Tag Archives: Pope Benedict XVI

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part IV

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.

A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci

PART IV

20. The first results of Plan B

Moreover, only two years after, in 2019, the subtle input of Benedict XVI obtained its first result: the Italian-American Franciscan, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, an outstanding latinist and expert in canon law, takes note of the errors in the Latin of the Declaration and declares that they were inserted precisely to attract attention to the canonical invalidity of the document. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23247982/benedetto-xvi-ratzinger-rinuncia-bergoglio-declaratio-2013-dimissioni-abdicazione-munus-ministerium-bugnolo.html

The Libero had the exclusive report on his study and news of it went viral world wide, but in reply, from the Vatican there was only silence and from the Avvenire ( the national Catholic newspaper published by the Italian Bishops’ Conference) only insults. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23298928/silenzio-declaratio-rinuncia-papa-benedetto-ratzinger-cei-insulti-fra-bugnolo-munus-ministerium-invalidita-diritto-canonico.html

21. Bergoglio goes full throttle, too much

The seasons change, and Francis in the meantime exposes himself every the more: he enthrones Pachamama in St. Peter’s, he inaugurates a new Litany of Loreto with Mary as “support of migrants”, he declares himself in favor of civil unions, he changes the Our Father, he inserts the masonic “dew” into the Canon of the Mass, he decorates the Piazza of St. Peter’s with a strange esoteric Christmas creche, in sum, he goes excessively full throttle, so much so that the noted Vaticanista, Aldo Maria Valli, publishes a shocking article entitled, “Rome is without a pope”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25873974/sacrifici-umani-studiosi-spiegano-tutto-su-pachamama.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23355254/papa-francesco-maria-sollievo-migranti-litanie-sfregio-oppositori.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25013391/birra-fast-food-applaudono-dichiarazioni-bergoglio-unioni-civili-alcol-e-cibo-spazzatura-provocano-milioni-di-morti-nel-mond.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25354748/nuovo-messale-bergoglio-domenica-prossima-in-vigore-politicamente-corretto-contro-teologia-san-tommaso-rugiada-massoneria-al.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25534079/guerriero-presepe-castelli-a-san-pietro-ha-corna-e-un-teschio-in-fronte-media-censurano-pubblico-inferocito-insulti-social.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26278178/aldo-maria-valli-roma-senza-papa-bergoglio.html

22. Bergoglio runs for cover at the Corriere della Sera

At Santa Marta there is a panic: Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera rushes to interview Ratzinger and clean up the mess. Benedict XVI offers a series of further replies which are perfectly double faced: he says that “his friends, a little fanatic, did not accept his decision, made completely freely by him, he is in peace with himself and the pope is one alone”. Franco interprets his declarations in this sense: “I willingly resigned as the Pope; my fans err in considering me the Pontiff; the pope is one alone and is Francis” HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26378596/benedetto-xvi-intervista-corriere-della-sera-papa-uno-solo.html

23. The explicit subtext of Benedict

In reality, the true significance of the words of Ratzinger is: “My friends have not understood what I am fooling the modernists and that I have done this in full self awareness, on which account I am in peace with my conscience. the Pope is one alone and I am he”. This story of the pope who is one alone, but which is never specified, has already become too repetitive and urges us to examine past interviews. By doing so there emerges a meticulous and “scientific” equivocation which has lasted years. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26378596/benedetto-xvi-intervista-corriere-della-sera-papa-uno-solo.html

24. The nomination of the “ambassador” to Benin

Thus, in reply to the customary misunderstandings by the Corriere della Sera, and to encourage those who follow the right interpretation, Pope Benedict, a few days after, received the president of a charitable organization and names him, “ambassador” (even if only spiritually). Even on the symbolic level, this is indeed the act of a reigning pope. Another clear signal to his “own”: HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26582795/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-visita-ignorata-lorenzo-festicini-ambasciatore.html

25. The mirror trick is understood

From the interviews with the Corriere della Sera, we pass to read also the book interviews by Peter Seewald and we discover that all of them have been arranged according to a coherent and opposite subtext. Every phrase has been constructed with a scientific ability to reveal — often with a tasteful irony — the reality of the invalid resignation to whomsoever wants to grasp it. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html and HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26732422/papa-ratzinger-ein-leben-nuova-versione-fatti-dimissioni-volontariamente-invalidate.html

26. The discovery of a clear historical precedent: Pope Benedict VIII

One fundamental detail merges when Benedict XVI declares in his “Last Conversations”, published in 2016, under a veiled by most precious historical reference, that he has resigned as Pope Benedict VIII, Theophylactus of the Counts of Tusculum, in 1012, was constrained to renounce the ministerium on account of the antipope Gregory VI: an unequivocable signal. Little by little, there emerges other details in his book length interview and here at the Libero we have even cited the passage from which we were able to be inspired by Ratzinger to understand his strategy “of mirrors”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26691243/benedetto-xvi-errore-storico-messaggio-papa-antipapa.html

27. A foreseen battle

Benedict knows that his game is an extremely subtle one, but he has left alarm bells which are very evident. He knew that the pieces of the puzzle would be put back together little by little and that the false church would reveal itself, crumbling on its own, annihilating itself in scandals, doctrinal contradictions and ferocious internal conflicts. Ratzinger knew beforehand that the modernist antipope, with his masonic-environmental-globalist extravagances would fill the Catholic people with dismay. He knew that this one would not be assisted by the Holy Spirit, nor by the logic of the Logos (the Divine Word). HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/personaggi/25073261/papa-francesco-monsignor-vigano-questa-non-e-chiesa-cristo-ma-antichiesa-massonica.html

28. What is Benedict waiting for?

Benedict is still waiting, tranquil in his prayer and contemplation, and communicating with the outside world by means of precise and surgical terms: he awaits the Cardinals and Bishops to open their eyes. He does not speak openly: even if he would succeed in speaking the truth in public, today, he would be immediately silence with the excuse of senile ramblings. No: it is rather the Catholic people who, in this Apocalypse, in the sense of a Revelation, have to convert, have to UNDERSTAND, and ACT. And it is the clergy who have to shake off their inertia, by rediscovering the course, the strength, and the heroism of the Faith. HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/24974299/cardinali-perche-vestono-rosso-forse-solo-fashion.html

29. The solution to the whole problem: a declaratory Synod

The solution, in the end, is a simple one: let the Bishops convoke a synod, like that which was convoked historically (such as Sutri or Melfi V) to establish with certainty which of the due or pore popes is the true one.

Ratzinger knows that during such an encounter the reality will easily come forth: the anti-pope and all of his actions, nominations, doctrinal and liturgical changes, will vanish into nothingness. It will be as if he never exited. Death does not preoccupy Benedict: his resignation will remain invalid for ever by creating a historic rupture in the papal succession.

Bergoglio, in the mean time, for his own part, has already signaled the future of his new-Church by nominating an avalanche of his “own” 80 cardinals, who, being in the majority, will shut the doors to the new Conclave. After the antipope, Francis, there would be no valid successor, as some traditionalists are pointing out. Moreover, an invalid conclave, composed by invalid cardinals, might elect another modernists antipope — o a fake orthodox one — and the Catholic Church, as we know Her, would be finished forever.

The synod, on the other hand, will be the great Catholic Counter-Reset, the red restart-button which will enable the Church to be purified — according to the intentions of Ratzinger — from corruption and heresy once and for all, by reconciling Europe and the West with their own Christian roots. And in the passage from one epoch to another, as he himself said to Seewald: “I belong no longer to the old world, but to the new, which in reality has not yet begun”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

30. The “little ones” will be the protagonists

Benedict XVI, the sole Vicar of Christ (Bergoglio having renounced the title) knows that salvation comes from little ones, from the pure of heart, mind and body, much sooner than from prelates and the great ones of the press: from courageous priests and friars who are excommunicated for remaining faithful, from little journalists, youtubers and bloggers, translators, artists and publishers, simple readers who share articles on social media, each one of which in his own infinitesimal littleness adds his own contribution: a whole people without means and support, who sacrifice themselves and risk themselves to spread the truth as a fire, as a last “Crusade of the poor” to save the Church Herself.

No, Benedict XVI has not fled at the sight of the wolves. Nor in the face of those dressed up as lambs.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part III

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.

