Authorized English translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Dear readers of Stilum Curiae,
After the visit [on Friday evening, January 17] of Cardinal Robert Sarah to Benedict XVI, and his declarations [on Twitter], the same “Monsignor X” who wrote us a few days ago has offered us another intervention. He appears justly indignant at what is happening in the Vatican, and in particular among the journalists of the Vatican court. And he makes an interesting proposal….
§§§
En raison des polémiques incessantes, nauséabondes et mensongères qui ne se sont jamais arrêtées depuis le début de la semaine, concernant le livre Des profondeurs de nos cœurs, j’ai rencontré ce soir le Pape Émérite Benoît XVI. (1) +RS
“Because of the incessant, nauseating, and untrue controversies that have never stopped since the beginning of the week concerning the book “From The Depths of Our Hearts,” this evening [Friday, January 17, 2020] I met with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. +RS. With Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we have been able to certify that there is no misunderstanding between us. I left very happy, full of peace and courage from this beautiful audience. +RS”
Friends of Stilum Curiae,
who was responsible for the this attempt to harm Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI? I pray you take note of the expression used by Cardinal Sarah to connote the facts:
“Incessant, nauseating and untrue.”
I realize that it will be a waste of time, as was true with the Dubia and the Correctio Filialis, but do we want to call for an investigation?
Shall we ask Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin to create an Investigative Commission that will shed light on an affair that has sought to defame the reputation of the Pope Emeritus and a most eminent Cardinal?
The expression of Sarah – “nauseating” – struck me. Something nauseating – that is, which provokes nausea and generates a sense of repulsion, disgust, and contempt – is attributed to an immoral person, who therefore arouses a feeling of repulsion.
Since we know how much Cardinal Sarah weighs his words, it is now indispensable to identify this immoral person who is going around in the Vatican, in the Catholic Church.
It will not be easy to find this exact “specific” immoral person, given the number and variety of immoral people who are behind the Sacred Walls of the Vatican, disguised as priests or as expert journalists of communications services, rather than experts in theology or liturgy.
But someone who has experience in such investigations ought to be able to identify him. They could entrust the oversight of this Investigative Commission to Cardinal Herranz, the former president of the Herranz Commission, which was convened by Benedict XVI to shed light on Vatileaks I, which in 2012 discovered intricacies and conspiracies, identified names and reported them secretly to Pope Benedict XVI, a few days prior to February 11, 2013. Then the Pope resigned.
And it was Don Georg Gänswein, first and personally, who hurried – surprisingly – to explain that the resignation was a decision that had been made by Pope Benedict for at least a year!!
I propose a hypothesis: that what has just happened in the matter of the Sarah – Benedict book is connected by an umbilical cord to what happened in 2012.
In short: Benedict XVI had to definitively disappear from history – and the same is true today. Because Benedict XVI was restoring the Church of Christ, which was instead destroyed, and continues to be destroyed.
DON’T BE LIKE THE 3 OUT OF 4 WHO READ THIS
AND NEVER SIGN THE PETITION!
Petition to President Trump to advocate for the protection of all the elderly, including POPE BENEDICT XVI!
TEXT OF THE PETITION
As recent events at the Vatican have shown, the elderly and frail Pope Benedict is being housed in a facility where the man responsible, Archbishop Gänswein, is attacking his collaborators and claiming he did not do or say or approve what he did approve and say and do. We are concerned that this elderly man is being manipulated for political reasons, which is elder abuse. We are also concerned because of his fidelity to Catholic teaching, that he might be further victimized in the near future by members of Bergoglio’s government. We therefore ask President Trump to raise concern about this issue by issuing one tweet:
“I am concerned for the welfare of all the elderly and that they not be abused or manipulated, including Pope Benedict XVI. I urge all to take effective steps for their care!”
So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.
Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 12, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.
Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:
Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?
These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.
I am not accustomed to write posts about the Internet, but when I run upon something really disgusting, I feel compelled.
It’s YouTube.
No, and I am not talking about so many of its videos.
I am talking about its search engine. Well, at least how its search engine works when I use it.
I did a search for Videos about Benedict XVI. And in the results it gave me videos of “Pope Francis” in the mix.
If you know anything about search engines, that is not supposed to happen. There is no Pope Benedict in anything of those which appeared entitled “Pope Francis”.
So to avoid the annoyance, I added another search term to the same search, “-Francesco”, which according to the custom of search engines is supposed to guarantee that the search will exclude occurrences of “Francesco”.
But that is not what happened.
In my second search, I also lost videos of Pope Benedict.
That means that YouTube, ostensibly at the request of Bergoglio, has tied the name of “Benedict XVI” to the name “Pope Francis”, so if you try to avoid seeing the Argentine Usurper, you miss out on the Catholic Pope.
That is Despicable!
We are in full 1984 George Orwell mode.
And someone’s ego is over sensitive!
I suggest you fight back. I post the above image
to do my part. We must speak the truth to godless power.
Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian
Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.
Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.
The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.
Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.
George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.
The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.
Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.
The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.
The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know. Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.
Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.
In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.
Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.
Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!
The devout and humble desire of a Catholic blogger to wish Pope Benedict “Merry Christmas” has resulted in another significant proof that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and that the Prefect of the Pontifical Household recognizes him as the pope.
The blogger sent his Christmas Wishes at the beginning of Advent, and received a reply via the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, D.C., USA, yesterday in an envelope mailed on January 2, containing the official stationary of Archbishop Gänswein in the form of a two-sided Christmas Card with the foto of a Christmas Creche on one side and these words in Italian on the other:
Un buon Natale e un buon Anno Nuovo 2020 ricco di benedizioni celesti. Georg Ganswein Segretario Particolare di Sua Santita Benedetto XVI, Papa emerito
Which in English is:
Whising you a good Christmas and a good New Year of 2020, rich in heavenly blessings.
George Gänswein, Special Secretary to His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope emeritus
Significance
As anyone knows who writes to the Roman Curia or the Holy Father, a response, if received at all, is sent through official channels, by diplomatic courier to the Apostolic Nuncio in their own country, and then by regular mail to their address. This is the practice outside of Italy, at least, in the USA.
Private individuals do not receive mail through the Apostolic Nuncio. For example, I have on occasion written both Cardinals Sarah and Burke. Their response was NOT mailed to me via the Apostolic Nuncio, since it was private correspondence and not in virtue of their office in the Curia.
To receive a Christmas Greeting in response to one sent to Pope Benedict through the Apostolic Nuncio means that the Vatican has recognized that Benedict is still a member of the Roman Curia in the very least. I have it from the receiver that he did NOT write to Archbishop Gänswein, but to Pope Benedict, as pope.
The words of Archbishop Gänswein are also proof of the failed resignation. Because after a Roman Pontiff resigns, He can no longer be addressed as “Your Holiness”, because that title indicates that the person addressed is still the Pope, the holiness of which is derived from retaining the PETRINE MUNUS, which is first of all a gift of grace and then a vocation and special source of graces.
Why is this important? Because in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which governs the Roman Church, the papal office is termed a munus in Canons 331, 332 §2, 333 and 749. And in Canon 145 §1, the Code calls an ecclesiastical office a munus. Thus if Benedict is still “His Holiness”, and that unique holiness comes from the unique munus, that means the Benedict still holds the unique office of the Pope. And thus, no one else does, according to the divine institution of the papacy, which no one, not even a pope, can alter.
The statement of the Archbishop also shows the invalidity of the resignation on account of the confusion of substantial error, in that, despite addressing Benedict with the salutation “His Holiness”, the Archbishop nevertheless calls him “Pope emeritus”, which no “Holiness” can be.
Finally, one can safely presume that the Christmas Card received by the American correspondent was not printed up solely for him, but was produced in quantity. This means that Gänswein is sending the same message to all who wrote Pope Benedict. It is nothing short of a universal declaration. The fact that the Apostolic Nuncio is mailing such Christmas Cards out, means that the Nuncio also recognizes Benedict has holding the Petrine Munus, the Papal dignity, still.
There is no other Traditional Catholic explanation of these events. You can only explain it away by jettisoning the meaning of words Catholics have used for centuries. But that would be Modernism to even contemplate!
POST SCRIPT: If any other of the readers of the From Rome blog have written to Pope Benedict and received a reply, please let me know, if you would like to share what you received in reply. This will help the entire Catholic world understand better how the Pope is doing.
And no, I am not talking about the events leading up to February 11, 2013.
The Plot
I am speak about the plan moving through sections of the Roman Curia right now to “solve” the problem of a “Pope emeritus”. I have this on the word of a very highly respected member of the Roman Curia who told me of it.
