque “munus” nombra el oficio papal en relación al don de Dios de gracia y deber, “ministerium” nombra el mismo oficio de acuerdo a su relación con la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, renunciar al ministerium petrino, es renunciar al munus petrino.

Ad obj. 16 : Debe decirse que este argumento debe ser respondido mediante un interemptio (eso es una refutación completa de las premisas en un silogismo), ya que es falso en sus proposiciones principales y secundarias. En su versión menor, es falso al estar basado en un error de interpretación de las obligaciones del Canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con la costumbre general de la ciencia de la teología, y no de acuerdo con la norma de ley.  En su principal, o premisa, es además falso afirmar que el ministerium no es separable de su oficio de acuerdo con el derecho en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser [secundum ius et esse].  Con respecto a lo primero, uno debe responder así: Porque en la ciencia de la teología, las palabras pueden tener significados diferentes con respecto a cosas iguales o disímiles.  Pero todo esto es praeter rem (irrelevante) en cuanto a una discusión del significado canónico de un acto de renuncia de un oficio eclesiástico, aún más, en cuanto a un oficio establecido por el Verbo Encarnado de Dios.  En tal asunto, el argumento debe centrarse en el oficio según su ser en la Divina Voluntad e intención, no como oficio según se entienda de acuerdo a la teología personal del hombre que es romano pontífice. Esto también es cierto con respecto a la Iglesia Romana, cuyo Novio no es el Romano Pontífice, sino el mismo Cristo Jesús, que ahora reina en la Gloria. Por esa razón, no solo está obligada a dar el consentimiento de Su voluntad al Redentor, sino también a la aprobación de Su mente. Por lo tanto, uno propondría una manera de observar la ley canónica que sería equivalente al adulterio, si uno sostuviera que era lícito que la Iglesia Romana considerara el significado de un acto canónico según la manera del mundo, la carne o incluso interpretación privada. Por lo tanto, no solo Cristo, por Su promesa a San Pedro, está obligado por el canon 332 §2, promulgado por Su Vicario, el Papa Juan Pablo II, a no retirar la gracia y el oficio [munus] a menos que se renuncie explícitamente, así también a la Iglesia Romana, que es su novia virgen más fiel y su esposa virgen. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia debe considerar que las obligaciones del canon 332 §2 requieren una renuncia al munus, en tanto que el Canon 17 requiere que ese término se entienda en el canon 145 §1. En ninguna parte del Código de Derecho Canónico se encuentra que un ministerium considerado como el oficio en sí. Entonces, si bien fue la intención del autor de Non Solum Propter, en tanto que era hombre, significar la Oficina Papal en su relación con el servicio que presta, no por ese solo hecho se convierte en un acto que la Iglesia pueda aceptar como rite manifestatum, pues se tendría que recurrir a una interpretación y a una lectura del texto fuera del marco de reglas de significado del Código de Derecho Canónico que tendrían que ser empleadas. Y como tal, no sería canónicamente válido, incluso si uno pudiera sostener que era teológicamente suficiente. Sin embargo, incluso si uno fuera a conceder que las palabras ministerium …. commissum habló del munus petrinum en su relación con la Iglesia, ya que no se renuncia a nada más que a lo que se renuncia explícitamente, el acto no haría nada más canónicamente que una renuncia al ministerio en la medida en que se encuentra en tal relación, mas no del oficio en sí mismo. Y, por lo tanto, no sería eficaz renunciar, ni suficiente el dar a entender la renuncia al oficio en su relación a Dios y Su don de la gracia. Pero dado que esta misma relación se refiere a ello según su principio de ser [secundum essendi principium] – ya que es un regalo inmediato de Cristo y se establece mediante un acto de Su voluntad, tal renuncia no afecta lo que es esencial para ello. — El acto permanece, por lo tanto, viciado por un error sustancial en su forma de significación, y por lo tanto no es válido ipso iure, por el canon 188. — Finalmente, con respecto a la premisa del argumento, a saber, que el ministerium no se puede separar de la oficina secundum ius et esse, debe decirse que esto está falsificado por el derecho litúrgico y canónico. Porque desde la supresión de las órdenes menores, el estado del acólito y el lector se denominan “ministerios” [Canon 230 §1], sin embargo, tales ministerios no confieren el derecho de ejercer dicho servicio en ningún momento, sino solo la idoneidad de hacerlo a petición del celebrante de un acto litúrgico. Por lo tanto, ministeria son separables en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser, del munus. – Por tanto en conclusión, parece ser obvio que el argumento entero es falso, ya que una conclusión que es deducida de una premisa falsa y un menor falso es enteramente falsificada.

17. La aceptación pacífica y universal de un Papa es causada por y es el efecto de una elección papal válida. Por lo tanto, después de 6 años, incluso si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI fuera inválida, su silencio de facto en la usurpación de la Oficina Papal por parte de Bergoglio es equivalente a una renuncia. Por lo tanto, ya sea que la renuncia sea inválida o no, ahora debe considerarse válida.

Ad obj. 17: Aunque, en el derecho común, la posesión es nueve décimas de derecho, y por lo tanto, la usurpación puede llevar a la adquisición del derecho y en la Ley Romana usucapióne  puede obtener el derecho legal a la propiedad después de un largo tiempo, tal principio no es válido por dos razones. Primero, no es válido teológicamente con respecto a un oficio eclesiástico que fue establecido por Jesucristo, el Verbo Encarnado, por un acto personal inmediato. Del cual tipo es el oficio de Papa. La razón teológica es esta: que nadie puede arrebatar nada de la Mano del Dios viviente (Juan 10:28). Y, por lo tanto, ninguna usurpación del oficio papal puede restringir a la Deidad, que es la justicia infinita y la omnipotencia misma, para transferir la gracia del munus papal a otro.  Sostener lo contrario, sería una imposibilidad teológica y absurda. Segundo, no es válido canónicamente, debido al Canon 359, que especifica que el Colegio Cardenalicio tiene autoridad para elegir un Pontífice Romano solo durante una sede vacante.  — Por lo tanto, si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI no fue válida, no había una sede vacante y, por lo tanto, el Colegio no tenía autoridad para elegir un sucesor. — En cuanto a la aquiescencia tácita: de la Historia de la Iglesia se desprende claramente que, en contra de las afirmaciones de un antipapa, no se consideró que ningún legítimo reclamante de la Sede apostólica cediera simplemente por no perseguir su derecho. Sin embargo, el argumento de la aquiescencia tácita, sin embargo, no aplica en el caso en disputa, porque el hecho de que uno actué en error sustancial no constituye una aquiescencia tácita, ya que la aquiescencia tácita requiere la capacidad de consentimiento, cosa que es imposible por ignorancia invencible en el caso de error sustancial.  —  Finalmente, con respecto a la aceptación universal y pacífica de una elección papal: mientras que este principio es ciertamente un principio reflejo válido para las conciencias preocupadas en el caso de una elección válida, no hay posibilidad de una elección válida cuando el Colegio no tiene derecho a actuar, ya que es contrario no solo a la Ley Canónica sino a la Ley Divina para elegir a otro Romano Pontífice mientras el Papa aún vive y no ha renunciado válidamente. Tampoco es válido, en cuanto a su menor implícito: a saber, que ha habido una aceptación pacífica y universal de la renuncia papal. No ha habido, como demuestra el prefacio a esta pregunta en disputa. Por lo tanto, la aplicación de este principio reflejo en el presente caso es, en el mejor de los casos, praeter rem (irrelevante), peor aún, un subterfugio