A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci

PART III

9. The errors in the Latin

Moreover, the game played was a subtle one: the risk is that the juriical questoin, upon which the entire plan B is based, is forgotten. This is why in the Declaratio Benedict inserted anomalies which would in time attract attention to the invalidity of the document, most of all two gross errors in the Latin: “pro ecclesiae vitae” (afterwards corrected by the Vatican) and one pronounced by his own voice — “commissum” — alongside the key word: “ministerium”, which should have been the dative form, “commisso”. Moreover, the typo on the hour of 29:00 instead of 20:00: errors purposefully introduced, in addition to invalidating even more the resignation inasmuch as it was not “rite manifestetur”, that is “duly” expressed, as the Code of Canon Law requires (in Canon 332, §2); most of all to concentrate the attention of future readers on the two principle juridical problems of his fake resignation: the renunciation of “ministerium” and the deferment of the renunciation. The plan succeeded: the errors of syntax in the Latin were immediately judged to be “intollerable” by Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh, not to mention Cardinal Ravasi, and made a certain sort of splash in the press, together with the typographical error on the hour it would take effect. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html

Errors which resulted from haste? Impossible! Ratzinger spent two weeks writing the Declaratio which was looked over in detail by the Secretary of State under the seal of the pontifical secret (i. e. the highest level of Vatican state secrecy). HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26758114/ratzinger-dimissioni-nuovi-dettagli-errori-declaratio-correzione-segreteria-stato-refusi-orario-ore-29.html

10. The Farewell at 5:30 P. M.

And so, February 28th arrived and Benedict makes his dramatic helicopter flight (he will say to Seewald in 2016 that this was part of the “stage scenery”) such that everyone will see him abandon the Vatican and, at 5:30 P. M., come out upon the balcony of the papal palace at Castel Gandolfo to bid the world a farewell. He had not casually chosen the hour of 8 P. M. (20:00 hours), the hour in which Italians are all at dinner (in front of the TV), a thing which required him to anticipate the farewell at 5:30 P. M.. There, at Castel Gandolfo, in fact, he speaks precisely: “I will be the pope until 8 P. M. and then no more”.

But then he goes inside, and 8 P. M. arrives, but he signs no document nor makes any public declaration. Some justify this by saying that since at 5:30 P. M. he said that he would no longer be the pope, that sufficed. But they are in error: because by affirming that he would be pope until 8 P. M., he could have very well changed his mind, therefore, his renunciation of ministerium, already in effective from the hour he read his Declaratio, should have been ratified by another signed or public declaration. But this never happened. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26613561/ratzinger-dimissioni-sempre-annunciate-mai-ratificate-carlo-pace-spiega.html

11. A concentrate of juridical invalidity

In summary, his Declaratio of a renunciation is absolutely worthless as a resignation, because one cannot renounce an office which has a divine origin by renouncing its administration and, in addition, such a renunciation not duly written, has no juridical value. It’s all a big joke. In fact, Benedict will admit to Seewald that the choice of February 11th for his Declaratio was connected, with an “interior connection”, to the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, a feast of St. Bernadette, the patron saint of his own birthday and with the Mardi Gra Monday. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

12. The Mafia of St. Gall elects an Anti-Pope

The anomalies were seen only by a few and the Mafia of St. Gall went ahead full steam. Finally, on March 13th, elbowing itself forward with a fifth and irregular balloting, it succeeds in electing its own champion, the Jesuit cardinal, Bergoglio, already looked down upon in Argentina for his methods and his doctrinal extravagances. In this way, there comes to be announced to the world a new pope. Francis comes out, without the red mozzetta (cape), accompanied by Cardinal Daneel: his style is very off the cuff and, in no time, with the complicity of the Main Stream Media, he succeeds in capturing the enthusiastic favor of the crowds. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22269917/bergoglio_papa_francesco_ratzinger_teologia_modernisti_tradizionalisti_strategia_concilio_vaticano_teologia.html

13. The attack on Catholicism begins

Immediately, he begins a gradual dismantling of Catholic doctrine to adapt it to the container of the new universalist masonic-environmental-modernist religion of the New World Order, openly augured by Bergoglio in his interview with La Stampa on March 15, 2021: “We are wasting this crisis when we close in on ourselves. Instead, by building a new world order based on solidarity …”.

Consequently, it would not surprise if Ratzinger never actually resigned, Bergoglio is an anti-pope. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23334769/ratzinger-rinuncia-invalida-sospetti-esilio-ratisbona-gaffe-comunicative-nuovo-ordine-mondiale-avvenire-scola-massoneria.html

14. Benedict goes ahead as the Pope

While a portion of normal Catholics (insultingly defined by the Main Stream Media as “traditionalists”) began to react against Bergoglio (and not a few even to speak ill of Ratzinger), Pope Benedict XVI continued to comport himself as a pope in every detail, though without some of the practical offices of his power. In addition to maintaining the white cassock, he continues to live in the Vatican, to use the royal “We”, to sign as the Pontifex Pontificum (Pontiff of Pontiffs), and to impart the Apostolic benediction.

In deed, even if Ratzinger had made a renunciation of administering the Barque of Peter, every now and then he comes back, signing some book, writing, prayer, or granting an interview, to correct Bergoglio on the celibacy of priests (even if, immediately afterwards, they uproot his favorite vineyard at Castel Gandolfo). HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22458850/papa_benedetto_emerito_aborto_gay_catechismo_chiesa.html

15. The “scientific” ambiguity of the thing

In all his interviews, Ratzinger maintains a low profile and most of all an absolute, scientific double entendre in his words. He never says that he has resigned from the papacy, nor does he say that Francis is the Pope, but throughout 8 years, he has like a standing stone, repeated that “the Pope is only one”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26597971/scritto-di-benedetto-xvi-completo-come-leggere-piu-attentamente-un-significato-opposto-il-papa-e-lui-bergoglio-e-solo-cardi.html

16. The Main Stream Media’s forced narrative

The Narrative would at all costs have it that the one existing pope of which Benedict speaks is Francis, so much that the newspapers of this party exhausting themselves to construct a narrative upon every cited word, seeking to manipulate the context. In fact, Vatican News on June 27, 2019, opened with the leader, “Benedict XVI: the pope is one, Francis”, reporting however only the personal thoughts of Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26391704/papa-ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-da-otto-anni-tentano-fargli-dire-quello-che-non-vuole.html

17. The Mafia of St. Gall unmasks itself

While Bergoglio is devoting himself to his new giant masonic and ultramodernist-globalist church (by daily unmasking himself), in 2015 the “anti-Church” as Mons. Viganò will call it, made a faux paux: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the primate of Belgium and the central column of the Mafia of St. Gall (so much so that he flanked Bergoglio, when he came out on the Loggia of St. Peter’s, on the day of his election), confessed candidly in his one autobiography how the modernist lobby aimed to cause Benedict to resign and to propose in his place cardinal Bergoglio. His admissions, confirmed by what was already admitted by the journalist Austen Ivereigh, created an enormous embarrassment and have never been denied. The book of Danneels was sold out (the last used copy for sale on Amazon went for 206 euro!) but has never been republished, nor translated into Italian. The Belgian Cardinal exited the stage and died a year later. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25566325/don-minutella-pietro-dove-sei-pamphlet-teologo-massimo-franco-enigma-papa-francesco.html

18. The defense attempted by Mons. Sciacca

In the August of 2016, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, the top canonist at the Vatican, in an interview with Andrea Tornielli, sustained that the resignation of Ratzinger was valid because munus and ministerium are, for a pope, indivisible. A self-contradicting argument which shows precisely how Ratzinger could not have resigned by resigning only the ministerium. In fact, the history of popes in the first millennium of the Church shows that they have at times resigned from the exercise of papal power while remaining popes, especially in the case of rival anti-popes. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26691243/benedetto-xvi-errore-storico-messaggio-papa-antipapa.html

19. Benedict’s reply to Mons. Sciacca

Three weeks later, Ratzinger, publishes a veiled response in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, taking occasion from the recent book of his interviews by Seewald, entitle, “Last Conversations”, in which he exhorts the readers by saying that he himself is an optimum latinist and that he wrote with his own hand the Declaration in Latin so as not to make any errors.

An absurdity, given that there are errors which have been publicly corrected by famous Latinists immediately after his Declaratio. This is one of those many signals of apparent incoherence which Benedict sends to the outside world precisely to recall attention to the juridical problems in his “resignation”. And so the entire interview with the Corriere can be interpreted in the exact opposite sense. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part II

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.