The enemies of Christ realize that this title proves that the resignation was never complete and therefore that Pope Benedict never renounced the Papal Office at all, and is still the pope. That means Bergoglio’s entire reign of terror was uncanonical, a fraud, of no value, not legally binding on the Church in anything.
They cannot tolerate that. So now they feel confident in removing “the evidence of the problem”.
I wonder whether there are different points of view here. Do some want Benedict to stop calling himself “pope”, signing as the “Pastor of Pastors, Pope Benedict XVI” (Benedictus XVI P.P.)*, wearing the white cassock and skull cap? Do others go so far as to want him out of the Vatican and no longer cared for by the Head of the Pontifical Household? Do still others want a “canonical” solution which pretends or keeps up the pretense of a valid resignation?
I believe dissent on this matter is visceral, right now, in the Vatican. The Head of the Vatican Police seems to have been a partisan of the group which holds that Bergoglio has no valid claim, since, when he tendered his resignation this fall, Bergoglio demanded of him that he mention, in his letter of resignation, that he recognizes “Pope Francis as the Successor of Saint Peter”, a textual statement which has nothing to do with a letter of resignation per se, but which proves that Bergoglio is on the war path to punish anyone who thinks otherwise. (Did Sodano’s sacking have anything to do with this? — I do not know, but he certainly does know of the controversy since there is nothing going on in the Vatican that he does not know through his many clients there).
And do not doubt it. The whole Roman Curia knows that Benedict is still the pope and that in their haste they were wrong in presuming that he resigned the office of St. Peter in February 2013. I make this claim on the basis of the human reactions I get when discussing this with learned partisans of the Bergoglian regime. It’s a topic with which they are very familiar and know precisely what to say and not to say to pretend otherwise. They also employ their most forceful anger against those facts and points-of-law-in-application which directly address the problem. It’s such a hot potato, that few are even willing to speak about it. And some even run away when they see you coming, if you have requested to speak with them on this topic.
Their hope is that most of the laity are dopes and will keep eating up the propaganda that their handlers in the press and social media keep putting out: Shut up! Do not think about it! It does not matter! You are seeing things! You are a heretic and a schismatic if you say otherwise!** The Revolution, in the minds of the Bergoglian party, must go forward. They have to have approbation of all that is evil and the utter destruction of the Church which claims to be founded by the true Jewish Messiah. That is the end game.
The Battle of 2020
Pope Benedict XVI for his part has made it quite clear that his “yes” to accept the Papal Office is a “forever” yes. There is thus going to be a battle, and it will break out in 2020. Catholics who love and remain in communion with Pope Benedict need to go on the war path.
We need to identify and contact the 40 to 70 Cardinals, whom the Vaticanista, Edward Pentin, said in 2017,*** were inclined to call an imperfect council to remove Bergoglio on the grounds that his claim to the papacy is vitiated by some canonical problem, whether heresy, schism or invalidity.
We need to mobilize Catholics to financially support any effort which is necessary to defend the person of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict.
We need to keep up the heat on the partisans of error: those devilishly bold individuals who lie in public and are willing to say anything to keep you from realizing
that in Canon Law the Latin word munus HAS NEVER meant MINISTERIUM,
that Pope Benedict NEVER SAID HE RESIGNED the petrine munus
that Pope Benedict NEVER AFFIRMED THAT HE INTENDED to resign the petrine munus.
that the Cardinals and journalists are not infallible, when they say the contrary of nn. 1, 2, or 3.
that the Cardinals, journalists, and Bishops have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to interpret the act of renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 as an act of renunciation of anything other than ministerium.
Those who are telling these lies are all getting hefty salaries from someone. Those who are calling out the liars get salaries from no one. That should tell you which side is from God and which is from Mammon. As public liars and frauds, they have no right to be seen for what they are not: honest men who are intellectually respectable or reliable. For more than 6.5 years they have marshaled no arguments against the canonical invalidity. And yet they insist that they should be listened to!
Operation Portugal
We need to organize Catholics in Portugal to prepare a place or places of refuge for the Pope, if He should chose to flee Rome, since, as Our Lady hinted in BOLD LETTERS during the apparitions there, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved.” And all who know their Catholic theology well, know that that implies that Portugal will at the very least remain in communion with the true Pope, if not be a place of refuge for him and His valid successors, if needed.
May the Holy Saints of the Knights Templar**** in Portugal and their devotees in our own time MOBILIZE.
May we all do our duty now in the most important battle, in the Church, to come in 2000 years.
_________
* Which clearly indicates he has in his own mind never resigned or intended to resign the Papal dignity, despite what some Cardinals are conjecturing.
** This plot to dethrone Benedict is thus evidence that their propaganda has been just that. It has served to hide the evidence from public view, it never was an honest denial.
**** I mention this Order because it took refuge from an unjust suppression in Portugal and was refounded there in the 14th century. There are thus many faithful Catholics devoted to their memory, in Portugal, and I pray they become the network for helping Pope Benedict.
This video is in Spanish, but has English subtitles, and the entire transcript in English can be found at the Wild Voice, which has been a prophetic leader on the web, warning the Church about the St Gallen Mafia from the beginning. — Father Martin seems to be a former worker at the Vatican during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Says he knows Joseph Ratzinger personally.
In this homily, Father Santiago reveals how widespread the hatred and opposition for Pope Benedict was among the clergy and how there was exuberant rejoicing at this resignation. All signs which point to the real motivations for refusing to recognize the Renunciation was invalid. (See, How Benedict has defeated ‘Francis’ and, How Cardinal Sodano robbed the papacy from Pope Benedict). This also explains why its no exaggeration to suppose that Benedict has been imprisoned, not in a jail, but by an entire faction which wants him forever silenced.
Father Santiago, just as importantly, explains that he knew of the goals of the St. Gallen Mafia to attack Church teaching and overthrow the faith, and he warns against them. A warning, alas, which went unheeded, because the revolutionaries were already in charge at the Vatican.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, THAT IT WILL APPEAR BEFORE ALL NEW POSTS
(Scroll down below this Call to Prayer, to see new posts)
There are a lot of prayer initiatives around, which are merely human in origin. But when we pray, we should do so out of supernatural motivation and especially when requested by Heaven.
One of the most important prayer initiatives in Catholic History, is the Request that we pray much for the Holy Father. This request comes from no less than the saintly Children at Fatima, who urged us not only to pray very much for sinners, but that we should pray very much for the Holy Father.
This prayer request for the Holy Father comes from Sr. Lucia and from Jacinta, who being shown the grave difficulties in the Church spoke of the need to pray for the Holy Father for 2 reasons: That he might perform the Consecration to Russia requested by Our Lord; and that he might endure the persecution that he would one day suffer from those all around him.
Regarding the first reason, Sr. Lucia makes this statement in her Memoirs, p. 414:
“‘The Holy Father! Pray very much for the Holy Father! He will do it, but it will be late. Nevertheless, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia, which has been entrusted to it.'”
Jacinta’s Two visions
Regarding the second reason, Jacinta calls for prayers for the Holy Father, after seeing TWO of the events which are now taking place in the Church (Source): which Sr Lucia relates her third Memoir:
Also, in her third memoir, she tells us about two incidents in which Jacinta saw visions of a future Pope, and these also relate to the secret.
One day, while they were near the well at Lucia’s home, Jacinta asked her if she had seen the Holy Father. When Lucia replied, “No,” Jacinta said: “I don’t know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones; others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.”
Sr Lucia then tells us: “At another time, we went to the cave called Lapa do Cabeço. As soon as we got there, we prostrated on the ground, saying the prayers the Angel had taught us. After some time, Jacinta stood up and called to me: ‘Can’t you see all those highways and roads and fields full of people, who are crying with hunger and have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father in a church praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And so many people praying with him?’ Some days later, she asked me: ‘Can I say that I saw the Holy Father and all those people?’ ‘No. Don’t you see that that’s part of the secret? If you do, they’ll find out right away.’ ”
Let us respond!
Many authors believe that this FIRST vision of Jacinta is a prophetic revelation of what Pope Benedict is suffering since February 2013, because at no time in the history of the modern Papacy has a Pope resided in a small house, and been nearly universally derided by those in the Church. The image of a house being pelted with stones by those around it, also seems to imply that the worst enemies of the Holy Father are those in the Vatican which surrounds where he presently lives: in the Monastery of Our Lady Mother of the Church, at the heart of the Vatican Gardens.