18. La renuncia de Benedicto a ministerium efectúa válidamente una renuncia al oficio porque, debido al Canon 10, que dice expresamente que solo las condiciones de invalidez hacen que un acto sea inválido, ya que el Canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez solo en relación con la libertad de coerción y manifestación debida, no del nombramiento del oficio, ya que Benedicto tenía la intención de nombrar el oficio papal, como se desprende de su aceptación del título de Papa Emérito, el nombramiento del ministerium en lugar del munus no invalida el acto de renuncia.  Además, Benedicto como papa es el legislador supremo, por lo tanto, interpreta oficialmente la ley (cf. Canon 16 §1), por lo que puede renunciar al munus petrino renunciando al ministerium petrino.

Adj. obj. 18: Si bien es cierto que el canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez pero solo en relación con las condiciones del acto, no obstante, el canon 188 habla expresamente de invalidez de renuncias que están viciadas por un error sustancial.  Ahora, no hay un error más sustancial en renunciar a un oficio eclesiástico, que renunciar a un accidente del mismo o su segundo acto de ser (ministerium) y creer que al hacerlo, una suficiencia significa el oficio (munus). Además, el canon 18 requiere que los términos del canon 332 §2 se entiendan estrictamente, ya que el último canon restringen al que renuncia. Por lo tanto, la renuncia debe considerar explícitamente el munus del oficio papal, que en ese canon y en el canon 749 §1, como todas los oficios episcopales (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) en todo el Código, se refiere exclusivamente como munus, porque no es meramente un cargo u oficio eclesiástico (officium) o servicio (ministerium) establecido por costumbre o la Iglesia, sino que es un don de gracia y oficio (munus) establecido por el Dios vivo por un acto personal e inmediato (cf. Mateo 16:18). Que cada oficio (munus) pueda ejercer uno o más ministeria (ministerios) no solo NO es un argumento para la validez de la renuncia de Benedicto sino más bien un argumento en contra de la validez, a causa del canon 188, canon 17 y canon 41 (en latín), el último de los cuales asocia expresamente ministerium con la mera ejecución de un oficio eclesiástico y esto, porque el enfermo puede renunciar a la ejecución de un oficio o sus servicios, quien todavía desea conservar la dignidad del oficio, como lo demuestra la historia de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en virtud del canon 17, que requiere explícitamente que los textos de cada Canon se entiendan de acuerdo con el significado apropiado de las palabras que contienen, ya que el contexto del Código de Derecho Canónico los usa, el argumento extraído del Canon 10, aquí, no es válido porque es praeter rem, es decir, aplicable solo a las condiciones de invalidez en el Canon 332 §2, no del canon 188. — Si dice, si, el Canon 10 se aplica solo a los términos expresados en el Canon 332 §2 y así permite una interpretación amplia de la cláusula condicional que habla de una renuncia del munus petrino, entonces debe responderse, que tal lectura del canon 10 anularía los requisitos del canon 17, que los términos deben ser entendidos correctamente, o al menos fallan por insuficiencia, ya que el significado amplio de munus en el Código de Derecho Canónico es officium no ministerium; qué sentido de officium se refiere a oficio, no a la ejecución de un ministerio. — Respecto al Canon 16 § 1, hay que decir, que sí, el Papa Benedicto como Papa es el legislador supremo e intérprete del derecho canónico. Pero él es sólo legislador, cuando legisla; mientras que el canon 332 §2 fue legislado por el papa Juan Pablo II. Además, aunque cualquier Papa puede interpretar oficialmente el derecho canónico, debe hacerlo por un acto papal, no por un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, el canon 16 no se aplica en tal caso. Más bien, más bien, el Canon 38 gobierna expresamente en este caso, cuando dice: Un acto administrativo, incluso si es promulgado por un rescripto dado Motu Proprio, carece de efecto en la medida en que perjudica los derechos de otro o es contrario a la ley o costumbre comprobada, a menos que la autoridad competente haya agregado expresamente una cláusula de derogación. — Finalmente, con respecto a la intención manifiesta del Papa de renunciar al munus papal, he respondido a esto arriba en la respuesta a las objeciones 2, 3 y 4.

19. Como sostiene el Dr. Taylor Marshall en su video, “La renuncia del Papa Benedicto: un análisis”, “ministerium” y “munus” nombran lo mismo: el oficio papal. Por lo tanto, renunciar a uno es renunciar al otro. Por lo tanto, la renuncia es válida.