A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorny Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci

PART II

  1. An Appointment at 29 o’clock on February 28th.

Moreover, Benedict deferred the renunciation of ministerium, fixing it for February 28th, and in such a clear manner that Cardinal Sodano, immediately after His Declaratio, clarified very well to the Cardinals, almost obsessively, that He would remain Pope until the 28th.  But not only that: Ratzinger specified even the hour X after which he would be no longer the Pope, the 29th hour.. It was obviously a typographical error: He wanted to write 20:00 hours (8 P. M.), and in fact, it was corrected afterwards, but the newspapers cited the error with which He underlined how important that inconvenient hour would be, in which the people, as is their custom, would be at dinner in Italy. HERE:

  1. The Pope Emeritus is the Pope

Would he return to being a Cardinal? No: He specified afterwards (in 2016) that He will become a “pope emeritus” , making reference to the fact that, from the 70’s onward, in Canon Law there was permitted to diocesan Bishops in retirement to remain on the sacramental level Bishops, but emeriti for having resigned only from the practical functions. In the case of the Pope, however, there exists no sacramental dimension, but only a super-sacramental dimension which regards a charge which no man on earth has the power to modify or share.  Hence, he who resigns from the papal charge cannot remain in any sense the Pope, and a pope who resigns solely in part, does in truth remain in every way the Pope.  Benedict knows this, but his adversaries do not. Ratzinger, therefore, has purposefully used this camouflage of a “pope emeritus” — an expression which is inexistent in Canon Law, — to maintain himself as the Pope and, in the meantime, to leave the playing field to his enemies. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26732422/papa-ratzinger-ein-leben-nuova-versione-fatti-dimissioni-volontariamente-invalidate.html

  1. That white garment which He keeps wearing

Behold the reason why Benedict consistently maintains the white cassock, while omitting the mozzetta (white mantle) and sash, symbols of the practical functions which He alone has in fact renounced: the administering of the Barque of Peter and announcing the Gospel.  To Andrea Tornielli, the Vaticanista, who will ask him why He would not wear the cassock of a mere Cardinal, He will reply, justifying himself with the phrase that it was “an eminently practical solution, give that he had no other changes of clothing available”.  This fact will resist all opposition for years, even the most recent stigmatizzation of it by Cardinal George Pell, who said in Dec. 2020: “A pope after his resignation should not dress in white and should not teach in public”.  Yes, but perhaps there is no “after” here? HERE  https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26620895/benedetto-xvi-veste-bianca-senza-fascia-mantella-perche.html?fbclid=IwAR1UulaYNj1LRJL-DZZU-wMp1ku38bofoIkdQ1HAWx7Apk15K5mBQimBBBQ  and HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25518841/cardinale-george-pell-benedetto-xvi-torni-cardinale-questione-talare-bianca.html

  1. The wantonness of the Mafia of St. Gall.

Ratzinger knows well his adversaries, he knows that they have longed for power since the 90’s when they mustered together in secret meetings in the city of St. Gallen, Switzerland.  Not by chance, was it precisely in those years, that Pope Wojtyla published the apostolic constitution, Universi dominici gregis which automatically excommunicates any Cardinal guilty of a pre-Conclave plot to elect a pope.  Ratzinger knows that his enemies’ level of knowledge of Latin and Canon Law is inferior to his own and that, in the face of an apparent surrender, they would not have paid attention to details.  They would, rather, presume the validity of any document which spoke of a resignation.

In fact, after the Declaratio, the Mafia of St. Gall is dancing with the stars and causes there to be announced from the Vatican Press Office that “the Pope has resigned”.  Their desires appear to them fulfilled quasi “prophetically” by Ratzinger, at the end of his Declaratio where he eclairs to renounce the ministerium SO THAT (“ut”) “from February 28th, at the hour of Rome, the See of St. Peter will be vacant and that there is to be convoked, by those who are competent, a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff” (“by those who are competent”, that is, not “you Cardinals”, or at least not all of “you Cardinals”, a reference to those who were unfaithful to him).

_____

CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part I

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.

PART I

A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorny Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci

The question of the “two Pope” and of the resignation of Benedict XVI is a very broad one, not to be discounted, spreading over 8 years and events difficult to interpret.  In these moths, we have analyzed many individual facts and documents without receiving any response to our questions, legitimate through they be.

And yet, the thesis that has been proposed by the attorney Estefania Acosta and by other authoritative journalists, jurists, theologians and ecclesiastics (many of whom have paid a dear price for their positions), is shocking:  Pope Benedict XVI might have WILLINGLY prearranged an entirely invalid resignation to open a new front against his adversaries, causing them to nominate an anti-pope and arranging that in time the truth above the antichrist objectives of the “Deep Church” and the fact that he is still the sole Pope, be discovered.  This would bring about the definitive cancellation of the “false Church”, along with great purification from heresy and corruption, to open up a new epoch of Christian renewal.

Is this plausible? We have already investigated how the hypothesis of a Benedict XVI who is little prepared in Latin and canon law, or even an enthusiastic promoter of the modernist revolution of Francis, are hardly credible, here https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26440869/papa-ratzinger-ipotesi-dimissioni-approssimativo-modernista-reset-cattolico.html

Therefore, there remains that we sift through the hypothesis of the so-called “Catholic Reset”, cited above: this we have attempted to do by putting in order, according to this point of view, the facts, documents, persons.

To allow you to link to all of it, at once, we propose here a summary, a synthesis, from which you can investigate each argument further by clicking the links under the word, “Here”.

Judge for yourself: let alternative explanations be attempted, so long as they are able to place each of the “pieces of the puzzle” in an alternative but coherent framework, HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22796627/papa-francesco-bergoglio-ratzinger-lenga-gracida-negri-bernasconi-dornelles-eresia-danneels-vescovi-teologi.html

and HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26460977/benedetto-xvi-unico-vero-papa-reset-cattolico-dimissioni-non-valide.html

1, An inconvenient Pope

“Pray for me so that I do not flee before the wolves”: thus did Benedict XVI exhort the Catholic people at the beginning of his difficult pontificate, in 2005.  The world, in fact, immediately turned upon him: 16 years ago, the Catholic Church, with Her two-thousand-year-old Faith, identity and moral laws, constituted the last obstacle in the path of various globalist-progressive objectives sponsored by the international Left and Lodges.

After the hotly opposed discourse at Ratisbon (2006), which had shut the doors to all religious syncretism, after the Motu Proprio, “Summorum Pontificum” (2007), with which Ratzinger “restored” the Mass in Latin, invigorating Tradition with a fresh breath of oxygen, the internal clerical opposition of the Modernists — which had coagulated around the lobby of Cardinals, called “the Mafia of St. Gall” — there was then en-kindled and decided to foster such opposition to him that he would resign, as has been amply described by Cardinal Daneels (one of the members of the “Mafia”) in his Autobiography of 2015.

  1. The Year of Horrors (Annus orribilis)

In 2012, the situation became unsustainable: at the Vatican large numbers boycotted the Pope by refusing to obey him; the meek Pope-theology could not trust in anyone, so much so that even his private butler robbed documents from his mailboxes, in that famous scandal of Vatileaks which put in clear light the ferocious factional war in the bosom of the Church and gave breath, at last, to a plan to eliminate him physically.  But these revelations played into the hands of Ratzinger, as we will see, by making clear the context in which he would have to opt for his extrema ratio (last reckoning).

The Media, for their part, were all against him: they depicted him as a sullen obscurantist, they massacred him by trotting out true and presumed scandals of pedophilia (which today magically have disappeared) and, toward the end of December there arrived the last thumbscrew: The Obama-Clinton administration blocked the accounts of the Vatican by means of the SWIFT system.  They would only be unblocked in the days immediately following the “resignation” of Ratzinger: HERE https://www.imolaoggi.it/2015/09/29/come-lo-swift-banche-ricatto-benedetto-xvi-per-costringerlo-a-dimettersi/

  1. The Moment arrives for “Plan B”

With a Church completely infected with the metastasizing globalist modernism subject to and placed under international pressure, Benedict decided upon a definitive maneuver, undertaken “to clean out not only the small world of the Curia, but rather the Church in Her totality”, as he will explain to the journalist Peter Seewarld in 2016.

A “Plan B” worked out over many years precisely in view of an aggression against the Papacy from within the Church, and announced in many prophecies and in the Third Secret of Fatima, according to which Ratzinger was one of the few to be set apart by God for a special mission.