The second vision of Jacinta appears to be Heaven’s indication of how to respond to the First vision: namely by JOINING WITH THE HOLY FATHER in prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!
Let us be that “so many people” praying with the Holy Father “before the Immaculate Heart of Mary”!
Chose whatever prayers you wish, but PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!
THIS IS THE LEAGUE OF PRAYER for the Holy Father. Spread the word and recruit others to offer:
Daily prayers.
Worthy communions and confessions.
Acts of penance and sacrifices.
Fasting and abstinence.
Alms for the poor.
Recitation of THE MOST HOLY ROSARY.
Acts of Consecration to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, whether personal or in groups, parishes, Dioceses etc.
Aquí está el famoso video del Sr. Brian Murphy (Why Benedict is still Pope), ahora doblado en español. Por favor compártelo con todos tus amigos en el mundo de habla hispana!
Esto es muy importante, porque una vez que el mundo de habla hispana conozca la verdad, será más fácil convencer al resto de la Iglesia del error.
Todavía estamos buscando voluntarios de voz que sean hablantes nativos de alemán e italiano. Y pido también polaco, portugués y francés.
The Statue of Saint Michael the Archangel, at the top of the Castello San Angelo, Rome (click for image credits).
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Today I want to confront and address the most urgent and crucial problem for the lay Catholic: the problem of apostasy among the clergy of one’s own local area.
This problem is crucial because without the Church we cannot be saved. And thus without Catholic Clergy we cannot have the sacraments and guidance we need to be saved.
I know of this problem first hand, since I am not a priest, nor do I have any particular talent at convincing priests of anything.
What I say here is for those of you who do not know your local priest well, or who are going to attempt to speak to a priest whom you do not know. For those of you who have a close friendship with a priest or your pastor, you might be able to undertake the core argument (see below) immediately after mass, because he knows you and trusts you already. So do not take my advice as some sort of scrupulous book of rules to follow. It all depends on the priest and your relationship to him AND whether he sincerely and ardently believes the Holy Faith.
Spiritual Warfare: Preparation & Armor
We live in dark times. And the workers of darkness have achieved already notable successes in deluding nearly everyone on earth in one or more error. This is especially true of the Clergy whom we know, nearly all of whom were ordained after Vatican II. Since the Council there has been an organized effort to turn priestly formation into a mind control process whereby, whatever priest who does survive, more likely serves the Club first and is willing to sacrifice God, Church, souls and you and your family for the Club.
Therefore, above all the first weapon we must use is spiritual discernment. And to have this we need first of all to put ourselves in the grace of God by a good confession and firm resolution to take the side of God and to collaborate with Saint Michael the Archangel in everything he may direct us..
This does not mean that he will start talking to us, but if we have confessed ourselves sincerely and show ourselves to be walking on the path of virtue and not of sin and hypocrisy, he will assist our guardian angel to give us little inspirations which lead to greater ones..
I recommend as essential spiritual-military preparations for the prospective spiritual soldier in the legion of Saint Michael, that, in addition to Confession, you do the following:
Consecrate yourself to Our Lady, especially under Her title as Corredemptrix, which She merits on account of her perfect collaboration with the Redeemer in meriting all the graces for us which He merited for us (cf. Fatima Prayer, “O Most Holy Trinity”), a title given to Her by Catholics for more than 800 years and which shows clearly that we have a way back to God when we spurn the graces of Christ; a way back, which He Himself established in His Infinite Mercy for sinners; a way back which was merited by Her surpassing humility and sorrow for sins, the two virtues which are key and essential to the personal conversion of every soul.
Make a pact with Saint Michael to never look upon what is impure and to ask him to protect you from near occasions of sin.
Ask forgiveness of your Guardian Angel for having ignored him throughout your entire life, for having disregarded so many of his good counsels, for having lived your life as if you were to live it on your own and not at God’s direction, for having claimed so many good ideas as your own, when it was he who inspired them, and for having disregarding so many good counsels to avoid sin and to practice virtue. As penance promise to obey his advice in every occasion from now on, and to mortify your mind of all idle thoughts by stop listening to music or the radio all day long, and by spending time each day in daily meditation in silence, keeping a spirit of prayer, by conversing with Jesus, Our Lady, the Saints and your guardian Angel throughout the day, in the silence and sanctuary of your mind.
Say 5 decades of the Most Holy Rosaryof the Blessed Virgin Mary daily.
Receive communion worthily when possible.
Offer alms to the truly poor in reparation for your sins. Do works of mercy to which you are invited or see the need as you see the need, but without neglecting your duties first to your family (parents, children, siblings etc.) and work (as contractually required, avoid the excess of making your job your life, as Christ is your real boss).
If your health can bear it, to fast on Fridays for your own sins, especially for following your emotions, passions and vices into sins. Fasting means eating less and less frequently in humble penance for sins. If you have had a bad habit of mortal sin, and are still tempted, make a clean break with your past life by a rigorous series of fasts, several days or every day of the week, for several weeks or months or years. This is especially needed for those who have given themselves up to gluttony, which is a very common vice in the developed countries of the world.
Spiritual Warfare: Ammunition
Now since the battle at hand requires that we achieve victories by delivering souls from the delusion of error, it is necessary that we prepare ourselves intellectually to explain how lies are lies and errors are errors.
The regular readers of my blog have a good head-start, because the whole purpose of my blog is to give this kind of information, which both orientates you, explains what is going on and gives some counsel on how to react to it.
But you need to also make a list of the biggest problems in the Church right now, because such a list is an excellent way to prepare talking points with priests. I will not suggest what you should put on the list, because it is best that you make up your own, because those issues you think most important are the ones you are apt to be able to speak about most sincerely and from the heart.
As for printed information, for priests I believe that not all information is needed or necessary or useful. But I do believe that the information at ppbxvi.org is the essential: The Canonical Argument, the Scholastic Question and the text of the Academic Conference. Having a copy printed out, with you, when you speak to priests is an easy way to leave something to continue the conversation, if he shows signs of openness to the truth. But to orientate yourself for any eventual discussion and to prepare yourself for any eventual objection, I recommend reading all the Article on the Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation.
This is because our Ammunition in this spiritual warfare is Truth about what really happened, what the Code of Canon Law really requires, and how the problem of the invalid resignation is not a complaint generated by faithful who dislike Bergoglio, but a real objective error of interpretation which puts those who accept the error in objective separation from the communion of the Church.
Spiritual Warfare: Strategy
In the science of War, there are two aspects which must be kept in mind and developed in a way that pertains to the realities on the ground: Strategy and Tactics. Strategy is the overall goal and plan for conquest. Tactics are the rules for conducing individual battles so that each can be won without dissipating or destroying allied forces, which are needed for other battles.
STRATEGY: The strategy in this battle is to save the local Church. This requires that we convert Catholics to the truth of what is going on. Now since every military force which is not adept at war is green and needs experience before tackling the most formidable opposition, the best way to start is to chose battles which are easy to win and which, if one fails, will not damage your own forces. Then having learned how to fight by trial and error in small and easy battles, the trained warrior can move on to the more difficult battles, assisted by experience gained and allies won in the first battles. Thus the most difficult battles, that of winning over your Bishop, for example, or getting your entire Diocese to reject the Apostasy, cannot be obtained initially without these preliminary battles. And the best way to practice this warfare, is not to start with priests, but with fellow laymen and laywomen.
INTELLIGENCE GATHERING: The local Church is a society. This society has a structure and way of operation. There are links between persons and persons, between institutions and institutions, of friends to friends and of work associates with work associates. This is the terrain of our warfare. Only Catholics who have lived their lives in the local Church can know of this. And to the extent that we do not know of it, we need to inform ourselves through our personal contacts with faithful Catholics who know better than ourselves. Essential to this initial battle preparation is intelligence gathering of such information. Try to find out who are the best and closest friends of the priest with whom you are going to speak, or which priests he admires most or were instrumental in his own vocation. There are some priests who on account of their learning, piety and sociability are respected by more priests than others are. Approaching a contact first, before approaching the priest, will help you understand whether he will be open to the truth, and will help you acquire, possibly, an ally in the approach, who might recommend to the priest that he speak with you, or recommend to you how to approach him.
The most influential priests in your diocese should be considered the most crucial and important battles to win. You do not want to start the spiritual battle with such a priest unless there is very sound grounds you are going to win it, because the results of a loss will be more devastating, as the enemy will be assisted greatly by recruiting such an ally.
Spiritual Warfare: Tactics
Tactics regards the rules of fighting individual battles of any kind. There are things to be done before initiating combat, things to be done at the start, middle and end of each battle and things to be done after the fight is won or lost.
