What Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 really meant

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have previously published two translations of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, which is the basis of the claims of the Vatican that the pope has abdicated. In addition, published a 7 part documentary on Youtube (here) which explains the canon law, logic, linguistics and philosophical considerations which arise in its regard.

As for my previous two translations, in my former, I attempted a better version of the Vatican translation, presuming it was correct.  In my second, I showed that the Latin does not mean what the Vatican translation makes it say it to mean.

But since in my second translation, I myself criticized the papal text presuming it intended to say what the Vatican translation made it say, I owe it to Pope Benedict XVI and to history to translate it again, leaving aside all presuppositions as to what it means, and letting the Latin speak for itself.

To show the true and authentic meaning, I will intersperse the English among the Latin, and explain where and how the Latin may mean 2 different things at the same time. This is the style of the great Latinists of the ancient world, just as Juvenal, Virgin and Cicero.  And since Cionci has discovered that Pope Benedict XVI in German and Italian always speaks in a way which can be read in two different senses, this may in fact be the true sense of the Latin in this document too.

But we must remember, that this text was written by Benedict XVI, according to what he was allowed to say to Peter Sewald his official biographer, and then corrected by the Secretary of State personnel. So in truth it has two authors, both of whom may not have had the same intention or mind in making it signify the same thing.

Since this translation would take a long time to explain, I will constrain my remarks here to only three phrases, the first, the renunciation and the last prayer, which frame it in such a way that only one reading is logically and grammatically consistent.

Literal Translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s
Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013

The Opening Shot

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem (4.

Not only for the sake of the three acts of canonization have I called you together for this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate a separation from you of great moment for the life of the Church.


NOTES:

(1) I have previously criticized this construction, proper tres canonizationes, because propter is not used this way in Latin. Rendering it as, “for the sake of the three acts of canonization” preserves its awkward signification.  The correct Latin should be a dative of purpose such as tribus canonizationibus or better celebrandis his tres canonizationibus, that is, “to celebrate these three canonizations”, the “these” (his) being required on account of the act having just taken place. But perhaps this omission indicates that the timing of the reading of the text was not determined before the text was composed or at the time of its correction.

(2) This should be, in my judgement, in hoc Consistorio, since it is an event, not a place, and thus should not be introduced by ad, which can only be used for places and purposes. Those who think in modern languages cannot see or understand such distinctions.

(3) Here the document shows its first canonical error, since the verb should be in the first person plural, “have We called you together” (convocavimus), since the act of convening a Consistory is a juridical act of the Roman Pontiff, not of the man who is the Roman Pontiff.  This error implies the possibility that this entire sentence was added to the core text of the Declaration as a clumsy sort of introduction to set the context, once the time and place of the declaration was determined and by someone either totally ignorant of the distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the man who abdicates, or someone who intentionally wanted to draw our attention to the fact that this text is not by the Roman Pontiff but by the man who is the Roman Pontiff and thus cannot be read as valid by recourse to an appeal to papal power, being above canon law.

(4) This next phrase is, in my opinion, the entire key to the whole Declaration. It is written in a very exact and subtle style which only a true Latinist can see, who is familiar with the classical forms and knows its rules. The rude or clumsy reader will render it as the Vatican translations have rendered it, but that is not what it means.  For decisio, is the Bonaventuran and Augustinian word for a physical separation, a falling off, a falling away, a dying.  And vobis cannot be a direct object of the main verb, communicem (inasmuch as there is no known usage of this kind in the entire history of the Latin tongue to my knowledge and to that of all the Latinists who have argued with me in vain on this score).  Therefore, it must be a dative with decisio, and thus either a dative of reference, agent or a dative of possession. So it must be either “a separation from you”, “a separation for you”, or “your separation”. This reading, as a “separation from you”, is in my opinion the most sound one. It is  based on the usage of Tacitus in his Germania, chapter 10, where he uses the verb decido, “to cut off” with virgam arbori “a branch from a tree”. This is a very important theological and ecclesiological concept used by Our Lord Himself, in regard to the Divine vineyard owner Who must trim the vines to make it produce fruit.  The construction with communicem is in turn suggested by the Roman Historian Suetonius, in his book on Caligula, n. 56: consilium communicaverunt perfeceruntque, where consilium is replaced by decisionem. The entire phrase is constructed to show the decisive authoritative sentence of Pope Benedict XVI in making a determination and announcing it to the world and to the Cardinals.  His declaration of separation from them, obviously, is a meaning that they will never admit to, and the entire text of his Declaratio shows in what this consists and when it will begin and what the consequences of it will be. Benedict omits in this phrase, “my” with “separation”, so give emphasis that it is the separation of the whole Church from the cardinals. And he uses “moment” (momentum) not “importance” (importantia) to show that the entire weight of history will be struck and moved by his decision. By adding  pro “of the life of the Church”, he is showing that his act will enliven and save the true Church from that which is grasping its deadly hands around Her. As such, this one phrase is a masterpiece of Latinity, which hides its true meaning from the ignorant, who read vobis as an error for vobiscum and decisio in the juridical modern sense commonly used, as the official Vatican translations render it.