The Pope assembled in this way what could strategically be defined as a “planned ruse”, with a “false target” and a “feigned retreat” to cause the morale of the authentic Catholic population to be recharged  and to definitively annihilate the antichristic forces in the bosom of the Church. HERE. https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26771800/papa-ratzinger-terzo-segreto-fatima-ipotesi-specchio.html

  1. The “false target”: the ministerium

The plan was founded upon a provision put into act in 1983, when the papal charge was divided into architecture and decoration, munus and ministerium, or rather, the divine office and the practical exercise of its power.

And it is precisely this last which is the tru juridical “false target” which he offered to his enemies: to renounce the ministerium, and not the munus, would be to make one think that a noble, a count, had lost his title of  nobility  solely because he had renounced the administration of his possessions.  Nothing of the kind: a count remains always a count even without lands, and contrariwise, an administer cannot become a count solely by administering the holdings.  Munus and ministerium are not equivalents.

In this way, after two weeks of work, in January of 2013, Ratzinger formulated a Declaratio, a declaration in Latin of hardly 1700 key-strokes, where the terms were inverted, according to a “mirror trick”: instead of renouncing the munus, the charge of the Pope because the ministerium (the practical exercise) had already become burdensome, he announces to want to do the opposite: to renounce the ministerium because the exercise of the munus has become burdensome!  A true trick of words, but, which juridically would only have allowed, at the most, the nomination of a bishop-vicar, certainly not the resignation of a pope, the dignity of which is conserved in the foundational munus. (Of this speak at least 5 publications). HERE  https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26411995/un-testo-giuridico-della-avvocatessa-estefania-acosta-racconta-dimissioni-appositamente-scrite-invalide-da-benedetto-xvi-che.html

_____

CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.

Archbishop Viganò: Benedict’s Renunciation might be purposefully invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Good Friday — April, 2, 2021: In a wide ranging interview by Aldo Maria Valli, published yesterday, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has openly conceded that the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI might be invalid, and intentionally crafted for that purpose.

Click HERE above to read the original.

The comments of the Archbishop regard a question posed by Aldo Valli, in response to the crusade by Andrea Cionci of Il Libero here in Italy (see HERE), who has published numerous articles in March, of this year, exposing the invalidity of the Renunciation and the precise meaning of it in the mind and writings of His Holiness, Pope Benedict. In Cionci’s latest piece, he reports that the Secretary of State had approved the text of the Renunciation with all its errors!

Here is an English of the key passage in that interview:

Valli: You may have seen, Your Excellency, that again the question of “who is pope and who is not pope” has been brought up. Some say: since Bergoglio was elected on the basis of the maneuvers of the Mafia of St. Gallen and perhaps with irregularities during the Conclave, he is not pope. But Ratzinger would still be, who would have renounced the throne not freely, but because forced by strong pressure, and would have deliberately written incorrectly the Latin text of the renunciation to make it invalid. Church-Fiction? Or is there some element to be taken into serious consideration?

Viganò: Several causes – strong and undue pressures from outside the Church and from prominent members of the Hierarchy, as well as Joseph Ratzinger’s personal character – might have led Benedict XVI to formulate a declaration of renunciation in a totally unorthodox way, leaving the Church in a state of grave uncertainty and confusion; machinations of a group of progressive conspirators might have indicated in Bergoglio the candidate elected later during a conclave marked by violations of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that regulates the election of the Roman Pontiff: these elements might be such as to render Ratzinger’s abdication null and void, the Conclave of 2013 null and void, and the election of his successor. However, although widespread and undeniable, these elements require confirmation and above all a declaration by the supreme authority of the Church. Any pronouncement made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless. I also believe that, at present, the dispute over who is the reigning Pope serves only to weaken the already fragmented healthy part of the ecclesial body, sowing division among the good.

Let us confidently pray to the Lord to bring the truth to light and show us the way forward. For now, strengthened by the virtue of Prudence that orders the means to the ultimate end, let us remain faithful and jealously guard what the Church has always believed: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

To the Archbishop’s assertion that, “Any pronouncements made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless”, I can only respond that, not only does every man by natural right have the authority to say munus does not equal ministerium, but every Catholic as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ knows that the only true and authentic unity of the Church is founded upon acknowledging the truth of things and of law, and not upon a political consensus!

But the Archbishop does point out, if in an obscure manner, that all roads now lead to another Synod of Sutri, to which all Catholics, but especially the faithful and clergy of the Diocese of Rome, have a right to ask to be convened and to have an official response.

Finally, however you regard the Archbishop’s position, his statements will leave ever honest Catholic the opportunity to at last put to rest and bury the “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” narrative, pushed by the controlled Catholic traddie media, so shamelessly and with so many fraudulent claims, arguments, reasons, during the past 5 years.

Pope Benedict XVI’s shell game against the Mafia of St. Gallen

“Ein Leben”: In the second book of Interviews with Pope Benedict XVI, we find another story about His resignation

by Andrea Cionci

Here is an unofficial English translation

A few days ago, we became aware of strange inconsistencies and the possibility of a shocking subtext in the interview book by Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016) HERE .

On a deeper reading, the writing seemed to be able to coincide with a scenario now outlined by various theologians, journalists, Latinists and legally explained by the recent volume Benedict XVI: pope emeritus? By the lawyer Estefania Acosta HERE .

According to this thesis, Benedict XVI, now besieged by the internal modernist frond and by external globalist powers, never left the Petrine throne in 2013 : he only announced his resignation from the exercise of his functions, moreover without ever ratifying them. HERE

In this way he would have allowed his enemies to seize power, effectively constituting an anti-papal party . Why all this? It would be a strategic retreat to allow anti-Christ forces to manifest themselves and then be canceled, thanks to the recognition of the only true pope, Benedict, for a redemption-purification of the Church. Over the past eight years, Ratzinger, kept under control by the antipapal power, has thus sent us continuous messages through a subtly logical language to facilitate our awareness.

The question, incredible as it may seem, is serious and there are even priests who are excommunicated for their fidelity to Pope Benedict. The latest is Don Enrico Bernasconi , whose interview we propose HERE .

So we also went to read the second book by Peter Seewald ” Ein Leben – Una vita” of 2020 (Garzanti), of which few and disorganized fragments filtered out in the press.

The voluminous biography contains eight pages with new questions to Ratzinger . Let’s try to read them according to the above perspective and see if the sense can spin.

First of all, Ratzinger declares: “My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole” . And then: The real threat to the Church comes from the universal dictatorship of apparently humanistic contradicting ideologies, which entails exclusion from the basic consensus of society. [] Modern society intends to formulate an anti-Christian creed : whoever challenges it is punished with social excommunication. Being afraid of this spiritual power of the Antichrist is all too natural .

And so far we would be there . Benedict immediately after, underlines the differences with one of his illustrious predecessors.

The visit (2009) to the tomb of Pope Celestine V was actually a chance event; in any case I was well aware of the fact that Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and that therefore it could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent .

One could read this as meaning: “Celestine V legally resigned in 1294 because he did not feel like taking on the burden of the papacy, which I absolutely did not do, since I did not resign as pope, but I only declared that I wanted to renounce to the exercise of practical power, for the purposes we know. Celestino and I have nothing in common “.

Then the Holy Father continues:

“It was absolutely not my intention to take an extreme distance from the conditions in which the Church finds itself. If you study the history of the popes, you will soon realize that the Church has always been a net in which good fish and bad fish end up. The Catholic conception of the Church and of the managerial roles within it excludes the adoption of an ideal Church as a parameter and instead foresees that one is ready to live and work in a Church besieged by the forces of evil .

Or rather: “I have not in the least abandoned the role of pope. We know that the history of the Church is full of antipopes and we must be ready to face the siege of the forces of evil”.

Seewald then tackles the key question: according to Church historians there is no “emeritus” pope , since there cannot be two popes . It is true that, since the 1970s, a bishop can resign and become an emeritus, but this – he asks – also applies to the pope?

Ratzinger replies: It is not clear why this juridical figure should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. The formula manages to account for both aspects: on the one hand no concrete juridical mandate, on the other a spiritual charge that is maintained, even if invisible. Precisely the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus allows us to avoid even the idea of the coexistence of two popes, given that a bishopric can have only one holder “.

There is therefore only one pope. But when he says “the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus”, to which of the two does he refer, to the pope or to the bishop? The ambiguity does not seem accidental, but the Latinist Fr Alexis Bugnolo , an expert in canon law , explains :

If we mean BISHOP EMERITUS , the argument is invalid from the canonical point of view because a bishop receives an ecclesiastical office and, since his mandate as ordinary bishop has been created by the Church, two persons can be allowed in the dignity of the bishop. If we mean pope emeritus, the argument is still invalid since there is no juridical figure of pope emeritus and since the munus is not shared iure divino (by Divine insitution)”.