BEFORE COMBAT
Prepare yourself spiritually and bring along plenty of ammunition, either in printed form or in memorized information. Essential intelligence gathered should have already indicated that the priest with whom you are about to speak is able to understand what you are going to say and willing to accept hearing it from you, at the time you ask, and in the manner you present it. Your intelligence gathering should already have assured you that this priest will not be afraid of you, or have heard calumny about you, so as to be on the defensive as soon as you approach him.
Pray to his guardian angel and to your guardian angels, to Saint Michael, the patron saints of you and the priest, and to the patron saints of the Parish and Diocese and Church, and those famous saints of your land our country. Explain to these Saints and Angels your intention and how important this fight will be and how you cannot succeed without their intercession and participation.
It makes a big difference, too, whether the priest is a pastor, or merely an assistant pastor: whether he be a diocesan or member of an institute. Some dioceses or institutes are mind-control societies and no free thought is allowed. Some priests are more independent and courageous and are willing to stand for the truth or for their own personal opinions. Do not try to win on a battle field which is unwinnable. If the priest is merely a robot, pray for him. If the priest is manipulative, avoid him. If he does not have a reputation for being faithful to the Church, go on to another priest, because the conversation you need to undertake would be too much for a weak or errant or non-thinker.
STARTING COMBAT
Never do what is done in real warfare: never use surprise. This is because in spiritual warfare, truth enters the soul when the person is relaxed and in the mood to accept information and use his reason. It is important therefore that the time of conversation be one in which the passions and emotions of the priest are lulled, that he has time to speak with you, and that your presentation does not seem to be too burdensome to him. So never sneak up on a priest for such a weighty conversation as this. Ask to speak with him at a time comfortable to him.
I would, therefore, recommend, that if you know the priest, to approach him at such a time. But if you do not know the priest, to arrange a meeting by asking for an appointment. Be sincere and say that all the scandals in the Church are causing many Catholics to think of leaving the Church and you would like to speak about some of these things to get some priestly advice. If a priest does not accept such a request, then do not nag him. Another way to approach, is if he is hearing confessions, then you can do this during your visit, though make sure not to start an actual confession, because if you do, you will bind him by his priestly duty not to speak or act upon whatever you may say.
When to start speaking to a priest about these things is, thus, more an art of knowing the individual priest, than a fixed rule. Due to the diverse dispositions and work of each priest, when to do this might be in entirely different situations, times of the day, days of the weeks, or locations, whether on parish grounds, or perhaps over a dinner at your house or a restaurant. Most priests are overworked and appreciate an invitation and friendly conversation.
CONDUCTING THE BATTLE: Opening salvos
At all times remain calm, friendly and polite. The objective is to spread truth and this only happens in a climate of trust and respect. If what you say or the way you say it cause the priest to be offended, apologize for upsetting him and explain you are only a layman who is not familiar with how one speaks of such things with priests. Also, make it clear that you are discussing this with him in private. Do not imitate me in my conversations with the Curia, because what I am doing at Rome is for the good of the whole Church to inform everyone. Your battles remember have the strategy of winning over your own diocese, and your tactics have to target individuals and secure victories. Keep your victories a secret and do no publish them. The objective, remember, is that the clergy of your own diocese publicly take a stand on their own initiative and as they think best.
As I suggested, have prepared a list of the major or most serious scandals in the Church today, as you see them. Gently move the conversation to one of these, and point out how damaging it is for the faithful who have increasingly more and more reasons to stop going to Church and stop trusting priests. Ask in a spirit of desiring to understand better and engage the priest in doing something to bridge this confidence gap.
If the priest expresses himself as a believer and as someone who is concerned about the truth and about the imminent destruction of the Church, then begin to point out that as Catholics our faith requires us to be consistent. We cannot believe in private and act as pagans in public. This is particularly true in Church. If we continue to pretend that the Church is communion with those who reject Jesus’s authority, then the faithful will just leave and seek Jesus elsewhere. If we continue to treat Jesus in the Sacrament as a candy to be given to everyone regardless of whether they are His friends, by being in the state of grace, or not, we teach in practice that Jesus does not exist and the the Faith is a joke and a farce.
At this point a priest will make it absolutely clear whether he cares or not. If he does not care, move the conversation on to something else or end it, and express your disappointment gently and with respect. For such priest, ending by saying something like, “I believe in Jesus, I want Jesus, and I do not know where to find priests who love Him as I do.” But chose words the way you speak. You want to make the most of every lost battle by leaving in a way that allows another encounter in the future. For priests such as this, who care not so much about truth, but sentiments, you need to show that he has failed in his conversation with you.
If the priest does make it clear he wants to save souls, then point out to him how important it is for him publicly and in his actions and words to take a stand. Explain that the laity only respect priests when they speak the truth, take a stand for truth, and encourage them to do the same. Many priests have forgotten, by the hum drum daily work they do, repetitious, that the laity want leaders in the path of God.
If he responds positively to this line of conversation, point out how in the past clergy have been heroic leaders in times of crisis. They did not fear to speak and they did not fear to pray publicly and preach publicly in accord with the truth. Point out how in today’s world, it is not infrequent that the battle for souls depends on truth and that journalists and a lot of others are habitually inclined to misrepresent the truth. The very ones who daily decry the Nazis are often the very ones who use his tactic of the Big Lie to deceive the masses. That is why priests who defend the truth are so needed today.
If he does not want to be heroic, ask him about how he feels when he does and says one thing in public, and another in private. Does it not cause an interior conflict or depression at having to pretend to go along with lies against the Faith, but personally believe the truths of the Faith? You can talk about all the hot topics in your diocese, such as ecology, woman priests or deacons, support of persons who are enemies of the Church in their politics or personal life. You can ask him what the final result will be of a life of the priesthood spent saying one thing and believing another, publicly promoting or go along with falsehood but being personally opposed. Point out that the prudent thing is to be consistent and if he wants to save souls to be a leader and preach the truth, not just believe it. Act on it, not just say it.
Don’t sound preachy. Speak about your own life and how important God, Jesus, the Church, the Faith is to you and how it has saved you from so many troubles, how Eternal Life is the prize you are seeking and how you want to know which priests really want to save souls, so you can support them.
If the priest passes these thresholds of faith, continue, otherwise wind down the conversation, or move it to other topics. Leaving a conversation respectfully and politely is much much better than leaving it with open conflict. However if a priest begins to defend error, heresy, immorality or apostasy in your presence you need to respond with faith, truth and believe and point out that he is wrong.
For the priest who passes these thresholds, you might want to continue the conversation on another day, if you have already talked at length. Most priests cannot take too much in at a time, they have do many duties and you are just another faithful talking about problems in the Church which he has talked to in the last x years of his ministry.
But if he seems sincerely eager to speak, since many priests cannot speak about these things with priests, this is the time to open up the discussion of how controversial and scandalous the Renunciation of Pope Benedict was and how the Catholic Church seems to be transforming into another religion under the direction of “Pope Francis”. If the priest begins to defend or excuse Francis, move the conversation back to the resignation. If he does begin to criticize Francis, also move the conversation back to the resignation, and point out the discrepancies.
CONDUCTING THE BATTLE: The core fight
The chief things to speak about in the core fight are these, in regard to the Renunciation:
It took everyone by surprise, so it is understandable that the shock put everyone in a state of mind in which they were not paying attention to the details of what happened.
No pope had resigned in 7 centuries, so it is understandable if no one was prepared to react properly.
Pope Benedict is a theological genius, and it is not surprising if his way of speaking was not precisely understood for what it really meant.
Point out then that in this matter the opinion of no one binds the opinion of no one, that what is binding is the requirement of Canon Law, because when the man who is the pope resigns, it is the man who separates himself from the Papal office not the Office which separates him.
Explain that like every moral or legal act, there is that which is done and that which is the object of what is done: there is thus a verb and and object of the verb. Canon 332 says the verb is “to renounce” and the object of the verb is the Petrine “munus”, which is the canonical and theological term for the Papal Office.
Affirm that common sense holds that you cannot declare something about anything unless you name the anything about which you are making the declaration.
Thus, when Pope Benedict said he was renouncing the ministry which he had received rather than saying he was renouncing the petrine munus, there is a clear problem which many missed, namely, that no one in the Church has a right to interpret that renunciation as a renunciation of office. This is because, to interpret is to explain a verbal expression using OTHER words.
Thus, the principles of law require us to hold that the Pope renounced His ministry, but do not signify that he renounced the Papal munus or Office.