Ad obj. 19: A una afirmación gratuita, no es necesario responder, porque no es un argumento. Sin embargo, contra esta afirmación, uno debe responder, ya que ataca la naturaleza de la realidad misma. Porque las palabras tienen significado, de lo contrario no serían signos de comunicación. Y diferentes palabras pueden tener un significado diferente, o no habría ninguna razón para usarlas. Así, el lenguaje humano por necesidad sostiene la afirmación de que ministerium y munus pueden tener diferentes significados. Cualquier diccionario de latín también lo sostiene, como cualquiera que tenga uno puede demostrar.  Pero que ministerium y munus en el derecho canónico significan lo mismo, es totalmente falso, como se ha demostrado anteriormente al referirse, de acuerdo con los requisitos del canon 17, al Código mismo que en el canon 41 asocia “ministerium” con el mero ejercicio de oficio, y canon 145 §1 que define un oficio eclesiástico como un “munus”, no un ministerium. Por lo tanto, el propio Código de Ley Canónica utiliza los términos en diferentes sentidos, y no equipara sus significados como refiriéndose a un oficio eclesiástico, en el sentido de que “obispado” o “papado” se refieren a un oficio. — Esta es una refutación suficiente de acuerdo con la norma del derecho canónico. Pero como la afirmación oculta un grave error del tipo de Nominalismo promovido en Tübingen, merece ser refutado de acuerdo con la ciencia de la filosofía. Porque así como hay 10 categorías de ser de acuerdo con el Filósofo en su Praedicamenta, las palabras se pueden decir en referencia a una o más categorías de ser. Ahora, en el canon 145 §1, el Legislador Supremo predice munus de cada oficio eclesiástico. Pero en ninguna parte del Código predica el ministerium de cualquier oficio eclesiástico, solo de los roles o servicios prestados por alguien que ocupa un oficio o en su lugar.  Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 17, queda claro que esto representa en la mente del Legislador que munus significa el ser de algo real, a saber, un oficio, pero ministerium significa la acción o el servicio prestado por alguien que tiene dicho oficio. Por lo tanto, se dice que munus es una sustancia en sí misma, y  se dice ministerium de una sustancia en acto.  Pero esta es la distinción de ser y acto, de sustancia y accidente, según la Praedicamenta. Por lo tanto, existe una distinción real entre munus y ministerium, en los sentidos utilizados en Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 y canon 41, así como existe una distinción real entre cualquier agente y las acciones del agente, aunque este último es inherente al anterior. Si esto se niega, entonces el andar de Pedro, que en Pedro es Pedro, cuando Pablo lo imita perfectamente sería tanto Pedro en Pablo como Pedro en Pedro, lo cual es absurdo. Por lo tanto, el andar de Pedro en Pedro no es una sustancia sino un accidente, como el color de la piel de Pedro o el acento de su voz, que se puede duplicar en otras cosas, sin tener que hacerlos Pedro. Del mismo modo, el ministerio petrino, que es la acción o servicio que el que tiene el oficio petrino debe y puede prestar, puede ser perfectamente imitado en otro, sin que ese otro sea el Papa.  Esta es la base completa de la colaboración de la Curia romana con cada verdadero Papa, cuando Él delega la ejecución de una parte de su Munus Petrino a cardenales y obispos y sacerdotes en el Vaticano o en cualquier otro lugar. Por lo tanto, para nombrar al Munus Petrino no basta con nombrar al Ministerio Petrino (incluso si se reconoce que Benedict hizo esto, lo cual he demostrado no es el caso en los argumentos de la primera parte), porque al igual que cuando Pedro renuncia a su andar, sigue siendo Pedro, así que cuando el Papa renuncia a su ministerio, sigue siendo el Papa. La racionalidad semiótica o ratio significandi para esto es que, al igual que la sustancia y el accidente son separables, su unidad no es necesaria; por lo tanto, el significado del que es el accidente en el otro no muestra una referencia necesaria o determinante al que es la sustancia. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 332 §2, que requiere una manifestación de libertad e intención que esté de acuerdo con la norma de la ley, tal forma de significado no es válido, porque requiere una interpretación que la Ley no sostiene como algo posible de acuerdo con canon 17.

La validez de la renuncia de Benedicto debe ser cuestionada, Parte I

Resignation

por el Hno. Alexis Bugnolo

Recientemente, el destacado teólogo del vaticano y ex miembro de la Congregación para la fe, Mons. Nicola Bux opinó públicamente que la validez de la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI debería estudiarse con respecto a la cuestión de lo que parece ser un error sustancial en la fórmula de renuncia.

Mons. Bux no fue el único en plantear este tema.  De hecho, las dudas sobre la validez del acto de renuncia fueron planteadas inmediatamente después de que se conoció la noticia. Flavien Blanchon, un periodista francés que trabaja en Roma, escribiendo solo 2 días después, citó a un eminente erudito latino que señaló errores en el texto de abdicación y señaló que la presencia de cualquier error, de acuerdo a la tradición canónica, se consideraba un signo de falta de deliberación, rindiendo el acto nulo y sin efecto.

Luego un año después, Antonio Socci especuló abiertamente que la renuncia pudo haber sido inválida a la falta de voluntad interior otorgada por Benedicto.  En el mismo año, un estudio muy notable publicado por un profesor en derecho canónico en el Instituto Teológico de Legano, Suiza, en 2014 por el P. Stefano Violi, que discutió canónicamente la renuncia: La Renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI entre historia, ley y conciencia, sin embargo, sin levantar la cuestión de su invalidez. (Es obligatorio leerlo debido a su rica cita de la historia canónica de las renuncias papales) Sin embargo, el estudio, al identificar el asunto de la renuncia a considerar el ministerio activo, no al munus, dejó en claro que la cuestión de El error sustancial que invalidaba la renuncia, fue una cuestión real, fundamentada en el texto del acto mismo.

Sin embargo, el 19 de junio de 2016, Ann Barnhardt planteó específicamente la cuestión de una duda derivada del canon 188, que cita error sustancial como fundamento suficiente para establecer motivo para una determinación canónica de invalidez en cualquier renuncia.  Lo hizo después de los notables comentarios del secretario personal del Papa Benedicto más temprano el 20 de mayo, en los que afirmó que Benedicto todavía ocupaba la Oficina Papal. (Texto completo traducido al inglés)

Luego el Blogger Sarmaticus discutió el tema planteado por las palabras de Ganswein el 5 de agosto de 2016, con un post en el que destacaba lo significativo de lo que el Arzobispo había dicho en la Universidad Gregoriana, en una post titulado: La navaja de ockham encuentraBenedicto todavía papa, Francisco es falso papa, Iglesia universal en estado de necesidad desde el abril 24 de 2005

Mons. Henry Gracida, obispo emérito de Corpus Christi, Texas, en los Estados Unidos, y ex miembro del Opus Dei, también ha sostenido esta misma duda y otras en relación con la validez de la renuncia.  Entiendo que el Obispo ha escrito a muchos miembros de la Jerarquía Sagrada y la Curia sobre estos asuntos para instar a que se tomen medidas. (cfr. abyssum.org : Sugiere una declaración pública de 12 Cardenales pre Bergoglio)

Según Ann Barnhart, en el año siguiente, el abogado Chris Ferrara y la señora Anne Kreitzer también sostuvieron esta misma duda. El historiador Richard Cowden Guido opinó lo mismo el 11 de mayo de 2017. Y, el famoso controversialita italiano, Antonio Socci, citó a Violi detenidamente el 31 de mayo de 2017 y sostuvo la misma tesis.

El 11 de agosto de 2017, el popular programa de televisión católica, Café con Galat, en una edición en inglés, discutió por qué el Papa Benedicto XVI sigue siendo el verdadero papa. Si bien este programa enfatiza la falta de libertad en el acto, incluye el asunto relacionado con la falta de conformidad con el Canon 332 §2 y el canon 188.

En algún momento antes de marzo de este año, el Padre Paul Kramer sostuvo también que el canon 188 anuló la renuncia, debido a la falta de conformidad de las renuncias al canon 332 §2 al mencionar ministerium en lugar de munus.