Also for the theologian Carlo Maria Pace , who HERE analyzed the invalidity of Ratzinger’s resignations due to their deferral, confirms: “Benedict XVI erroneously stated that a Pope who resigns remains Pope in the same way that bishops who resign remain bishops “.

In essence, the pope emeritus would himself be THE pope. In fact, if A bishop resigning (from the post of human origin) can become A retired bishop, IL Pope, renouncing the ministerium is always THE Pope, although retired, since it keeps the munus which is given directly by God. That’s why Ratzinger continues to say for eight years that the pope is only one and never specify that it is Francis.

Benedict seems to reiterate the concept, a few lines later, with an example: “A father remains so until death (even if he passes the management of the company to his son) and the human and spiritual meaning of being a father is not revocable”.

But what would be the spiritual purpose of these fake resignations?

An explanation is offered by Seewald’s own question:

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced of the fact that the real reason for (Ratzinger’s) resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience (concerning the ultimate destinies of man). In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being together “the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist” . The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, by her resignation from office she would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thereby contributing to its strengthening .”

And here is Pope Benedict’s response:

“St. Augustine said that on the one hand many are part of the Church only in an apparent way, while in reality they live against it, and that, on the contrary, outside the Church there are many who – without knowing it – deeply belong to the Lord and therefore also to his body, the Church. We must always be aware of this mysterious overlap of internal and external, an overlap that the Lord has exposed in several parables. We know that in history there are moments in which the victory of God over the forces of evil is visible in a comforting way and moments in which, instead, the forces of evil obscure everything .

Let’s say, in conclusion, he doesn’t seem to have exactly denied Agamben’s opinion.

Those who say Benedict renounced validly, now have no credibility

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the characteristics of the damned, is that they cannot repent. They have with a firm will and mind rejected the truth of their sin, forever.

This spiritual state can be arrived at even by those still alive in this world. Saint Alphonsus calls this moral state the state of reprobation. It is a definitive sign of a person who has chosen Hell.

For those who have not fully rejected, yet, God, there is always some uncertainty in their adhesion to evil, some small crack in their heart to open back up to the truth, some place in their mind through which the truth can be heard.

Now I publicly ask the entire Catholic world, and especially the entire College of Cardinals and College of Bishops:

Seeing that Peter Seewald in his new book, Benedickt XVI. Ein Leben, has quoted Benedict XVI saying that it was never his intention to renounce the spiritual mandate of the papacy, and seeing that there is no other mandate which constitute the Papal Office other than the spiritual, it must be confessed by all that Benedict XVI has not renounced the Petrine Munus, the Papal Office, even if he thinks he has or even if he thinks he can renounce part of it, while retaining part of it.

Therefore, are you now going to stand with Christ and return to loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI? or are you going to chose the part of the Father of Lies and continue to insist that the Conclave of 2013 was called during a legal sedevacante?

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

How Benedict has defeated “Francis”

Or, Why did Pope Benedict XVI do what he did on Feb. 11, 2013?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years.

Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times.

How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch

I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him (perhaps because he sensed that Ratzinger had the gift of prophecy); second, in 1983, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, in 1996, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes).

Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich (on the Vigil of St. Francis of Assisi, in 2004) to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come!

By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness.

The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly

No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ.

Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy).

With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, he crafted their defeat in secret. At the same time, he openly warned the faithful, that the Message of Fatima was about to be fulfilled (On May 13, 2010, saying “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…”).

Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed hundreds perverts from the clergy.

As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded.

The restoration of the Ancient Mass (July 7, 2007) and the expansion of the permissions for its use (April 30, 2011) caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published around Feb. 11, 2012! (note the date)

Benedict’s Master Stroke

Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom.

Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church.

On Feb. 11, 2013, he read out-loud in Consistory the text of the invalid formula. On Feb. 28, 2013 he explained that he had resigned the “active ministry”. The St. Gallen Mafia spread the word of a valid resignation. The rest is history.

The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him.

By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy.

If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares in the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, at the end of the text, any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a pope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope.*

Benedict has defeated “Francis”!

mrxwmdna


Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the  basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. — Finally, I entertain the possibility that some Cardinals know of this grand stratagem of Benedict and that is why they act so dumb when asked about the question of validity or invalidity of the resignation.

FOOTNOTE:

* The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope. See my Disputed Question on Defecting Cardinals, here.

 

 

 

 

Seewald’s new book on Pope Benedict XVI confirms his renunciation was invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Having read many reports regarding Peter Seewald’s new biography on Pope Benedict XVI, it is clear that it provides no new light on what happened on Feb. 11, 2013. While the entire Book needs to be read to make a certain determination on this, let us review the major reports about the book to show that this is most likely a correct assessment of its contents.

The German Press ignores the Renunication

DomRadio.De in its report of May, 4, 2020, entitled, Peter Seewald legt neue Biografie von Benedikt XVI. vor 1.184 Seiten über den früheren Papst (Peter Seewald publishes a new Biography on Benedict XVI: 1184 pages about the former Pope) does not even speak of what happened using the correct terms, but does reveal that the Pedophilia Crisis was the cause of the decision:

Resignation from the papal office

Or for the reform process of the “Würzburg Synod”, which he left without saying a word in 1974 when he realized that he could not influence him in his understanding. And also for the surprising step with which he has secured a place in church history for all time: the resignation from the papal office (Papstamt) and the entry into the office (Amt) of an emeritus pope, which he invented.

Seewald describes the departure in the life of the 93-year-old with empathy, he usually protects him against criticism. He always provides really new insights when he draws from personal conversations with the old pope (or with his secretary).

Such a very last, mostly written interview in autumn 2018 is the final chapter of the book. In it Benedict XVI. with old and new arguments, why he decided to resign in 2012 and how he understands and exercises the spiritual office of “Papa emeritus” (Amt de Papa emeritus). With a bit of bitterness, he also rejects the sharp criticism of his public statements.

One of the strongest chapters of the book with 1,150 pages of text and a detailed picture section includes the description of the abuse crisis and other scandals in the late phase of the Benedictine pontificate, which then led to the decision to resign – without having triggered this step, however, like Seewald and to insure his protagonist. The description of the meticulous preparation of the world-shattering event is exciting to read. Now you know who was informed when and how they managed to keep the sensational plan secret for months.

This report is uninformed, because Benedict XVI never renounced the Papal Office (PapstAmt) he only renounced the Petrine Ministry (PapstDeinst), as anyone who can real Latin can see. Evidently the author of this article cannot read Latin, but followed the German translation available on the Vatican Website, which I have shown to be falsified, and which our German correspondent showed was most likely subsequently manipulated by an English speaker.

Br.de suggests that no other information will be found in the Biography, which was written to defend Ratzinger and which contains interviews with more than 100 individuals:

Defense of a pontificate: a biography for Benedict fans

A book about Benedict XVI. for fans of Benedict XVI: The new Pope biography by Peter Seewald is told in an exciting way, but in an obvious effort to defend Benedict. There is only criticism of the pontiff in small doses.

In 1993 Peter Seewald metCardinal Ratzinger for the first time. Peter Seewald was supposed to write a portrait for the Süddeutsche Zeitung magazine about this man, who was perceived in Germany primarily as a “tank cardinal”: Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, must have liked the encounter and the resulting article.

Because Seewald accompanies Ratzinger even after the papal election. He was the only journalist who managed to have a detailed discussion with the Pope and to publish it.

The Featured Image above is a screen shot of the Br.de article.

The English speaking press, however seems more eager to frame the Biography as proof that Benedict did resign validly

For example, NCRonline.org in its report of May, 4, 2020, “Former Pope Benedict XVI sees Church threatened by pseudo-humanism” which is a reprint of an article by Katholische Nachrichten-Agentur, the emphasis, first of all, as can be seen from the title of the article, is on Former:

He also explained the reasons for his resignation as pope in 2013. He denied that it was because of corruption in the Vatican or the “Vatileaks” scandal. Instead, he said it had become increasingly clear to him that in addition to possible dementia, “other forms of insufficient ability to hold office properly are also possible.”

In this context Benedict XVI revealed that he, like Paul VI and John Paul II, had signed a conditional declaration of resignation “in the event of illness which rendered the proper performance of duties impossible.” He had already done this “relatively early” in his pontificate, Benedict said.