Our status in the Church, indeed the status of everyone in the Church, even of the man renouncing, does not grant us the right to impose upon what was said a meaning other than the plain meaning of the words. If it was the intention of Pope Benedict to do something else, he should have done that, he could have done that and the Church has the right to tell him so.
In nearly 7 years, Pope Benedict has never said it was his intention to resign the petrine munus, even though in the Act of Renunciation he mentions this munus twice in the Latin text.
There is no solution to this problem other than that Catholics recognize that the Act of Renunciation did not effect the loss of the office. Pope Benedict XVI cannot fix this unless he redoes the Renunciation properly.
Since the Office of Saint Peter is not merely useful but necessary for the salvation of souls, and since who is pope is the touchstone or core of the Communion of the Church, those who are not in communion with the man who holds the petrine munus are in formal schism from the Pope and from Christ and From the Church.
The sign of communion and the practice of communion reach their highest apex and summit at Mass when the priest names the man in communion with whom he is offering the Sacrifice. This is the greatest and most important duty of a priest.
A priest cannot avoid this controversy without putting himself and his entire flock in risk of eternal damnation, because those who knowingly remain in schism are in mortal sin and cannot be saved, because by being separated from the Mystical Body of Jesus, they are separated from the Only one Who can save them!
The sin of Schism does not consist in erroneously naming the wrong man as pope in the Canon of the Mass, because you were mislead, but it does consist in naming the wrong man as pope in the Canon of the Mass once you are informed who still holds the munus.
No canonical penalty can be imposed upon a priest who names Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, precisely because anyone who would move to do such would thereby formally and publicly manifest that he is in schism from the Christ, from the Catholic Church and from the man who has never renounced the petrine munus according to Canon 332 §2.
Salvation is not possible for anyone who rejects submission to the true pope (cf. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).
Be ready to answer all objections. And be ready to explain the practical consequences.
A faithful and courageous and prudent priest will not need advice on what to do next. And it would be impolite to offer any. A young priest might need some advice.
Basically, the best way a priest could react, would be to investigate everything you said, and study the facts and original documents and law. Then being convinced of the truth, preach about it one Sunday to everyone and explain how the Catholic thing to do in such a controversy is to keep naming Benedict as the Pope for now. Then the faithful will support him and he can name Benedict in the Canon without scandal.
But a priest who does not have the courage to preach the truth, might benefit from advising him merely to name the Pope, without a proper name, because no one will really notice. Especially if he says that part of the canon not directly in front of a microphone or in a subdued voice. If he asks what he will say to others about this, advise only one course, to say exactly what you said to him. The truth.
CONDUCTING THE BATTLE: Clean up operations in victory, retreat strategies in defeat
The best outcome is that a priest agree with all these points and agrees to stop naming Bergoglio as the Pope. But nearly all priests will consider these things in private and no immediately disclose their next course of action. Be thankful that the priest heard you out. And promise to pray for him and support him to do the right thing.
The worst outcome is that a priest will interrupt or allow you to arrive at n. 21 but then violently disagree, by pretending it is all meaningless or by revealing himself as an ally of darkness. How you respond here has more to do with your sense of honor and tact. I cannot advise you. As a hermit I am obliged to say certain things a layman is not obliged to say. And I am expected to say them bluntly, because that is my vocation. But for a layman you have the right to leave the conservation by making some polite excuses but always do so in away that does not make it appear that these 21 points were motivated out of politics or hatred. Make it clear that you believe that God exists, that Jesus is really God, that Canon Law is upheld by Jesus and that objective reality is the world in which we must live. Never concede that anything true is up for grabs or that logical conclusions draw from facts are only opinions.
If you win the priest over to Pope Benedict, know that you will merit your own eternal salvation, because this is the greatest act of charity for a priest as a priest. Offer up the merit of the victory or of the defeat born patiently to obtain the graces needed for the next battle.
The best possible outcome is that you convert the priest to join you in this spiritual warfare. The worst possible outcome is that you make of him an ardent enemy who will zealously oppose the truth and warn priests not to speak with you.
If you do not have the reputation to speak with priests on account of such an evil counter-attack, devote your battles to winning over laymen and laywomen with the objective of turning them into front line fighters in the next battles. Teach them to avoid doing the things that did not work for you, and to do the things that did work.
REMEMBER: If you have failed, do not write off the priest. Catholics tried for years to convince me, and only after 5 years did I pay enough attention to read the original texts in Latin, and thus I instantly saw the problem. If you have failed, try to employ another layman or priest whom you have recruited to the cause of Benedict to try again. Sometimes only in numbers does a priest realize that it is something he should pay attention to and think about. If a whole crowd of parishioners approached him at the same time, or over several days and weeks, that would obviously impress him more than someone he does not know asking for a one time appointment.
Finally, the GREATEST STRATEGY for victory is to devote yourself to forming a local group of warriors to do all of the above and meeting from time to time to improve moral, discipline, strategy and tactics.
May God grant you Victory in this His Cause, and may Saint Michael be with you!
_________
NOTES: The most common attack you will receive in this work is that the Devil will send you a soul whom he has convinced to despair to such an extent that they have become an apostle of despair working to destroy the Church. They will say that this will not work, you should stop. They will flip categories of truth and say that speaking the truth is hurting the Church, that truth is a lie and that lies are truth, and that preaching the truth is evil. Pity these souls and ignore them and walk with them no more, just as you would block a troll on social media. Despair is the worst of all sins, because it most effectively blocks the work of the Holy Spirit and the intercession of Our Lady. Despair is a child of pride, because the person who despairs places himself over the entire order of mercy and providence and declares that God will not help those who do works of mercy.
I write this post to publicly thank Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, Titular Bishop of Civitate, who was appointed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
I met with him this morning at 9:45. The meeting lasted about 75 minutes. I did not record the meeting, but want to share with everyone what I remember of it, because of its great importance to the life of the Catholic Church.
I began by saying that I had come to discuss the interpretation of law (interpretatio iuris) or more specifically the right to interpret canonical acts (ius interpretandi). Bishop Arrieta is an expert on this matter, having served in the capacity of a Professor of Canon Law since 1984 at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce, and from 2003 to 2008 at the Preside of the “St Pius X” Institute of Canon Law at Venice, and as Canonist to the Apostolic Penitentiary. Since February of 2007, he has served in the Pontifical Council as its Secretary. This title does not mean he is a secretary, but rather, the Vice President as it were to the Council.
I want to remark on the gentleness and noble demeanor of the Bishop, who never used any hominems, never lost his patience and showed himself willing to discuss the most impolitic issues, from the point of view of canon law, in the Church.
I began my questions with a preface, and with the Bishop’s permission read to him my entire article, entitled, ¡Viva Guadalajara! which was published, here, at the From Rome Blog, this morning.
During the reading, the Bishop could not hide his amusement at the fictitious story, but as I moved to my comments on how this story applies not only to the first moments of a papacy but also to the last, that is, to a Papal renunciation, the amusement on his face disappeared instantly. — Nevertheless, he continued to be polite.
He confirmed for me the following facts:
To his knowledge, there was no meeting of canonists in February of 2013 which discussed the validity of the Act of Renunciation, nor whether a renunciation of ministerium effected a renunciation of munus.
To his knowledge, Pope Benedict XVI never explained himself to any Cardinal or canonists in private as to whether his act effected a renunciation of the petrine munus or office.
To his knowledge, no act of interpretation of the Renunciation was ever promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.
Bishop Arrieta did admit that he was asked questions regarding the Renunciation, on Feb. 11, 2013, but no question regarded the use of the term ministerium instead of munus.
He also confirmed for me these points of law:
If anyone heard Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013 explain or officially interpret his Act of Renunciation as an act of renouncing the munus, and left a sworn testimony to the fact, this would have no juridical value whatsoever. That is it would not make or alter the signification other than it is.
An act of papal Renunciation is not subject to the interpretation of anyone in the Church. That is, no one has the right to interpret it.
An act of papal Renunciation, therefore, must be certain in itself. If it is not certain, it is invalid.
There is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which predicates the term ministerium of an ecclesiastical office.
What Ganswein said at the Gregorian University in 2016 A.D. — he admitted he had not read the text of Ganswein in full or in the original — is impossible, since the Papal Office is theologically incapable of being held by more than one man at a time.
It is canonically impossible that two persons hold he Petrine Munus at the same time.
The Roman Curia shares in the Petrine Ministerium, but not the Petrine Munus.
There can only be one pope.
The Pope is subject to Divine Law and cannot split the office.