There follows in the Declaration, the preamble which explains the Pope’s motivations for public consumption and serves to deflect analysis of the text by the power hungry cardinals. I will simply republish my translation of this from this version here.

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.

And now for the key phrase regarding the Renunciation:

Quapropter (5) bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio (6) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (7) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (8) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (9), sedes Sancti Petri vacet (10) et  Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse (11).

On which account (5), well conscious of the weight of this act I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry (6) of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed (8) to me  through the hands of the Cardinals (7) on the 19th of April, 2005, to leave unused (10) from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time (9), the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff is to be convoked by those who are competent (11).


NOTES

(5) Pope Benedict opens this key section with the significant word, “On which account”, (quapropter) which refers to all which has been said above from the first key phrase onward as his motivation.

(6) Then he declares — he does not renounce — he declares that he renounces.  This utterly voids the act of any juridical value since a declaration is not a juridical act, it is merely an administrative act of informing others about an action taken or being take or to be taken. In this case the second and latter. He furthermore does NOT fulfil canon 332 §2, which requires the renunciation of the papal munus. He renounces instead the ministerium.  By doing so he withdraws all possibility of the Cardinals and the Roman Curia of sharing in its exercise. And thus separates his office from them! And thus nullifies in advance all canonical acts made after his departure.  He thus also separates himself ecclesiologically from the Cardinals and all the Bishops, since the petrine ministry is to confirm them in the Faith.  Such a decision is an apocalpytic one. And it is explained by the last words in this section.  This is the explanation of the vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesia vitae of the first phrase.

(7) The ministry received through the hands of the Cardinals is not even the Petrine Ministry, which flows naturally from the Office which is conferred by Christ directly upon the one who accepts his canonical election. In this, Benedict seems to be saying, I am giving back to you what you gave me, nothing. I am not going to be a puppet leader in your hands any longer. I want nothing more to do with you.

(8) When Benedict read his Declaratio aloud, at this point he said commissum, not commisso.  This was seen as an error by all, but it actually says something profound. By saying commissum he is saying, that he committed himself to his Papal office from the day of his election.  And thus implies that the Cardinals are the ones who have betrayed Christ, not he. He did his duty inasmuch as he was able.

(9) There are still those who follow the others translations and get this wrong. So I repeat it here, that it refers to time zones, not to the papal office.

(10) To leave unused the see of St. Peter.  Here the Latin does not speak of a sede vacante, it uses rather the root verb, “to leave unused” (vacet). This explains his renunciation of minsterium rather than of munus. It also shows exactly what is going on in the Church for 8 years.

(11)  And that a new Conclave is to be called — sometime in the future — by those who are competent. That is, not by you who are in my presence, since as I have said, I have declared that you are cut-off from me.

The Declaration finishes thus:

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, I would also wish to serve with my whole heart in a future by a life dedicated to prayer for Holy Mother Church.


COMMENTARY

Finally, at the end, by using the subjunctive, the Holy Father shows that he is speaking contrary to fact. Because he has not abdicated, so there is no need for him to ask what to do after Feb. 28, 2013, as Pontiff he can do as he pleases, and indeed no one has dared disturb him in that.

In conclusion, I believe the above translation which is faithful to Latin grammar is the only one fully consonant with the facts of history before and after Feb. 11, 2013, in which Benedict XVI was hated and opposed by all inside and outside of the Roman Curia and thus declared his separation rather than renounced his office, so that with the help of the Holy Spirit, the effects of being separated from the Successor of St Peter might show themselves in the Church and reveal to all the faithful both the comploters and the conspiracy against Her in act.

This translation also explains why Benedict XVI refuses to speak with nearly all the Cardinals and Bishops after Feb. 28, 2013.