He commented at length on criticism of his resignation. The office of a “papa emeritus” that he had created should be compared to that of a bishop who had retired for age reasons. This legal status could also be applied to the Bishop of Rome. It prevented “any notion of a coexistence of two popes: a diocese can have only ONE incumbent. At the same time, it expresses a spiritual bond that can never be taken away.”

The former pope also likened his situation to that of an old farmer in Bavaria who has passed his farm to his son, lives in a small house next to it and has ceded his fatherly and commanding rights.

I find it curious that the Pope might have used the very analogy I used to show his resignation was invalid, in my article about the Grandfather on his Farm. I am not a prophet, but Pope Benedict XVI might read FromRome.Info.

If Seewald can be believed, and if the words he attributes to Pope Benedict XVI reflect his own mind, then it is clear that Pope Benedict XVI still is operating under the grave error of thinking that you can renounce the Papal Munus by giving up the power and governance but retaining a spiritual bond with the Papal dignity. Such an error is substantial, and in accord with Canon 188 would make the Renunciation irritus, that is, something which must be recognized by the whole Church has having never happened.

In Conclusion

Other reports cite statements which are incompatible with the truth that Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation. But their incompatibility only demonstrates that Benedict XVI does not understand what he did or does not want to say openly what he did, and is simply muddying the waters. As Pope Benedict XVI warned us at the beginning of his pontificate, we must avoid the Dictatorship of Relativism, which determines truth not according to facts and reality, but according to opinions and claims. That a man is or is not pope is not demonstrated according to opinion or claims, by himself or by others. It is established by his acceptance of his canonical election OR his renunciation in accord with canon 332. In the former case, Pope Benedict XVI is the pope no matter what others or he himself thinks. In the latter case, Pope Benedict XVI, since he did not renounce in accord with canon 332, is still the pope, no matter what others or he himself thinks or says — until he says, before 2 witnesses:  “I renounce the munus which I received when I accepted my canonical election,” or something logically equivalent to that.

As far as the evidentiary value of Seewald’s book, it has to be regarded as hearsay evidence, unless he can provide voice recordings of the statements made by Pope Benedict XVI, and demonstrate that the Pope made them without the presence of others who would monitor, report or coerce him for what he said.

As for the Italian press, Antonio Socci says nothing much about the controversy, but concludes that only God knows the role that Benedict has in the present crisis. He is surely exaggerating, because everyone knows what role the Pope has. They might not understand the kind of confusion into which a person can fall on account of error or what they might to out of fear, but that is because they have failed to really look at the matter with Christian Faith, which being based on the Incarnation, knows it must confront both the omnipotence of immutable truth and the vagaries of human flesh.

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Clamorous errors in the Latin of Benedict’s “Renunciation”

THIS IS A REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL

DI SEGUITO LA TRADUZIONE ITALIANA

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratres carissimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

ITALIAN TRANSLATION

Di frà Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratres carissimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

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

IN CONCLUSIONE

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

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

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

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Definitive Canonical Study of the Renunication of Pope Benedict: Spanish

 

 

 

This Canonical Study is the first Scholarly work towards the International Inquest which is preparing the way for a Special Synod
to restore Pope Benedict and depose Bergoglio

THIS IS THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE IMMINENT
PUBLICATION OF 4 VIDEOS EXPOUNDING THE ENTIRE LEGAL ARGUMENT

FromRome.Info will publish each of the 4 videos, in Spanish and give a summary

For now, What follows is a Deepl.com translation
of the text at YouTube describing this video

+ + +

ADORACIÓN Y LIBERACIÓN PRESENTA…

THE DEFINITIVE CANONICAL STUDY
OF BENEDICT XVI’S RESIGNATION
AND THE ELECTION OF JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO!

A CONCLUSIVE WORK ON THESE TWO THEMES, SO CLOSELY RELATED, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN BRINGING THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL TO THEIR SENSES FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.

A WORK OF MONTHS CARRIED OUT BY A TEAM COORDINATED BY MAURICIO OZAETA AND THE LAWYER ESTEFANIA ACOSTA

A WORK THAT MAURICIO OZAETA PRESENTS TO US IN THIS BRIEF MEETING, EXCLUSIVELY FOR ADORATION AND LIBERATION, AND THAT, GOD WILLING, WILL BE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN FOUR SPECIAL PROGRAMS IN WHICH, THE MAIN AUTHOR HERSELF, ESTEFANÍA ACOSTA, WILL EXPLAIN THE STUDY POINT BY POINT.

IN ADDITION, YOU CAN ACCESS FROM OUR LINKS TO THE FULL DOCUMENT, AND HAVE IT FOR READING AND PERSONAL TRAINING.

ONLY IN ADORATION AND LIBERATION!

THERE ARE SEVERAL STUDIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS WHO HAVE TOUCHED ON THIS SUBJECT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

IN ADORATION AND LIBERATION, WE HAVE ECHOED, WITHOUT GOING ANY FURTHER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WORKS OF BRO ALEXIS BUGNOLO

BUT THIS STUDY SURPASSES ALL THE OTHERS FOR A SIMPLE REASON: IT DEALS WITH THE “SUPPOSED” RENUNCIATION OF H.S. POPE BENEDICT XVI AND THE “SUPPOSED” ELECTION OF BERGOGLIO, FROM AN INTEGRAL CANONICAL JURIDICAL POINT OF VIEW, AND FROM ALL ASPECTS.

DO NOT MISS THE PREMIERE, TOMORROW, FRIDAY APRIL 3, 2020, AT 8:00 PM (Spanish time) (1:00 PM COLUMBIA TIME)

THE ULTIMATE STUDY!

1 PM COLOMBIA TIME IS EQUIVALENT TO

11:00 A.M. LOS ANGELS
12.00 MEXICO CITY / COSTA RICA /GUATEMALA/SAN SALVADOR
13.00 BOGOTÁ / LIMA / QUITO /PANAMÁ
14.00 WASHINGTON /CARACAS /PUERTO RICO/ASUNCION/STO.DOMINGO/SUCRE
15.00 BUENOS AIRES /SANTIAGO DE CHILE /RIO DE JANEIRO
19.00 FATIMA / LONDON
20.00 MADRID / ROME /BERLIN / LOURDES / WARSAW
21.00 JERUSALEM

Pope St. Pius X foresaw Pope Benedict XVI as the true Pope until his death

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In 1909, during his audience with the Franciscans, Pope St. Pius X fell into an ecstasy.

When he came out of it, he was asked, “What I have seen is terrible! Is it I or one of my successors. I do not know. I saw a pope flee from the Vatican, walking upon the cadavers of his priests.”

Of a second vision, sometime before his death on August 20, 1914, the Saintly Pope said again, now with more precision: “I saw one of my successors, with my same name, who fled, walking upon the cadavers of his brothers. He will take refuge in a hidden place. But after a short rest, he will die a cruel death.”

The source of this testimony is repeated by several Italian authors, such as Antonio Socci, as something which was considered credible by even those who work in the Vatican, but I can find no certain person or source for it.

As for what these words of the Saintly pope mean. First, let me explain that the term, “brothers” in the mouth of the Pope in those times refers to his brother Cardinals. Second, the Italian, which I have translated as “with my same name”, means one who has the same name. This could be Pius or his baptismal name, Joseph.

Well since Pope Pius X there have been 2 popes named Pius: Pius XI and Pius XII, but neither of them had to flee the Vatican, nor did either die a cruel death — a phrase which I translated literally from the Italian, and which means a death in which there is a shedding of blood.

But Pope Benedict XVI’s baptismal name is Joseph.

So if this vision pertains to him, then it not only foretells a horrible end for him, but signifies that in the mystical visions of Pope Saint Pius X, God had revealed that Pope Benedict XVI will be the true successor of Saint Peter unto the very day of his death. And that means Bergoglio was never the pope.

Join the League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This is a reposting of the original article of Dec. 19, 2019

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.'”

EG1srINWwAE_wLu

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:

  1. Daily prayers.
  2. Worthy communions and confessions.
  3. Acts of penance and sacrifices.
  4. Fasting and abstinence.
  5. Alms for the poor.
  6. Recitation of THE MOST HOLY ROSARY.
  7. Acts of Consecration to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, whether personal or in groups, parishes, Dioceses etc.

Versione Italiana: https://www.chiesaromana.info/index.php/2019/12/19/la-lega-di-preghiera-per-papa-benedetto-xvi/ (This version is a deepl.com translation, if you find errors, leave a comment there)

The Following Blogs or Websites have joined

… in this League of Prayer by promoting it with a re-posting of the call to prayer:

(Listed in order of their adhesion, according to time)

Please let us know of your adhesion to this Effort, via comment or ping-back. Thank you!