Canon 1331 §2, n. 4 does allow an excommunicated person to hold a ministry in the Church, but that there is a reform of the Penal Code in the works and that this is something that will be addressed.
Canon 332 §2 requires a verbal renunciation, not a renunciation which is signified by gestures or after the fact statements.
The supreme theological and legal principle for interpretation of canonical acts is the teaching of Jesus Christ, where He said, “Let your yes be Yes, and your no, No, anything else comes from the Devil” (Mt. 5:37)
Now Bishop Arrieta did not agree with me in everything. He made it clear to me that he holds the following positions:
The Renunciation of Pope Benedict was certain and clear.
The Renunciation clearly signified the renunciation of the office of the papacy.
It is morally impossible in the judgement of Bishop Arrieta, based on his knowledge of the man, Ratzinger, that Pope Benedict intended to deceive anyone by pretending to resign one thing instead of the other.
Canon 332 §2, as regards the requirements of liberty and due manifestation, is not talking about a renunciation of the petrine munus.
The necessity in a papal renunciation is a renunciation of the papal office, not of the petrine munus, which is a canonical term which does not adequately reflect the theological reality.
In the Code of Canon Law there is no clear distinction between munus and ministerium.
Regarding this 4th position of the Bishop, I must say I tried to get a word in edgewise to object to such a patently false statement, as if conditions for validity for an act of renunciation of munus only regard the act of renouncing and not the object which is to be renounced. I think the Bishop just said this out of desperation because it is logically absurd on the face of it, as you cannot read part of a sentence which regards conditions for validity and ignore what was said as the fundamental condition for the occurrence or discernment of the occurrence of the act in question!
Regarding the 5th position, I disagree, because Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ, by promulgating the Code imposed upon the whole Church the canonical obligation of understanding it in accord with Canon 17, not as defective in anything. Therefore, an interpretation of canon 332 §2 which implies a defect, cannot be authentic.
I won’t respond here to n. 6, since I have devastatingly refuted it in the recent Academic Conference at Rome, the excerpt of which I published on this very topic, here.
What left me unsatisfied about our conversation is that I asked a lot of questions, but Mons. Arrieta could not give me answers. Here are some of my question, not verbatim, but according to their sense, that the Bishop did not or could not answer:
If it is clear that Pope Benedict resigned his office, can you explain to me canonically how he did that if he never mentioned the office or the Petrine Munus?
If Canon 41 gives to every priest the discretion and right to evaluate the Papal Act of Renunciation before deciding to stop naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, as the Pope, why it is canonically wrong if he exercise this discretion, judge the act nullus and continue to name Benedict?
If no one has the right to interpret the Papal Act, how can you explain why nearly everyone in the Hierarchy holds that it effected a renunciation of the Papal Office, if nowhere in the Act did Pope Benedict say I renounce the office or the munus? Is that not an interpretation?
While I am willing to concede out of respect for Pope Benedict that he did not maliciously intend to deceive, is it not possible he was in substantial error when he resigned one thing and not the other?
Does not our loyalty to Jesus Christ, Who bound Himself to observe Canon Law, require us to consider as possible that the Pope be in error in thinking he can resign part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest? or was wrong in desiring to bifurcate the papacy?
Does not the historical facts that 1) Pope Benedict XVI before his elevation to the Papacy knew of the desires of many German theologians to split the papal office along the lines of the petrine munus and the petrine ministry, and 2) the strange way of renouncing the ministry, but not the munus, coupled with 3) the testimony of Ganswein his personal secretary, who should know the mind of the Holy Father, produce the most sound forensic testimony that the Pope did intend to bifurcate the Papal Office and should be corrected by the Church, even if we personally hold that he had no such intention by way of supposition and respect for his person?
The Bishop closed by remarking that my approach to the reading of the Act of Renunciation was strange to him, that he has never considered this problem before, that he has never read about this controversy, but that I had given him “much to think about”.
CONCLUSION
The sum of what Mons. Arrieta told me leads me to conclude the following:
The Act of Renunciation was presumed from the start to be a renunciation of the Papacy, without any consideration of the discrepancy of renouncing the ministerium instead of the munus, as if the Code of 1917 were operative, and not the Code of 1983.
There has never been any canonical reflection on the canonical value of the Act of Renunciation by anyone known to Bishop Arrieta.
There are no canonical arguments for the validity of the renunciation to effect a loss of the Papal Office, because the interpretation is simply a presumption based on an extrinsic method of reading the act (as I point out in my previous article), which is the most unauthentic and error-prone method of interpretation.
The opinion of No Cardinal or Bishop or Priest on this matter constrains anyone in the Church to accept it, because no one has the right to say that the Papal Act means something other than it expressly says.
Thus, the Renunciation of Pope Benedict DID NOT effect the loss of the Papal Office. He remains the Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Pontiff with all rights and privileges, all prerogatives and powers, graces and carisms, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT RENOUNCE THE PAPACY BY WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT RENOUNCED THE PAPACY!*
Finally, I do want to thank the Bishop for his patience. Several times in the 75 minutes we spent discussing this most important matter, he remarked he had other duties, but stayed anyhow when what I said was substantial and presented a line of argumentation which he felt necessary to respond to.
____________
* For those not familiar with the technical language, in this controversy, “papacy” here refers not to the Vatican, nor to the Papal State(s) or Territory, nor to the government of the Vatican, but to the Office of the Roman Pontiff. And I use this term here in the linguistic sense, not in the sense of the thing, but of the thing as named. For example, a husband refers to his wife by either one of her proper names, first, middle, last, or improper names, such as honey, dear, sweetie, or by a pronoun standing alone or followed by a subordinate phrase, such as, “the one who does the dishes”. If he says, I am going to get rid of the dish-washing, the bathroom-cleaning, the meal-preparation and the warm bed, he has not referred logically nor verbally to his wife, because the actions which his wife does or the effects of which she is the cause are not her, they are effects or actions under her power, and by naming them, one does not name necessarily or determinatively the one who is his wife. — So likewise, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministry but not the Papal Office, he did not renounce the Office, because he did not name it, he only referred to that which might be construed as the ministry which flows from it. The intellectual incapacity or inability to recognize this common law of human language and signification is at the heart of the reason why so many think Benedict resigned the papacy, when in reality he did nothing of the kind. However, why he did what he did, is besides the point (praeter rem), because whatever his motives, the act remains invalid, null.
Yes, in that direction, 350 meters, dwells Christ’s Vicar on Earth: Pope Benedict XVI, in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery, which is nearly at the geographical center of the Vatican City State.
So close, yet so far, because if the faithful were only free to speak with Him, I am sure we could convince him to take up again the Petrine Ministry and exercise again the Petrine Office which He has never renounced.
Many ask, when the present crisis in the Church will come to an end, if ever.
Many fear that we are in the end times and that all will go downhill from here.
But as regards prophecies, the Saints remind us that we know neither the day nor the hour of the End. Thus, we cannot omit good works and even heroic works to solve the problems in our own times.
If we had 50,000 Catholics standing with me hear at the wall, and willing to walk prayerfully and humbly to the Vatican, to unveil there our Banners and Flags can call for Pope Benedict to return, then I think that crisis would be nearer to the end.
Because, until at least some of us show God that we believe in the truth of the Religion He gave us, that we are willing to come to Rome en mass and demonstrate that Faith, I really do not think we deserve it.
If we are not willing to do that, while we remain willing to march on our national capitals for this or that political purpose, then I think we can rightly be said to be hypocrites.
And God despises hypocrisy. He came down to Earth to destroy pride and hypocrisy and to save the humble. — And, alas, the problem is that so few know this truth, and those of us who do, know about it through social media, which is a medium inclined to inform but not to motivate anyone to action.
But all true motivation, has only one source, the Holy Spirit, Who has never inspired anyone to sit on a couch and do nothing about evil.
And if you want the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it is not sufficient to ask and presume, you need to pray humbly and in secret and with ardent perseverance and confidence, that, in the doing of any good any holy work, which is necessary for the salvation of souls, He is with us!
These are my thoughts and the subject of my prayers. — Br. Alexis Bugnolo
So much has been written about Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, that it is easy to forget or miss important articles. Since a lot of visitors who come to The From Rome Blog want to read about Benedict’s renunciation, it is helpful to have in one post, a list of all the Articles published here.
This is a topical, not chronological list: that is, it lists articles according to what aspect of the controversy they principally deal with, not according to the date they were published.
Before reading any of the Articles, see this public notice about FACTS VS CONJECTURE
And make sure to read the last section, which is the MOST important: What we must now do!