En mayo de este año, a más tardar, el P. Juan Juárez Falcón expuso la razón canónica de la invalidez de la renuncia, sobre la base de un error sustancial, en un artículo titulado “Dos Graves Razones”. El Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía lo siguió el 27 de junio, coincidiendo con su opinión.

Finalmente, el Papa Benedicto XVI en sus cartas privadas al cardenal Brandmüller, publicadas en el verano de 2018, solicita abiertamente sugerencias para una mejor manera de renunciar, si no lo hizo correctamente.

Hay una serie de católicos notables que sostienen esta duda, y desde que Mons. Bux solicitó una investigación de este asunto, agregaré aquí en forma escolástica, algunos argumentos a favor de sostenerlo, en el curso de los cuales se refutarán todos los argumentos sustanciales en contra. En el transcurso del tiempo, a medida que los encuentre, o piense en otros nuevos, los agregaré a esta lista.

Acerca de que si el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció al cargo del Obispo de Roma?

Y parece que no lo hizo:

  1. Primero, porque un error sustancial, en un acto de resignación, se refiere al vis verborum, o significado de las palabras, en cuanto a la forma y la materia del acto. Pero el acto de renunciar a un ministerio se refiere a uno de los accidentes propios del cargo (cfr. canon 41) por el cual ese ministerio puede ser ejercido correctamente. Por lo tanto, si uno renuncia a un ministerio, no renuncia a el cargo. Y si cree haber renunciado al cargo, al renunciar a uno de los ministerios, está en un error sustancial en cuanto al significado de las palabras que ha usado. Pero en el texto, Non Solum Propter, Benedicto XVI renuncia al ministerio que recibió como obispo de Roma, cuando fue elegido. Por lo tanto, entender que actuar como una renuncia al cargo es cometer un error sustancial en cuanto al efecto del acto. Por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
  2. San Pedro Apóstol ejerció muchos ministerios en muchos lugares. Pero nadie es el verdadero sucesor de San Pedro, excepto el obispo de Roma (canon 331). Por lo tanto, si uno renuncia a un ministerio petrino, no renuncia al cargi de Obispado de Roma (cf. cánones 331 y 332), que tiene otros ministerios en virtud de su cargo. Por lo tanto, si uno cree que ha renunciado al Obispado de Roma al renunciar a un ministerio petrino, está en un error sustancial y, por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
  3. Según San Pablo (1 Corintios 12), existen diversas gracias, ministerios y cargos en la Iglesia, ya que la Iglesia es el Cuerpo de Cristo. Por lo tanto, como el obispo de Roma puede ejercer varios de estos ministerios, se deduce que uno no renuncia al Obispado de Roma si renuncia a uno de estos ministerios, ya que ningún ministerio es coextendido con el Obispado de Roma. Ergo en tal renuncia, si uno cree que ha significado suficientemente la renuncia al Obispado de Roma, está en un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
  4. Según Seneca (Moral Essays, volumen 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), hay que distinguir entre los beneficios, las oficinas y los ministerios. Los beneficios son los que son otorgados por un desconocido, los oficios por los hijos, las madres y otras personas con las relaciones necesarias, y los ministerios por los funcionarios que hacen lo que los superiores no hacen. El Ministerio Petrino es un servicio a la Iglesia. Pero el oficio del obispo de Roma es un deber para Cristo. Si uno renuncia al ministerio de un sirviente, no renuncia al oficio de un hijo. Ergo en tal renuncia etc..
  5. La validez de un acto de renuncia no puede basarse en la definición subjetiva de las palabras, o la mera intención del que renuncia. Si ese fuera el caso, la interpretación haría del acto un acto de renuncia. El acto en sí no lo declararía. Pero la Iglesia es una sociedad pública fundada por el Dios vivo encarnado. Por lo tanto, la renuncia a los oficios debe ser no solo intencional sino también pública, para dar testimonio del hecho de que el oficio fue establecido por el Dios vivo y encarnado. Pero la oficina del obispo de Roma es tal oficina. Ergo en tal renunciación etc.
  6. Como Msgr. Henry Gracida argumenta en su blog, abyssum.org: Si Cristo no aceptó la renuncia de Benedicto como válida, porque el acto en sí no era canónicamente válido por el canon 188, entonces Cristo estaría obligado en justicia a privar a Bergoglio de la gracia, de modo que Su falta al no ser papa sea MÁS EVIDENTE para todos con fe, esperanza y caridad. Pero es MÁS EVIDENTE para todos, incluso los no católicos, que NO tiene la gracia de Dios en él ni en sus acciones. Ergo, o Cristo es injusto, o Cristo es justo. Él no puede ser injusto. ¡Ergo, Bergoglio no es papa!
  7. Del mismo modo, Cristo oró por Pedro para que su fe no fracasara, y para que pudiera confirmar a sus hermanos en el Colegio Apostólico. Ahora, esta oración de Cristo debe ser eficaz, ya que Cristo es Dios y el Hijo Amado del Padre Eterno, y debido al oficio de San Pedro no es algo meramente útil para el Cuerpo de Cristo, sino necesario en asuntos de fe y unidad. Por lo tanto, la oración de Cristo por los sucesores de San Pedro debe ser eficaz de alguna manera con respecto a la fe y la unidad de la Iglesia. Pero Bergoglio ataca manifiestamente tanto la fe como la unidad de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, lejos de juzgar que en este hombre la oración de Cristo no tenía la intención de ser efectiva. ¡Ergo, Bergoglio no es un sucesor válido de San Pedro!
  8. Del texto del acto de renuncia. El papa Benedicto admite en la primera oración que posee el munus petrinum. Pero más abajo, dice que renuncia al ministerio que había recibido como obispo de Roma. Por lo tanto, no ha renunciado al munus. Pero munus significa oficio y don de gracia (cf. Canon 145 §1 y Pablo VI, Christus Dominus). Por lo tanto, no ha declarado que ha renunciado al cargo y al don de la gracia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  9. Desde el sentido de la lengua latina, que carece del artículo definido e indefinido. Cuando dices: Renuntio ministerio, no dices si has renunciado al ministerio o a un ministerio. Por lo tanto, dejas sin decir a qué ministerio has renunciado. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  10. De la ley papal Universi Dominici Gregis, sobre las elecciones papales: Uno no es elegido para el Ministerio Petrino, sino para ser el Obispo de Roma. Por lo tanto, a menos que uno renuncie al Obispado de Roma, uno no ha desocupado la Sede de San Pedro. Pero en declaraciones públicas, el Papa Benedicto XVI, después de marzo de 2013, se limita a decir que ha renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, se encuentra en un grave error habitual con respecto a lo que se requiere en un acto de renuncia del cargo del Obispado de Roma. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  11. Del Código de Derecho Canónico: las renuncias canónicas son válidas si 3 cosas son válidas: libertad de coerción, recta intención, significado inequívoco. Esto se confirma en el canon 332, § 2, que niega expresamente que la aceptación de una renuncia afecte a su validez o no validez. Pero el Papa Benedicto admite en sus cartas al Cardenal Brandmüller que su intención era conservar algo de la Dignidad Pontificia. Su secretario privado también ha afirmado públicamente que él ocupa la sede de la Sede de Pedro, pero aún comparte el Ministerio Petrino. Esta es una evidencia incontrovertible de que el acto de renuncia es ambiguo. Para cualquiera de los dos significa que ha renunciado a la Sede o que no ha renunciado a la Sede, que ha renunciado al ministerio o que no ha renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  12. De la neumetología, es decir, de la teología del Espíritu Santo. Después de febrero de 2013, toda la Iglesia aún reconoce y acepta al Papa Benedicto XVI con el título de papa y con prerrogativas papales. Todos lo llaman Benedicto, no Ratzinger o Joseph. Pero toda la Iglesia no puede ser engañada. Sin embargo, según la institución divina, el papado no puede ser ocupado por más de una persona a la vez. Y el que lo sostiene primero, tiene el reclamo válido al oficio. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia no entiende el acto como uno que renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  13. Por insuficiencia de intención: si un Papa renuncia a comer plátanos, no ha renunciado al cargo de Obispado de Roma. Por lo tanto, si él dice: “He renunciado a comer plátanos para desocupar la Sede de Roma“, está en un error sustancial en cuanto al efecto de su acto. Pero en su texto de renuncia, dice que ha renunciado al ministerio para desocupar la sede de San Pedro [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. Pero ese es un error sustancial, ya que el ministerio es solo un accidente propio del Obispado de Roma, porque ser el Obispo de Roma es el primer acto de su existencia. [esse primum], Ejercer los ministerios del Obispado de Roma es el segundo acto de su ser. [esse secundum]. Por lo tanto, dado que el segundo acto de ser es en potencia al primer acto, y la potencia se divide de acto en accidente a sustancia, renunciar a uno o todos los ministerios de un oficio es un acto relacionado con los accidentes, no la sustancia del oficio. Por lo tanto, uno podría igualmente renunciar a cualquiera o todos sus ministerios y retener el oficio. Por lo tanto, al renunciar a uno o al ministerio, no renuncia al cargo. De hecho, en declaraciones públicas, explícitamente afirma haber renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, su insuficiencia de la intención expresada no salva el acto de un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  14. El Papa no es más poderoso que Dios Hijo. Pero Dios Hijo, al convertirse en el Santísimo Sacramento del Altar, en el momento de la Consagración, renuncia a todos los accidentes y acciones de Su Sagrada Humanidad, sin embargo, sigue siendo Dios y Hombre. Por lo tanto, incluso si un Papa renunciara a todas sus acciones y ministerios como Papa, él sigue siendo el Papa. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI, en su declaración del 11 de febrero de 2013, solo renuncia al ministerio de su oficio, no al oficio. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo el Papa.
  15. Si usted se levanta de su silla, pero no le concede la silla a otro, la silla queda vacante pero sigue siendo su propiedad. Ahora el oficio del Sucesor de San Pedro es para el Sucesor de San Pedro, mientras que el trono es para el que está entronizado. Entonces, si un Papa renuncia al ministerio de su oficio, pero no al oficio, aunque tenga la intención de renunciar al Trono de San Pedro, no cede su derecho y la posesión del oficio. Entonces, cuando el Papa Benedicto escribe declaro me ministerio … renuntiare ita ut Sedes Petri vacet deja claro que, si bien renuncia a servir como Papa, no renuncia al Papado.
  16. Si algún presidente, primer ministro o padre de familia renuncia a cumplir con los deberes de su cargo, no obstante, no ha dejado de ser presidente, primer ministro o padre. Del mismo modo, con el Papa, si solo renuncia textualmente al ministerio de su cargo, no ha perdido su cargo.
  17. Dios, que es Ser como instituidor de la Oficina de Pedro, no puede considerar como dimitido de la oficina del Sucesor de San Pedro, cualquier Romano Pontífice, elegido válidamente, que solo renuncia a los accidentes o los segundos actos del ser de esa oficina. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI renunció solo al ministerium, o ejercicio del oficio, el cual había recibido, más no el munus, que es el oficio mismo [cf. canones 332 §2 and 749 §1]. Por lo tanto, ya que el ejercicio del cargo es el segundo acto del ser del cargo, Dios no puede reconocer tal renuncia como válida. Y si Dios no la reconoce como válida, tampoco lo puede hacer la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc..
  18. La esencia de ‘ser el Papa’ es la dignidad de la oficina que ocupa. La esencia de un ministerio es el servicio prestado. Por lo tanto, así como la renuncia a un servicio no causa la pérdida de dignidad, de igual manera la renuncia al Ministerio Petrino no causa la pérdida del cargo papal. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc.
  19. En derecho canónico, ministerium no es el lugar de derecho (ius) que es encontrado solo en los sacramentos (sacramenta) y oficios (munera).  Por lo tanto, aquel que renuncia ministerium, no renuncia a ningún derecho. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI en su renuncia, Non solum propter, renuncia el ministerium que recibió de las manos de los cardenales.  Por lo tanto, el no renuncia a ningún derecho.  Si se objetara que el renunció al ministerio para desocupar la sede de San Pedro (ita ut Sedes S Petri vacet), Se debe responder que, dado que vacare, en latín tiene dos sentidos: el de conceder el derecho y el de simplemente irse, como en vacaciones, la afirmación de renuncia al ministerium como para vacet a la Sede romana no implica la necesidad de significar una renuncia a ningún derecho. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  20. Como argumenta el sabio canonista, Juan Juárez Falcó: el Canon 332, que es el único canon con respecto a las renuncias papales, habla de la renuncia del munus, no del ministerium. Pero Benedicto XVI habla solo de renunciar al ministerio, no al munus. Ergo mediante el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida para efectuar una renuncia de munus. Pero según el canon 145, el munus es la oficina. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc..

Para los argumentos, al contrario, y sus refutaciones, ver parte II

En suma:

Como el eminente abogado canónico, el p. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, dice al comentar sobre el Canon 126: Cuando la ignorancia o el error se refieren al objeto esencial del acto, … el acto debe considerarse como nunca habiendo sido presentado, inválido. (Codice di Diritto Canonico, e Leggi Complementari: Commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, 2004, comentario sobre el canon 126).