Canonically, the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 is to totally uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution which participates in the election of the Roman Pontiff, since now that they have elected an antipope and adhered to him they are excommunicate in virtue of canon 1364 and separated from the Church completely. Therefore, they lose all their offices and thus their right to elect the Pope.  And this means, that the actual result of the Declaratio is to sanction as legitimate the election of his successor by the Faithful of the Church of Rome, as St. Peter determined so long ago: these are the ones who are competent to elect his successor. — This is something the Roman Pontiff could not have achieved by a direct declaration, because in the very preparation of such a document he would have been opposed or assassinated. And that explains his cleverness and subtlety in acting as he has done.

In Italy the Vaxx is no longer legally approved for use…

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In Italy, like in many nations the Covid-19 experimental serums were put into use under extraordinary authorization.  That authorization has just expired, making the Vaxx passport a dead letter.

The authorization was allowed in an extraordinary manner because it was alleged there were no other cures, and no other cures were approved. In the European Union, there exist two forms of extraordinary authorization: Conditional Approval to Commercially Distribute, and Emergency Authorization.

Emergency Authorization does not include permission for commercial distribution and requires each member State of the EU to take legal responsibility. For that reason, the EU members opted for Conditional Approval. Under conditional approval, a vaccine must meet a unmet need, that is, it can only be requested for such approval if there is no other approved cures.

That Conditional Approval for Commercial use authorization has expired, in law, with the official recognition by AIFA, the Italian Pharmaceutical Approval Agency, of the use of other monoclonial anti-bodies as an effective cure for SarsCov19 infection. Vaccines of any kind cannot be commercially employed in Italy with out AIFA’s authorization. AIFA has approved only 2 mRNA vaccines: Pfizer and Moderna. And only 2 Viral Vector vaccines: AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson.

The announcement appeared recently on their website, but it took effect on August 7, 2021.

The MSM and the Italian government will not tell you this, because the Pandemic is a rolling ongoing scam of apocalyptic proportions.

To read more about this in Italian click the image above.

How to respond to Questions in a Genocidal Dictatorship

On the Biblical Teaching about when it is a sin and when it is a virtue
to tell the false

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are all living under a Dictatorship, a genocidal dictatorship which has the aim of exterminating humanity. They are using the claim of a pandemic to establish the laws and medical procedures to justify killing us all. And in this process they are asking us questions to prepare us for death and kill us.

We do not have to cooperate. We can resist. And we do not have to answer their questions as they would like us to.

But how to do this as Christians is something unknown to most since except in times of gravest persecution, this Biblical teaching is rarely explained.

In my recent discussion with Rabbi Weissman I mentioned that when we are asked if we are Vaxxed, we do not have to tell the truth. We can lie.  As my response has incited trolls, I will explain what it means to lie, and when this is a sin and when it is not a sin, or even a virtue.

First, in English the word, “lie” and the verb “to lie” are ambiguous. The former can mean a false statement, or falsehood, or it can mean an intentionally deceptive statement.  The same for the verb.  For this reason the English words cross the boundaries of morality. Since something said is right or wrong, not according only to its content but also according to its intention.

So, to distinguish the moral cases we have

  • To speak the false
  • To be deceptive, mendacious, or to prevaricate

Sometimes when we say, “lie” in English we mean the first, sometimes the second. Many do not understand this or even pay attention to it.

As a translator, I am very sensitive to this problem, which does not exist in Latin, for example.

So in the above mentioned video, when I say, if you are asked whether you are vaxxed or not, to lie, I mean it in the sense of, to speak the false, and I say this for biblical reasons: because no one has the right to ask such a question and thus you have no duty before God to answer it without a mental reservation. Now if it is a friend, or friendly doctor, you can answer truthfully. But if it is a Globalist happy nutcase, policeman or other possible threatening person, you can say you are vaxxed, even if you are not. I did not explain how to say it, so here I will explain this.

If they ask if you were Vaxxed, say yes, and intend that you were vaccinated years ago for some other disease. Or say you were vaxxed, presuming you were during your last PCR swab test, on account of widely reported hidden tech in these swabs.  If they ask by which brand of Vaxx, say you cannot remember, because if you were not or were in your youth, then certainly you cannot remember.  The human imagination and creativity can always invent ways of responding to such questions. Such responses are based on what is called a mental reservation, where you intend to signify something they do not intend to understand and so are mislead or misdirected.

However, when asked before a court or civil authority, whether we believe in God or are Christians, we must answer directly, because in this case we are commanded by Our Lord, who said, “If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father who is in Heaven”.  Our Enemies today want us to regard the NWO as a religion which we can never deny, and so they are trying to invert the categories of sin on the matter of telling the false, which is commonly called “lying” in English.