Clamorous errors in the Latin of Benedict’s “Renunciation”

THIS IS A REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL

DI SEGUITO LA TRADUZIONE ITALIANA

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratres carissimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

ITALIAN TRANSLATION

Di frà Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratres carissimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

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

IN CONCLUSIONE

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

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

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

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

A Reply to Father Brian Harrison’s, Is Benedict Still the Pope?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In the Summer Issue of the Latin Mass Magazine, 2020,  there has appeared an article by Father Brian Harrison, on pp. 12-19, with 21 footnotes, entitled, “Is Benedict Still the Pope”.

Since I was named in the article and insulted, I will reply to the entire argument. I was not notified of the publication by either the editor of the magazine or the author of the article. A reader informed me.

For a summary of my reply, see the end of this article. I have decided to make no preliminary comments, because I want you to use your reason, not my opinions, to evaluate my criticism of what Father Harrison says.

First, I will thank Father Harrison for attempting to defend his position with words. He holds that Benedict is certainly no longer the pope. By expressing his thoughts in words the entire Church is given the opportunity to assess the value of his argument. This is so unlike 100% of the College of Cardinals and 99.99% of the Bishops and 99.999% of the priests.

I invite you to obtain a copy of the magazine and read his article so you can avail yourself of this rare opportunity to, as it were, look into the mind of a priest who names Pope Francis daily in the Canon of the Mass.

I will only outline the argument and comment, here, as my reply.

Second, I thank the editor of the Latin Mass Magazine for admitting the controversy exists. This controversy became heated in November 2018. So to discuss it in his magazine nearly 20 months later, is the very least a sign that the controversy has not gone away. This is so unlike 99% of all Catholic publications, which have neither the courage nor integrity to confront the issue.

However, since those who say Benedict XVI is no longer the pope have had 20 months to put their arguments together, every reader of Father Harrison’s article should expect the best of all arguments.

So here is my running commentary on the argument presented in his article.

Resignationists, p. 12

At the beginning of his article, Father Harrison explains that he will slur all his opponents with a name: resignationists.  This is really not necessary, and quite uncharitable. For as Aristotle says, when a man fails to have a rational argument for his position he begins with insults (ad hominem arguments). And to do that at the beginning of your article sends the wrong message.

But in his haste to insult his opponents, he has made a logical error. Because it is he who holds that Benedict has resigned, and his opponents who hold that he has not resigned. This oversight, at the very beginning, makes us wonder whether Father Harrison wrote this article in a calm thoughtful state of mind, without excessive anger or passion.

Frame the Discussion, p. 12

The first honest way to enter a debate is not to open by saying that those who disagree with you are psychologically of doubtful sanity or suffer from psychosis (inability to accept reality). But that is what Father Harrison does, by saying that the thesis of his opponents hold an opinion which disagrees with 5000 less 2 Bishops and 100% of the Cardinals. Therefore, he argues you should dismiss it on grounds that the world considers it improbable.

This is not the proper way to argue. Since truth is not determined by a vote, the truth can be that which the majority might disagree with. But also, Father is arguing ex silentio. Because clearly 99% of the Church has never examined the evidence for or against the validity of the Papal resignation. So that they hold any opinion is not evidence of anything other than that the hearsay is that the Pope has resigned and that the vast majority did not think to question the hearsay. That proves nothing about the truth, it only makes an observation about the power of the mass media and political networks to convince the masses that something is true, whether it be true or not. I think we can all admit that the Media has this power, as we have just come out of a lock down for a winter flu!

Moreover, just as we would not build a sound argument as to whether the world is flat or a globe, based on the opinion of 99% of the population, because in one age, that was thought to be the truth, which in another age was thought to be false, so in all other things, we do not judge what is true based on opinions of those who do not know, but guess.

Father Harrison by opening his article with such an argument is saying that those who have never investigated and who cannot know the facts, because of their failure to investigate, should be taken, before we investigate, as the presumptive possessors of the truth.  That is simply absurd, as it is the principle of thought in highly ignorant and primitive pre-scientific societies.

If Father really believes in such a principle, it is a wonder what he believes about many other affairs in which 99% have not the expertise to know the facts, laws or scientific principles which regard it.

When one argues, one should begin with the strongest of arguments. And so we must assume that Father Harrison has done exactly that, and move on to his other arguments.

But Benedict is not ignorant, pp. 12-13

Next Father Harrison argues, that since Benedict is not ignorant, then what he intended or did is what I think he intended or did, because otherwise what he intended or did would be stupid or erroneous.

That is a good argument to use while you are shaving in the bathroom all alone, but I assure you it does not convince anyone outside your bathroom.

What is necessary for a pope to renounce his office (munus)?, p. 13

Next Father Harrison opens by framing the question thus. And he shows that he does not even know Latin, by calling the office by the Latin word munus. I admit that if one has been reading the Code of Canon Law according to the English translation widely found on the internet, this can happen. I committed the same blunder in my Scholastic Question. But munus does not mean office, as any dictionary of the Latin language will tell you.  And though in Canon 145 §1 it says that every officium is a munus, according to the rules of logic, that does not mean that the word munus translates as office. Just as if you said, that “Every dog is a living animal”, it does not mean that in the sentence, “Homo est animal vivens” you can replace animal vivens with dog. (For those who do not read Latin, that Latin sentence says, “A man is a living animal”).

But rather than discuss here what the word munus means, he launches into the second half of Canon 332 §2 and puts off the crucial argument to the end. Which is a really bad way to argue, since your first arguments will have no foundation in fact or law if you have not yet admitted what you hold about the nature of the act which the canon requires. Even Our Lord told us what will happen with those who build on sand, so I do not have to repeat His teaching.

Did Pope Benedict XVI resign freely?, p. 13

The first argument should be whether Pope Benedict resigned, and then having proven that, whether he did so freely and with due manifestation. That would be to argue logically and according to the order of words in Canon 332 §2.

But Father Harrison does not do that. He begins with the debate over liberty. His argument is basically, that those who say the renunciation was not free are presuming, as there is no conclusive evidence. I am surprised at this point that Father Harrison wants to look at evidence, since he told us at the beginning of his article that we must presume that that what 99% of everyone who have not investigated hold a thing to be, is what we should presume a thing to be. Why should we investigate whether the act is free or not? if we are to begin with such presumptions? He does not say.

As for what criterion must be met to establish a canonical act to be free, Father Harrison does not cite any canonical principal. He also does not distinguish between the freedom to do one thing and the freedom to do another. That Pope Benedict XVI says in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 that he freely declares does not mean that he was free to do that which I think he meant, when I close my eyes to what words he actually said. That would be to transfer his claim of liberty in what he said, to my claim of what he meant by what he said. And that is simply incorrect. Nor does it mean that if he freely declares, that which he declared he did freely, just as if a man says, “I freely declare that I will vote for Trump,” does not mean that he will vote for Trump or has voted for Trump.

I would like to see a canonical reference to what constitutes liberty in a canonical act. I think as of yet this is one of the great weaknesses in the discussion.

For transparency, I admit that I presume an act to be free, unless its author says otherwise at any time. But I only hold to be free the act which he specified, not any acts which I believe he may have or might have wanted to posit.  I think in the presence of a lack of further information this is the only sound position.

Father Harrison closes this section by appealing to the principle that those who assert the act was not free are the ones who need to prove their assertion.  This is a good principle of argumentation, and I recommend that Father Harrison think to apply it to his own argument. Because, as it is he who says that Benedict is not the pope, when he in fact agrees with the whole Catholic world that Benedict was validly elected as the Pope, it is the duty of Father Harrison TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that Benedict XVI is NO LONGER the pope, before we accept anything he says. He has not done this, so you can judge the solidity of his arguments on that forensic basis.

Did Pope Benedict XVI duly manifest what he did?, pp. 13-14.

Father Harrison also holds that the act was duly manifested. He seems to not know what the canonical term, rite, means, as he makes no reference to the law. But in substance he argues as if it means what it does mean, namely, that the Pope make his act known in the presence of at least two Bishops, and does so most properly before the body which elected him, the Cardinals. I agree that this was done, but it is immaterial if you do not address WHAT the pope did, because, if a pope rite manifests that he declares the Moon made of cheese, you cannot rightly judge the canonical value of his act without considering whether the Moon is really made of cheese or not, and whether the Pope has the authority to make such a declaration or not. This is obvious. A child can see it.