Por lo tanto, parece que si un Papa tuviera la intención de retirarse del ministerio activo, pero conservara la Oficina Papal en toda su plenitud, podría leer en voz alta la declaración hecha por el Papa Benedicto XVI, Non solum propter, ya que el vis verborum de ese texto es que renunció al ministerio del oficio de Obispo de Roma, pero no al oficio. Aquí se encuentra el error sustancial y, por lo tanto, ese acto de Benedicto XVI el 11 de febrero de 2013 debe considerarse inválido, según el canon 188, si se afirma que es un acto de renuncia del cargo de obispo de Roma. Sin embargo, si uno afirmara que es solo el acto de renunciar al ministerio activo, no al cargo, entonces sí, debería decirse que es un acto válido, que no contiene ningún error sustancial.

En conclusión, razón filosófica

Si bien puede haber muchos tipos de errores sustanciales en un acto de renuncia, NO hay NINGUNA MÁS SUSTANCIAL que la que implica confundir los accidentes de la oficina con la resignación como términos suficientes para indicar la sustancia de la oficina en sí. Ahora, según el canon 188, donde un error sustancial está presente en tal acto, el acto es inválido en su efecto “por la ley misma”. Por lo tanto, el texto de Non solum propter, de Benedicto XVI, no efectúa válidamente su renuncia al cargo de obispado de Roma. 

En conclusión, razón canónica

Esto es corroborado por hechos legales indiscutibles, a saber, que el único Canon en el Código de Derecho Canónico, Canon 32 §2, que habla expresamente de una renuncia papal, requiere que el hombre que es Papa renuncie al munus y de hacerlo de manera rite (es decir, adecuadamente de acuerdo con las normas de la ley). Pero el texto de la renuncia de Benedicto habla solo de una renuncia al ministerio. Por lo tanto, dado que se trata de un acto totalmente fuera del significado del Canon 332 §2, el acto no es válido para efectuar una renuncia papal. Así también es inválido efectuar un acto de renuncia que contiene error sustancial, según el Canon 188, y el Canon 126.

De hecho, la separabilidad inherente de ministerium de munus en la historia eclesiástica y la tradición canónica es la razón fundamental por la cual ninguna renuncia a ministerium puede equipararse en la ley como una manifestación debida de la renuncia de un oficio. Por esa razón, la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI hecha mediante el acto, Non solum propter, del 11 de febrero de 2013 a. C., no tiene un efecto canónico válido con respecto a la oficina del Papado. Sigue siendo el Papa, por tanto, con todos los derechos y privilegios.

Por lo cual, como ciudadano católico bautizado, ciudadano italiano y residente legal de la ciudad de Roma, pido al Gobierno italiano que invoque su derecho, como parte del Pacto de Letrán y sus acuerdos posteriores, a convocar a todo el clero de la Diócesis de Roma, para juzgar en el tribunal, tal como lo hicieron en AD 1046 en Sutri, al mando del rey Enrique III de Alemania, la validez de la reclamación al cargo de los Papas Benedicto y Francisco, a saber, si el acto de renuncia de Benedicto XVI fue válido en cuanto a una renuncia al oficio, y si no, a declarar el Cónclave de 2013 canónicamente inválido ex radicibus.

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)

 

The Validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation must be questioned — Part I

Resignation

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation. (For a correct English translation of the formula, see here).

Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this issue. In fact, doubts as to the validity of the act of resignation were raised immediately upon the news being made known. Flavien Blanchon, a French journalist working at Rome, writing only 2 days afterwards, cited an eminent Latin scholar who pointed out errors in the text of abdication, and who noted that the presence of any error, according to canonical tradition, was held to be a sign of lack of deliberation, rendering the act null and void. These errors in the Latin were also reported by Luciano Canfora, Corriere della Serra, Feb. 12, 2013, p. 17.

More importantly, the famous Italian Philosopher, Prof. Enrico Radaelli wrote a supplication to Pope Benedict XVI, on Feb. 18, begging him to withdraw the resignation, because, inasmuch as it was done in a secular fashion, it would result in the consequent election of an Anti-Pope. His article was entitled: Perché Papa Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI dovrebbe ritirare le sue dimissioni: non è ancora tempo per un nuovo papa, perché sarebbe quello di un Anti-Papa. (Link to text with commentary, here). Which warning, alas, was ignored, even by myself at the time, for frivolous reasons.

Then a year later, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci openly speculated that the resignation might be invalid on account of the lack of interior will given by Benedict. In the same year, a very noteworthy study published by a Professor in canon law at the Theological Institute of Legano, Switzerland, in 2014 by Fr. Stefano Violi, which discussed canonically the renunciation: The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience, without, however, raising the question of its invalidity. (Its a must read on account of its rich citation to the canonical history of papal resignations, despite its glaring error of affirming that a novel way of resigning was fulling in accord with Tradition!) — However, the study by the professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology, Lugano, Switzerland, by identifying the matter of the renunciation to regard the active ministry, not the munus, made it clear that the question of substantial error invalidating the resignation was a real question, founded upon the text of the act itself.

On Nov. 14, 2014, in a public conference, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, “the Fatima Priest” of Canada, affirmed of Pope Benedict, on Feb 11, 2013, that “whatever he was doing, he was not resigning the papacy”.

However, on June 19, 2016, the USA citizen Ann Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office (Full Text, English Translation).

Barnhard was not the first to make such an observation. Dr. Cathy Caridi, JCL, a canonist, openly speculated in January of 2013, more than a month before Pope Benedict XVI acted, that a substantial error in a papal renunciation could in fact invalidate it in virtue of Canon 188.

Then the blogger, Sarmaticus, discussed the issue raised by Ganswein’s words on August 5, 2016, with a post drawing out the significance of what the Archbishop had said at the Gregorian University, in a post entitled: “Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005.”

Msgr. Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).

According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, the Americans, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt. The Italian historian Richard Cowden Guido opined the same on May 11, 2017. And, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci quoted Violi at length on May 31, 2017 and sustained the same thesis.

On August 11, 2017, the popular Catholic TV program from Colombia, founded by Dr. Galat and know as Cafe con Galat, in an English edition, discussed why Pope Benedict XVI is still the true pope. While this program emphasizes the lack of freedom in the act, it does include the matter regarding the lack of conformity to Canon 332 §2 and canon 188.

Sometime before March of this year, Fr. Paul Kramer, a priest from the United States of America sustained also that canon 188 nullified the resignation, on account of the lack of the resignations conformity to canon 332 §2 in mentioning ministerium rather than munus.

In May of this year, at the latest, the Spaniard Fr. Juan Juarez Falcon expounded the canonical reason for the invalidity of the resignation, on the basis of substantial error, in an article entitled, “Dos Graves Razones”Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía followed from Mexico on June 27th, concurring with his opinion.

