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.
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.
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.
10 thoughts on “A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says”
Reblogged this on PASSAPAROLADESSO.
I only hope your work is the spark that leads to fire.
The problem right now in the Church is that too many Catholics are merely hoping, not enough are praying, and nearly everyone thinks that someone else should do something. — The Catholic Church is going to ruin because of LAZINESS, SLOATH and PASSING THE BUCK. — I do not direct this at you, but at the common error, which I am reminded of so often by comments similar to yours.
Perhaps you are right. Done. Thanks for saving me a lot of time.
In reference to “laziness”, if you only knew what my day consists of each and every day, likely until the day I day … I don’t think you would be reminded of laziness through me.
As I said, I was not referring to you.
Poor knowledge of Latin is not surprising. After all, Father Ratzinger had been celebrating masses for over 40 years (then) in his native language, German, Italian or other depending on the circumstances, and only sometimes in Latin. In addition, he did not devote much time to scholastics, but to modernists expressing themselves only in modern languages.
Pope Benedict probably prepared this document personally in the deepest secret, because he was taught by unpleasant experience with his butler and the rest of the curialists insolently disregarding him.
Brother Alexis, you probably overestimate the professionalism of the people working in the Vatican. For decades they were included in the team on the basis of negative selection. A man with your zeal for God’s House and your reverence regarding Latin and the canon law would not have any chance of being employed there. You would miss letters of recommendation from Sodom!
I also think that you overestimate the genius (cleverness) of Benedict XVI. Nevertheless, in view of the widespread loss of faith, the decline of morals and discipline among the hierachs of the Roman Catholic church, he did the best: he released the keys of the Kingdom of God, entrusted to Saint Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. These keys are: the Paraclete and the Apocalyptic Woman – more details in Revelation of Saint John. In this context, the resignation of Pope Benedict was not a nonsensical act, on the contrary: this act fits precisely in God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.
Nov. 22, Saint Cecilia is singing today with choirs in heaven and on earth
David, I cannot dispute that you may be correct about the poor knowledge of Latin. However, if you are so ignorant that you cannot correctly express yourself in Latin so as to renounce validly in Latin, then your act is null and void as per Canon 332 §2, which says that for validity you must duly manifest the renunciation. That means in human language. That takes some knowledge and intelligence, but a lot more than it does to say, Yes I accept my election as pope. There is the rub.
Comments are closed.