An Index to our Articles on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation
Br. Bugnolo’s Third Translation, attempting to reveal the authentic meaning by ignoring the narrative about what it is supposed to say, and rendering the text into English solely according to the grammatical sense.
A Fictitious Canonical Case to explain why an extrinsic method of interpreting a Papal Resignation is the worse possible way and most error prone method to understand what it means.
Andrea Cionci:The Renunciation that was written to break the bank, English translation of the article which appeared in the Italian Daily, the Libero, June 11, 2020, and which shook the Church in Italy. The Bishop’s Daily responded only by personal attacks.
Andrea Cionci’s “Possible Reconstruction of Benedict’s Plan B”, published here in English as, “Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism and Freemasonry” (PDF and Online Version), which is the MOST complete reconstruction according to the words and statements of Pope Benedict XVI. — A MUST READ, DROP EVERYTHING NOW!
What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant
Here is a new video explaining how and why Benedict XVI is still the pope.
Many thanks to Brian Murphy, the narrator and producer, as well as to all who worked on this Video.
Apart from Ann Barnhardt’s videos on the failed renunciation, this is the first I know of which attempts to present the entire problem and is produced by those who understand its canonical, theological and political implications.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about how Benedict is still pope, see the Index all the Articles on that topic, here at the From Rome Blog.
The text of this video was produced to make this video a good introduction to every Catholic. I encourage all to share it on social media.*
The other websites for the Cause of Pope Benedict are:
ppbxvi.org (Official International Site for the Movement to restore Benedict)
ChiesaRomana.info (Official Site for the Diocese of Rome in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, in Italian)
Barnhardt.biz (The brave and feisty Catholic Woman who nearly single-handedly raised the issue and kept it alive. A true modern Joan of Arc)
Non Veni Pacem (Highly Intelligent comments, criticisms and insights)
Catholic Monitor (Exposing the contradictions of Benedict’s opponents with their own words)
Catholics need to share the information that shows Benedict is still the Pope. It is the truth and we are obliged to remain faithful to the Pope, no matter what — no matter if he is confused or lucid, no matter whether the Cardinals are faithful to him or not, no matter if the entire Church knows he is or is not the pope.
As I reported the other day, NOT EVEN ONE OF THE MOST EMINENT CANONISTS AT ROME can refute these facts and arguments. It seems unbelievable, but it is true. I can testify to it in court.
*The only thing I disagree about, is that in the video it says that Pope Benedict XVI intended to split the papacy. I am of the opinion, that the evidence can just as well indicate that he resigned only the ministry, after the example of the last Hapsburg Emperor of Austria, as both a sign that those demanding this of him, were Freemasons, and to prevent them obtaining the papal office. — Though, I concede that the sign might not apply, because that there is a sign here, is my interpretation based on a lot of conjecture, but that there is an effect here, is based totally upon canon law.
_________
Finally, an unsolicited plug for Barnhardt’s latest post which is directed to all those who are praying that Bergoglio become a true holy father. — This is a must read for all who love Faith and rationality.
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 a thing of great importance: your being cut-off. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 accompanying decisionem either as a dative of possession (your being cutt-off) or a dative of object with a verb of separation which begins with de- (a decision for you, a separation from you, etc.)!
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, if Benedict has this in mind. But if he is playing on the double meaning of decisio and decisione in Latin and English, then decision must stand, but then the meaning is very different.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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, …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celeriummutationum 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.
And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
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.
Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
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.
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 beneadministrandum (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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
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!
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
This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 devobis 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.
Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
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.
As the long time readers of my blog, From Rome, know, I have extensively covered the Renunciation of Pope Benedict in articles analyzing it’s canonical value (here), who perpetrated the seizure of power from him (here), how it lead to his de facto imprisonment (here) and how, nevertheless, He has triumphed over all his enemies by it (here). Moreover, I have covered the signs he has given after the fact that he never resigned validly (here, here and here). And in many other articles.
Now I want to focus on how the Renunciation happened, that is who was behind it and how it went down, to show that in some respects it might have been a forced and in others, a free act, and how and why Benedict may have sound reasons to be continually hesitant to admit what he really did and why.
History is Context
Fred Martinez, of Catholic Monitor Blog, is doing some excellent work at cutting through the propaganda of the controlled Catholic media. In his post of Monday, October 29, 2018, entitled, “Is Francis our first gay Pope?” he laid out in great detail all the evidence that the core agenda of Bergoglio is to achieve the agenda of the LGBTQ movement.
Two days and one year later, Raffaela, who blogs at, Il Blog di Raffaela. Riflessione e Commenti fra gli amici di Benedetto XVI, published a very excellent historical chronical of Pope Benedict’s war against pedophilia in the Church, in a blog post entitled, “Le decisioni e l’esempio del Papa Benedetto XVI nel combattere la piaga della pedofilia nella Chiesa. Cronologia“ (English translation: The decisions and example of Pope Benedict XVI in fighting against the plague of pedophilia in the Church. A Chronology).
These two excellent contributions to Church history by lay bloggers are the necessary context to understand the forced abdication of Pope Benedict, or rather, to discern what I believe are the general and specific indications that in some way the Renunciation was demanded of Pope Benedict and in some way it was a free act.
Rules of Power
The first forensic criterion to employ is the common principle, often quoted here in Italy, of Cui prodest? This Latin maxim means, literally, Who is profiting from it? And the soundness of this principle in forensic investigations is based on the principle of moral theology, that no one does anything purposeful without a reason, and thus no one commits a crime unless something is to be gained by it.
So, Rafaella shows us that Benedict was a strong opponent of pedophilia in the clergy and was willing to remove Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests and even place Commissioners on large and powerful groups, to punish this abominable vice.
But after his abdication (I use this term to refer to a forced renunciation), there comes into power Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Mafia of St Gallen and the Lavender Mafia, who are pushing the gay agenda, openly and flagrantly.
The common sense inference, then, is that one of these three groups or all of them insisted on the removal of Pope Benedict.
This is less a conjecture than a simple application of the rules of power struggles. The Papacy since the time of the Italian Risorgimento, has lost all real temporal power. It can be invaded at any time, and the powers of the nations can at any time take away its status as an independent diplomatic entity. The result of this loss of temporal power, means in truth, that the Papacy is left with a small enclave which is populated only by the Roman Curia and ruled by the Cardinals.
Now while the Cardinals each do not have as much power as the Pope, all of them together, with all their political and financial connections round the world, do in fact have more power than the pope. Therefore, it would not be surprising if in the century following the suppression of the Papal States, that the College of Cardinals would come to dominate the power structure of the Vatican and that the Pope might become simply the public pawn of an all male club of ecclesiastics.
Now if these political inferences are correct, it would be expected that if a Pope started to impose discipline upon the subjects of each faction of Cardinals, by booting out of the priesthood or suspending some of their best friends and supporters, who were pedophiles, that eventually a zealous pope might in fact undercut all the power structures which put him in and maintain him in power.
What was happening in the year prior to the Renunciation?
With these speculations as a preface, let’s consider just some of the groups that Benedict XVI penalized in the year prior to Feb. 11, 2013, and watch how the timeline supports the inferences of risk, which I just outlined.
On Feb. 2, 2012, Mons. Scicluna (who now leads Bergoglio’s pro gay clerical investigation team) marks out Pope Benedict as the person responsible for punishing pervert priests. This may sound like praise, but it also might be painting a bull’s eye upon the target to be removed.
From Feb. 6 to 9, 2012, there is a Conference in Rome for Bishops and heads of religious orders on the need to remove perverts. Members of the Conference again finger Pope Benedict as being the prime mover of it.
Feb. 16, 2012 onwards: The Legionaires of Christ, their Movement and their woman’s branch come under strictures and strong measures against sexual perversion and the evil role of their founder.
Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
July 2, 2012: Pope Benedict appoints Archbishop Muller to the CDF. Shortly after this, he begins considering a renunciation. Before the end of summer, he mentions it to Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, who was effectively the real monarch at the Vatican and who was blocking Benedict on many things. (Why mention this to your chief opponent?)
October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
February 1, 2013: Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles announces that Cardinal Mahoney is banned from all public activities as a Bishop on account of his gross mishandling of cases of pedophilia in that Archdiocese. At the same time he names 126 priests of the Diocese as involved in such crimes. (Sicluna and Mahoney share the same episcopal lineage)
Feb. 5, 2013: New promoter of Justice at the CDF, Fr. Oliver, mentions Sicluna in a statement wherein he fingers Benedict as the key man in the Vatican for punishing pervert priests.