Finally, Pope Benedict XVI in his private letters to Cardinal Brandmueller, published in the summer of 2018, openly asks for suggestions for a better way to resign, if he did not do it correctly.

There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, some arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which I will refute all substantial arguments against it. In the course of time, as I find other arguments, or think of new ones, I will add them to this list.

All the arguments for and against should be understood in context of canon 124 §1, which reads: For the validity of a juridic act it is required that the act is placed by a qualified person and includes those things which essentially constitute the act itself as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act.

Can. 188, A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

And Canon 322 §2: If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his munus, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and be properly manifested (rite manifestatur), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.

Its also important to note, for native speakers of German, that the German translation of the Code of Canon Law gives the erroneous translation of munus as Dienst in canon 145 §1, where munus if it be translated at all, should be rendered Verantwortung, which is a proper synonym of the Latin munus, as an onus. Moreover, the correct sense of munus in canon 332 §2 is “office, charge and gift of grace” (Amt, Verantwortung, Geschenk der Gnade), not ministry or service (dienst), for only this full sense of munus, as an officium, onus, donum reflects the magisterial teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in his rescript, Quoniam.

 

Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?

And it seems that he did not:

1. First, because substantial error, in an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act.  But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office [cf. canon 41] by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised.  Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministerium which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected.  Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

2. Saint Peter the Apostle exercised many ministries in many places. But no one is the real successor of Saint Peter except the Bishop of Rome (canon 331). If one renounces a petrine ministry, therefore, he does not renounce the office of Bishopric of Rome (cf. canons 331 & 332), who has other ministries in virtue of his office. Therefore, if one believes he has renounced the Bishopric of Rome by renouncing a petrine ministry, he is in substantial error, and thus as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

3. According to Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 12) there are diverse graces, ministries and offices in the Church, inasmuch as the Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore, since the Bishop of Rome can exercise several of these ministries, it follows that one does not renounce the Bishopric of Rome if one renounces one of these ministries, since no one ministry is coextensive with the Bishopric of Rome. Ergo in such a renunciation, if one believes he has sufficiently signified the renunciation of the Bishopric of Rome, he is in substantial error. Therefore, as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

4. According to Seneca (Moral Essays, vol. 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), one must distinguish between benefices, offices and ministries. Benefices are that which are given by an alien, offices by sons, mothers and others with necessary relationships, and ministries by servants who do what superiors do not do.  The Petrine ministry is a service to the Church. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is a duty to Christ. If one renounces the ministry of a servant, he does not renounce the office of a son. Ergo in such a renunciation etc…

5. The validity of an act of resignation cannot be founded upon the subjective definition of words, or the mere intention of the one renouncing. If that were the case, the interpretation would make the act an act of resignation. The act itself would not declare it. But the Church is a public society founded by the Incarnate Living God. Therefore, the renunciation of offices must be not only intentional but public, to give witness to the fact that the office was established by the Living and Incarnate God. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is such an office. Ergo in such a renunciation etc..

6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope! But the Cardinals hold that his election was in accord with the procedures required by the Papal Law on Elections. Therefore, if he is not the pope, it can only be because someone else is still the Pope. Therefore, Benedict is still the pope, because in a resignation of this kind, the substantial error of renouncing the ministry, rather than the munus, renders it invalid.

7. Likewise, Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, and so that he could confirm his brethren in the Apostolic College. Now this prayer of Christ must be efficacious, since Christ is God and the Beloved Son of the Eternal Father, and because of the office of Saint Peter is not something merely useful to the Body of Christ, but necessary in matters of faith and unity. Therefore, Christ’s prayer for the Successors of Saint Peter must be efficacious in some manner as regards the faith and unity of the Church. But Bergoglio manifestly attacks both the faith and unity of the Church. Far be it, therefore, to judge that in this one man Christ’s prayer was not intended to be effective. Ergo, Bergoglio is not a valid successor of Saint Peter! But the Cardinals hold that his election was in accord with the procedures required by the Papal Law on Elections. Therefore, if he is not the pope, it can only be because someone else is still the Pope. Therefore, Benedict is still the pope, because in a resignation of this kind, the substantial error of renouncing the ministry, rather than the munus, renders it invalid.

8. From the text of the act of resignation. Pope Benedict admits in the first sentence that he holds the munus petrinum. But further down, he says he renounces the ministerium which he had received as Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he has not renounced the munus. But munus means office and gift of grace (cf. Canon 145 §1 and Paul VI, Christus Dominus). Therefore, he has not stated that he has renounced the office and gift of grace. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

9.From the sense of the Latin tongue, which lacks the definite and indefinite article. When you say: Renuntio ministerio, you do not say whether you have renounced the ministry or a ministry. Therefore, you leave unsaid what ministry you have renounced. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

10.From the papal law Universi Dominici Gregis, on Papal elections:  One is not elected to the Petrine Ministry, but to be the Bishop of Rome.  Therefore, unless one renounce the Bishopric of Rome one has not vacated the See of Saint Peter. But in public statements Pope Benedict XVI after March 2013 says only that he has renounced the ministerium. Therefore, he is in substantial habitual error as regards what is required in an act of resignation of the office of the Bishopric of Rome.  Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

11. From the Code of Canon Law:  Canonical resignations are valid if 3 things are valid: liberty from coercion, right intention, unambiguous signification. This is confirmed in canon 332, § 2 which expressly denies that the acceptance of a resignation affects is validity or non-validity. But Pope Benedict admits in his letters to Cardinal Brandmueller that his intent was to retain something of the Pontifical Dignity. His private secretary also publicly has affirmed that he occupies the  See of Peter but shares the Petrine Ministry still. This is incontrovertible evidence that the act of resignation is ambiguous. For either it means he has renounced the See or has not renounced the See, that he has renounced the ministry, or has not renounced the ministry.  Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

12. From Pneumetology, that is, from the theology of the Holy Spirit. After Feb 2013 the whole Church still recognizes and accepts Pope Benedict with the title of pope and with papal prerogatives. All call him Benedict, not Ratzinger or Joseph (even Bergoglio, during his visit to Panama in January 2019, exhorted the crowds to wave to “Pope Benedict XVI”.) But the whole Church cannot be deceived. Nevertheless, according to Divine Institution, the Papacy cannot be held by more than one person at one time. And he who holds it first, has the valid claim to the office. Therefore, the Church does not understand the act as one which renounces the office. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

13. From insufficiency of intention:  If a Pope renounces eating bananas, he has not renounced the office of Bishopric of Rome. Therefore, if he says, “I have renounced eating bananas, to vacate the See of Rome”, he is in substantial error as to the effect of his act.  But in his text of renunciation he says he has renounced the ministry so as to vacate the see of Saint Peter [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. But that is a substantial error, since the ministry is only a proper accident of the Bishopric of Rome, for to be the Bishop of Rome is the first act of its being [esse primum], to exercise the ministries of the Bishopric of Rome is the second act of its being [esse secundum]. Therefore, since the second act of being is in potency to the first act, and potency is divided from act as accident to substance, to renounce a or all ministries of an office is an act regarding the accidents not the substance of the office. Therefore, one could just as well renounce any or all of its ministries and retain the office. Therefore, by renouncing a or the ministry he does not renounce the office. Indeed, in public statements, he explicitly affirms only to have renounced the ministry. Therefore, his insufficiency of expressed intention does not save the act from substantial error.  Therefore, in such a renunciation etc..