The case of the Vaxx is the same as the case of a mugging. If a mugger asks if you have money on you, you can say no, when you do, because you can intend that you have no money for him, or that you cannot afford to give him any. Likewise, if you son asks you in which shops they sell pornography, you have not only the duty not to respond truthfully, but you have the duty to divert his question or say the false, such as: None of them (meaning, none that I know of, or none where you can do so without grave sin). Again, in a mental asylum, there are certain persons, to whom, if you said the truth, they would become violent and harm themslves and others, so you must respond withing the reality in which they live, to keep them calm so that they eat their food, wash themselves and not harm others. If your spouse goes into wild rages of jealousy and they ask you with whom you were speaking or what you did, you can use a mental reservation, however, to keep them from sinning. None of this is being deceptive.

None of this regards how we should speak in normal discourse, that is, when we are not asked a threatening question by an untrustworthy person. In all other cases we are gravely obliged to tell the truth and never to use a mental reservation, unless of course those to whom we are talking are not capable yet of accepting the whole truth, because they labor under some grave vice. We must love the truth, because each truth has God as its Exemplar and Author. We should never be mendacious or prevaricate and we should not deceive others. And thus, you cannot morally use mental reservations, for example in matters of religion, commerce, contracts, promises, testimonies etc.. However in a dictatorship you can use it with the police, law courts, etc., if it regards something other than professing Jesus the Lord and His teachings.

So to sum up: Yes, it is a mortal sin to intentionally give an answer which is contrary to what you know to be the truth, WHEN you are obliged to tell the truth to a person who has the right to know the truth. This is strictly speaking the only proper sense of the word, “lie”, when it is say that “lying is a sin”. However, the common use of “to lie” in English does not have all these qualities.  And that is why I said “to lie” in response to such questions as the NWO Gestapo might propose to you.

The problem for non-Catholics who claim to be Christian is that they tend to believe that the Bible was written in a Western Language, and in the English speaking world, that it was written in English. So when they see the word “lie” in Scripture, they distort the teaching of scripture according to their distorted or wrong understanding of the word, “to lie”, since in English we use this word to mean “to speak the false” or “to deceive”.  Whereas the Commandment of God, “Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is linguistically structured by the Holy Spirit to avoid this kind of manipulation.

This is why, what I have just expounded is the correct understanding of the following passages, which in English are often mistranslated with the ambiguous word, “lie”:

Proverbs 12:22: The actual reading here is not “lying”, but mendacious, which means deceptive, not telling the false.

Hebrews 6:18: The actual reading is not “to lie”, but “to speak falsely, to deceive, to be mendacious, to praevaricate” .

Proverbs 19:9: Here again, the word is not “lies”, but “deceptions” or “mendacities”

Ephesians 4:25: This is said in reference to other Christians who are worthy of trust and merit a true response.

Colossians 3:9: This is said also in regard to Christians. And the word is not “to lie”, but “to deceive or be mendacious”.

Because of this teaching the Fathers of the Church debated whether Abraham told Sarah to “lie” when he instructed Sarah to say that she was his sister (the Hebrew word here means, “sister”, by one or the same parents) not his wife (Genesis 12:11-13).  The case is exactly that which I have discussed above. Those asking him intended to murder him if he was the husband, but on account of this way of responding to his question they might only fornicate with his wife, and not murder him, which would have been a letter sin. Abraham told her to say the false, but he did not lie, that, is, he was not deceptive or mendacious. He said the truth in regard to a question which was not asked (Is this woman your relative?), but those asking their question would have convicted him of lying or being deceptive. In truth they deceived themselves by assuming he meant what they wanted him to say and mean. And he did not. What he said did not harm them, rather it prevented them from committing the greater sin, and thus was moved by charity. It is with the same motive we should tell the false to the Gestapo of the NWO when they ask if we are Vaxxed.

FOOTNOTE: Some Protestants, who call Jesus a liar by refusing to believe Him, when He declared to Simon Peter, “You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her”, have a psychological need to fault us Catholics as liars — it’s call projection — to justify their separation from the Church Christ founded upon Peter (of whom the Roman Pontiff Benedict is the unique successor) and their opposition to the will of Jesus Christ as regards one Church which has existed from the beginning and ever been called the Catholic Church. And so, it is not infrequent that they attack us Catholics on the point of lying or the use of mental reservations, since as in most things, they deny the meaning of Scripture while exalting themselves as its perfect practitioners and thus fall condemned under the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.