Feb 7, 2013 — From Rome Blog has it from a source at Rome, that on this day, Mr. Gotti, who had been dismissed from IOR the previous summer, without the knowledge or consent of Pope Benedict, had an hour long meeting at the Vatican with Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, in which the Cardinal affirmed Benedict’s decision to reinstate him fully and back him in his investigation of the Vatican Bank.
Feb. 11, 2013 — On a single sheet of paper, to the surprise of nearly everyone, who is left speechless, except Cardinal Sodano, Pope Benedict reads out a statement of renunciation.
In short, in one year Pope Benedict had shown himself willing to take down the most powerful priestly institute in the conservative flank of the Church AND to take down one of the most powerful Cardinals in the liberal flank of the Church.
Further information on what was going on in the Vatican Bank is neatly summarized by the Blog, Informatii si mesaje, in their post of Dec. 18, 2018, entitled, “Cardinals’ Mafia — plot against Benedict XVI“, which excerpts reports by Edward Pentin, Marco Tosatti (Rorate Caeli translation), Maike Hickson and Louie Verrechio from 2015.
An Examination and Discussion
The decision to tell Mr. Gotti that he would be reinstated on Feb. 7, and the decision to renounce on Feb. 11 simply do not add up. You cannot have any real hope that you will reinstate someone if you are planning ahead to resign in 4 days. That makes no sense. Also, it makes no sense that Benedict was planning to resign since the summer (as Bertone claims in 2016), and never find the 14 errors in the Latin text you are planning to read out-loud in the Consistory of February.
We do know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is ground zero of a Jewish Gay Mafia with strong ties to the financial industry, and that the Archdiocese has strong ties with this Mafia. We know that on Jan. 5, 2013, the ATMs at the Vatican were shut down by Deutch Bank, a move many have speculated was a signal to Benedict that the financial powers wanted him out.
Conclusions
I believe, therefore, that the demand for the Pope’s resignation was most probably made after February 7, 2013 and before the consistory of Feb. 11, 2013. — If Giuseppe Auricchio, the seer of Avola, Italy, can be believed, he foresaw that Benedict would receive a demand he could not agree to. — If you examine the text of the renunciation, you will find a Latin rife with errors, of the kind which would result if a non expert wrote it and had only 4 days or less to find errors in it. So it is very possible that Benedict was given a text, and that He modified it to make it appear to be a valid resignation, but in fact rather to make it to be an invalid resignation. And that, not knowing who was behind those demanding his resignation, he has never admitted what he really did, so as to protect himself and the Church from this Mafia.
I have not proven a crime, however, I have only outlined a chronology that needs to be further investigated, a chronology which leads me to use as an operative hypothesis, that Benedict DID NOT write the original text of the Renunciation, only changed perhaps the word munus to ministerium.
In my next report, I will discuss the errors in the Latin text and what they show about who may have written it.
This is our English translation of the article published by ChiesaRomana.info yesterday.
How did it happen that the entire world
thinks that Pope Benedict XVI
renounced the papacy?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Behind every great man, there is a woman;
and behind every great act of a man, the insistence of a woman.
Today, nearly the entire world believes that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the papacy on Feb. 11, 2013.
And perhaps, dear readers, you think so too.
But the truth of what really happened that day has been obscured by the psychological presumption induced by the announcement made moments after the renunciation, by Mrs. Chirri. I am not kidding you!
Did you know that? The entire world thinks that way because of a single tweet, from a pool reporter for ANSA, known as Mrs. Giovanna Chirri. and here is that tweet:
B16 si e' dimesso. Lascia pontificato dal 28 febbraio
B16 has resigned. He leaves the pontificate as of February 28.
This tweet is in fact the first announcement of the renunciation. It caused Giovanna Chirri to become immediately the most famous journalist in the world, for that moment. For the sake of posterity she subsequently gave several interviews so that we all might understand better the series of events which took place on that day. Here is her testimony, given to the magazine, Familiga Cristiana, on the third anniversary of the Renunciation (Italian original here), the English translation of which is our own:
Though the Consistory should have concluded at that moment, the Pope remained seated, and began to read, again in Latin, from a white sheet which he held in his hand. He said two things first of all: that he had not convoked the Cardinals solely to hear his approval of two decrees for the canonization of saints, but that he had to say something “important for the life of the Church”, and that he was growing old: his precise words were ingravescente aetate. At these words I felt as if a hand was placed upon my throat and a ball was being inflated in my head: because Ingravescentem aetatem is the document whereby Pope Paul VI took from the Cardinals the right to elect a pope, after they obtained their eightieth year of age: they were words which signified retirement. Benedict XVI continued to speak in a Latin, which fortunately was much more comprehensible than that of Cardinal Amato; he spoke for some time, saying that he no longer had the strength to govern the Barque of Peter in a world which is increasingly face paced. He explained that in conscience he had decided to leave, that the Cardinals will have to hold a Conclave to elect a successor and that he was establishing the beginning of the sede vacante at 8 pm on February 28.
I heard what he said but as one who had not heard; I was breathless and my legs trembled as I sat. I could not hold my left hand steady, even when I tried with my right hand. I began to make telephone calls seeking help and confirmations. At the Vatican, where obviously, everyone had something else on their mind, no one picked up the phone. I was prey to a sensation of terror which I had never experienced in my life. At this point, Pope Ratzinger had finished speaking. Some of the faces of those present grew pale; Monsignor Guido Pozzo, sitting next to him, seem to have turned to stone; different Cardinals had fixed stares and the muscles of their faces were frozen. In an unreal silence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, said in Italian: “This news strikes us as a bolt of lighting out of the blue”.
As you continue to read her testimony in Italian, you see immediately that after three years, she has understood in part the error she made that day, for she no longer speaks of a renunciation of the papacy, but expressly now speaks only of a renunciation of ministry.
Hence, if on February 11, 2013, Mrs. Chirri announced to the world one thing, and three years after in 2016, she explains that Benedict had renounced something else, perhaps we can shake off our presumption that what she said first was correct? One thinks so.
Compare what she said in 2014 on the first anniversary of the renunciation, when she was interviewed by Antonio Sanfrancesco, likewise of Famiglia Cristiana, in an article entitled, La Giornalista che diede la notizia, Non rispiravo, ero terrorizato (qui). A title – which in English, means: The journalist who broke the story, I could not breathe, I was terrorized – which does not give the reader any confidence that she had a clear mind at the moment of her tweet.
This history and the alteration of the narrative is important for all of us because, according to the norm of Canon Law, there is no canon which regards a renunciation of ministry! This is because in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, ministry is never associated with power or office, but only with action or the execution of a duty. Moreover, in canon 1331 §2 °4, ministry is not even listed among those things which an excommunicated person is forbidden to acquire. Hence, in the Code, an excommunicate can exercise a ministry.
Obviously, if the thing, according to its genus, which Pope Benedict renounced on Feb. 11, 2013 is something which someone not in communion with the Church or with the pope, can exercise, how can it be possible that in renouncing it Pope Benedict separated himself from the papal office? That does not make sense. It’s not even rational to contemplate.
Hence, it appears that in changing her story, Mrs. Chirri no longer agrees with what she wrote on that day:
B16 si e' dimesso. Lascia pontificato dal 28 febbraio
Indeed, let us read that tweet with precision: it contains the words, dimesso, lascia and pontificato, which in English are resigned, leave and pontifcate. But no where in the Latin text of the renunciation does Pope Benedict use any Latin words which mean these things!
Hence, if we are to speak properly and with precision, her tweet is not a report of news, but an interpretation of the event, an interpretation which arises out of the state of her mind in that moment in which she rushed to get the scoop on the news before any other journalist.
Now, at last, perhaps the time has come for the Church to recognize that none of us is obligated to understand that act of renunciation according to the state of mind of Mrs. Chirri, the Mother of the Papal Resignation. I call her, “the Mother of the Papal Resignation”, because in the understanding of the world, it was she who gave everyone to understand the act as an act of renunciation of the papacy, not merely of the ministry, an understanding and interpretation which all who study Canon Law are forcing themselves to find in the Code of Canon Law, but fail to do so, because it ain’t there.
ORIGINAL CREDITS: Testo di Famiglia Cristiana citato dall’articolo citato qui sopra. L’immagine in evidenza, della Sig.ra Chirri trovato sulla pagina di Famiglia Cristiana nel articolo di 11 Febbraio 2014, citato qui sopra, ma senza attribuzione di proprietà intellettuale. Si presume fair use per tutti due. Il tweet di Chirri è replicata dal suo conto su Twitter che è ancora in rete.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