14. The Pope is not more powerful than God the Son. But God the Son in becoming the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, at the moment of Consecration, renounces all the accidents and action of His Sacred Humanity, yet remains still God and Man.  Hence, even if a Pope were to renounce all his actions and ministries as Pope, he remains the Pope. But Pope Benedict XVI in his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces only the ministerium of his office, not the office. Therefore, he remains the Pope.

15. If you get up from your chair, but to not give the chair to another, the chair becomes vacant but remains your property.  Now the office of St. Peter’s Successor is to Saint Peter’s Successor as a throne is to the one enthroned. So if a Pope renounces the ministry of his office, but not the office, even if he intends by such a renunciation that the Throne of St. Peter be vacant, he does not cede his right and holding of the office. So when Pope Benedict writes declaro me ministerio … renuntiare ita ut Sedes Petri vacet its clear that while he renounces serving as Pope, he does not renounce the Papacy.

16. If any President, Prime Minister or father of a family renounces fulfilling the duties of his office, he nevertheless has not ceased to be President, Prime Minister or father. Likewise with the Pope, if he textually renounces only the ministry of his office, he has not lost his office.

17. God, who is Being, as the institutor of the Office of Peter, cannot regard as resigned from the office of the Successor of Saint Peter, any Roman Pontiff, validly elected, who only renounces accidents or second acts of the being of that office. But Pope Benedict XVI renounced only the ministerium, or exercise of the office, which he had received, not the munus, which is the office itself [cf. Canons 332 §2 and 749 §1]. Therefore, since the exercise of office is the second act of the being of the office, God cannot acknowledge such a resignation as valid. And if God does not recognize it as valid, neither can the Church. Therefore, in such a resignation, etc..

18. The essence of ‘being the Pope’ is the dignity of the office held. The essence of a ministry is the service rendered. Therefore, just as renunciation of a service does not cause the loss of dignity, so the renunciation of the Petrine Ministry does not cause the loss of Papal office.   Therefore, in such a resignation, etc..

19. In Canon Law ministerium is not the locus of right (ius), that is found only in sacraments (sacramenta) and offices (munera).  Therefore, he who renounces ministerium, renounces no right. But Pope Benedict XVI in his renunciation, Non solum propter, renounces the ministerium he received from the hands of the Cardinals. Therefore, he does not renounce any right. And if he renounces no right, he retains all rights, and thus remains the Pope.  If it be objected, that he renounced the ministerium so as to vacate the See of St. Peter (ita ut Sedes S Petri vacet), it must be responded that, since vacare, in Latin has 2 senses: that of conceding right and that of simply going away, as on a vacation, the assertion of renouncing ministerium so as to vacet the Roman See implies no necessity of signifying a renunciation of right.  Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

20. As the learned canonists Juan Juárez Falcó argues:  Canon 332 which is the only canon regarding Papal renunciations speaks of the renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium. But Benedict XVI speaks only of renouncing the ministerium, not the munus. Ergo per canon 188, the renunciation is invalid to effect a renunciation of munus. But as per canon 145, the munus is the office. Therefore, in such a resignation, etc..

For the arguments, to the Contrary, and their refutations, see part II.

In summation:

As the eminent Canon Lawyer, Fr. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, says, commenting on Canon 126:  When the ignorance or error regards the essential object of the act, … then the act must be considered as never having been posited, invalid. (Codice di Diritto Canonico, e Leggi Complementari: Commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, 2004, commentary on canon 126).

Hence, it appears, that if a Pope were to intend to retire from active ministry, but retain the Papal Office in all its fullness, that he could just as well read out loud the statement made by Pope Benedict XVI, Non solum propter, since the vis verborum of that text is that he renounced the ministry of the office of the Bishop of Rome, but not the office. Herein lies the substantial error, and thus that act of Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 must be judged to be invalid, as per canon 188, if it be asserted to be an act of resignation of the office of Bishop of Rome. However, if one were to assert that it is only the act of renunciation of active ministry, not of office, then yes, it should be said to be a valid act, containing no substantial error.

In Conclusion, Philosophical Reason

Though there can be many kinds of substantial error in an act of resignation, there is NONE more SUBSTANTIAL than the one which involves confusing the accidents of the office to be resigned as sufficient terms to signify the substance of the office itself. Now, according to canon 188, where substantial error is present in such an act, the act is invalid in its effect “by the law itself”. Therefore, the text of Non solum propter, of Benedict XVI does not effect validly his resignation from the office of the Bishopric of Rome.

In Conclusion, Canonical Reason

This is corroborated by undisputed facts of law, namely that the only Canon in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 322 §2, which speaks expressly of a papal resignation, requires that the man who is pope resign the munus and do so rite (i.e. properly according to the norms of law). But the text of Benedict’s resignation speaks only of a renunciation of ministerium.  Therefore, since it regards an act wholly outside the meaning of Canon 332 §2, the act is invalid to effect a Papal resignation. It is also thus invalid to effect the same by the law itself, according to Canon 188, and by canon 126.

Indeed, the inherent separability of ministerium from munus in Ecclesiastical history and canonical tradition is the fundamental reason why no renunciation of ministerium can be equated in law as a due manifestation of the resignation of an office. For that reason, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI made through the act, Non solum propter, of February 11, 2013 A.D., has no valid canonical effect regarding the office of the Papacy. He remains the Pope, therefore, with all rights and privileges.

On which account, as a baptized Roman Catholic, Italian Citizen and legal resident of the City of Rome, I call upon the Italian Government to invoke its right, as a party to the Lateran Pact and its subsequent agreements, to convene the entire Clergy of the Diocese of Rome, to judge in tribunal, just as they did in A. D. 1046 at Sutri, at the command of the Germany King Henry III, the validity of the claim to office of Popes Benedict and Francis, namely, whether the act of renunciation of Benedict XVI was valid as to a renunciation of office, and if not, to declare the Conclave of 2013 canonically invalid ex radicibus.