Did Pope Benedict XVI renounce that which he had to renounce?, p. 14

Father Harrison frames the core question within the context of a due manifestation. This is not precise, but adequate for purposes of debate.

He opens his argument by saying that munus and ministerium mean basically the same thing, as all dictionaries of Ecclesiastical Latin show. I do not know which dictionaries he uses, so I cannot judge his statement. I know how to use Latin Dictionaries, as I have translated more than 9000 pages of medieval Latin. In my opinion his appeal to dictionaries is a bad argument, even if dictionaries were uniform — which they are not — since dictionaries are uniformly inaccurate and full of errors. Only one who really uses many dictionaries and who has precisely studied the Latin of one epoch knows how to avoid such errors and how many errors there are. Moreover, even if a dictionary has among the many meanings of a word, the same meaning as those meanings which are found under the heading of another Latin word, THAT DOES NOT MEAN that in any given sentence or writing, in which both words appear, that the author intended to use them in the same sense. This should be obvious. Otherwise, every author talking about how his dog got upset and bit the surface of a tree, would not be able to be understood as to what he was referring with the word, “bark”.  If Father Harrison really wants us to believe and accept his principle for verbal interpretations, I think he is joking with us.

But more importantly, Father Harrison seems to be entirely ignorant of Canon 17, which is discussed frequently in this debate. Because in Canon 17 it does not cite dictionaries as a source to be used to understand the meaning of any term in Canon Law. Father Harrison must know of canon 17, as everything I write refers to it frequently. As he will next directly name me in his article, he cannot  be ignorant of it. Therefore his omission of reference to this Canon should be understood as a BIG SIGN that he knows his argumentation would fail if he opened that can of worms, as we say.

It was Benedict’s indisputable intention, p. 14

After accusing Catholics of presuming that Benedict did not have the intention to resign, without evidence, Father Harrison opens his argument about munus and ministerium by asserting as a principle, that Benedict indisputably intended to use both words synonymously. But though he asserts this and repeats it, he gives no proof.

As a translator, I know that is the wrong way to approach any text. First, you see how the words are used, and second you argue from what is clear. But you certainly never say that when an author uses different words, that it is certain he intended to mean the same thing. Such a principle is not even rational, and it is certainly not one which comes from a mind which seeks to precisely know the causes of every variation in a text. What more can I say, than that it is a weak argument, because once again, Father Harrison wants us to take him as the authority on what Benedict intended, even though he has argued well that those who make assertions must prove them, and as we will see in the following, he never proves this assertion, he just keeps referring to it. Thus, he argues as if the rule of proof does not apply to himself, only to his opponents. And that is a very bad way to argue, because it makes you appear intellectually conceited.

Furthermore, his argument is bad forensics. For it is like the argument, “If you keep your eyes closed you will see that there is no evidence in this room of a murder”. For, Father Harrison first wants to convince us not to look at the evidence by running at us with an argument which takes him as the authority that there is no evidence to see.

The Pope meant munus when he said ministerium because…, pp. 14-15.

Beside repeating that self-referential principle, Father Harrison advances an old argument, which I summarize thus: Since what Pope Benedict XVI says in his Declaratio, contains words which follow the renunciation of ministerium, which only would in fact have effect IF he renounced munus, then we must read ministerium as if it were munus.

This is one of the strongest arguments that can be mustered for the validity of the renunciation. I say, strongest, because it seems strong to those who do not think about it. It was the very hermenutic that I held for 5 years, when I did not think about it.

But if we use comparisons, we can see that it is not an argument at all. And this is the proper way to begin to think about it.

Here are some examples of what humans can say and whether this principle of interpreting words which are prior in a sentence by words which follow in a sentence is a valid way of reading a sentence. Take these 3 examples:

I went to the mechanic to fetch my car after its repairs, so that my wife would not invite me to play bridge with her friends.

I went to do my weekly shopping at the supermarket, so that I would not miss out on my haircut.

I am going to renounce eating bananas, so that the see of Peter becomes vacant.

In the first sentence, we see that what follows in the second half of the sentence refers to a condition which the speaker wanted to avoid, but it does not explain why his car needed repairs, only his cause for doing a necessary thing at that moment. If one argued that the game of bridge caused the meaning of the first half of the sentence, and not merely indicated an occasion which the speaker wanted to evade, you would end up concluding that the car needing repairs had something more to do with the game of cards, which is patently absurd.

In the second sentence, we see that there is something which the speaker leaves unexplained. And we the readers are left to conjecture as to why the speaker has put both thoughts together. We might postulate that the barbershop is near the supermarket or along the way to or from it, but that would be pure supposition. We are left not knowing the intention of the speaker and it would be clear that we could not really know it without asking him. If we assume anything, it is clear that we are adding data which is not contained in the statement, and by doing so might end up with a totally unfounded conclusion, based on our erroneous supposition and interpretation.

In the third sentence, we are confronted with something which is inexplicable, because we recognize that there is no rational cause why renouncing bananas has to do with vacating the Apostolic See. If we assume that which follows in the second half of the sentence requires that the word, bananas, means the papal office, then we are clearly being irrational and unjust in our interpretation. And if anyone tried this, he surely would be laughed at.

But Father Harrison commits this same blunder. If his key argument that what Benedict intended to do requires us to read ministerium as munus, then he must be honest to admit that that is his interpretation, and that if there be no rational reason why a renouncing of service leads to a renunciation of office, then his argument is unjust and irrational itself, and thus should be laughed at.

Father Harrison does not address the relationship between ministerium and munus, where he admits such words might mean two different things. But if he needs help, he only needs to examine the facts of history throughout the whole world in recent months.

For the Bishops of the world renounced their priestly ministry to the faithful during the lockdown.  Thus if a renunciation of ministry leads causally and necessarily to the renunciation of munus, then the Bishops are no longer our superiors.  Does Father Harrison actually believe that? And if he does NOT, why does he think such an argument is valid to kick Benedict out, but not kick out his own Bishop?

Footnote 10, p. 14

But as Father Harrison cites my Scholastic Question in footnote 10, of this his argument, I will respond to his objection there. He says that since Benedict uses ita ut, not simply ut, my objection regarding ut, does not apply. He seems to think that ita ut and ut are two different phrases in Latin, generically different, that is, of two different genera. He has evidently never studied Latin grammar, since ut is a conjunction and ita is an adverb, and thus, the phrase ita ut is a species of an ut clause.  What I have said, that an ut phrase indicates a goal but does not necessarily achieve that goal is in no way undone by Father Harrison’s gratuitous assertion that ita ut does introduce a clause which alters the meaning of the main sentence, because if you do that which Father Harrison is fond of — use a Latin dictionary — you will see that “ita” when used as an adverbial particle means “so much”. So Father is saying that in the sentence,

I declare that I renounce bananas so much that (ita ut) the see of St. Peter will be vacant.

the use of ita ut produces the vacancy of the See. If that is his argument, I think all humanity would disagree.

Actually, however, having read 9000 pages of Latin and written a Latin Grammar, I can tell you that ita ut can only be translated as “so much that,” when that which precedes is capable of quantification.

Such as in the sentence:

I walked so much that I began to feel very tired.

And since no amount of renouncing service causes the loss of an office, since these two things are not quantitative measures of one another — service being exercise, and office being that which is exercised — you cannot read ita ut as “so much that,”  if you still want us to consider you a rational being, arguing in good faith.

But Father Harrison ignores this glaring inconsistency, and moves on and says…

A Certain Br. Alexis  Bugnolo, p. 15

Well, I thank Father Harrison for naming me, even if he does so as if I were a certain species to be on guard against. In English it is a denigration to put “certain” in front of a persons name. But since he also prefaces this by calling me a resignationist, I will suppose that 2 insults to introduce me is a psychological way to warn those readers who want to be mind controlled by Father Harrison, that I am a dangerous individual and that all should accept what Father Harrison says of me, and not consider or investigate further!

I am reminded of certain thought control institutions of the Soviet Union — but I digress.

Here are Father’s actual words:

The resignationist who insists most emphatically, and in the most detail, that regardless of the Pope’s own intentions, formally renouncing the ministerium, but not the munus, will not leave Peter’s See vacant, is a certain Brother Alexis Bugnolo. So what is his proof that ministerium can never be used canonically as a synonym for munus? He tells us: “This can be seen from its use in the Headings of the New Code for canon 145 §1, where every ecclesiastical office is called a munus, not a ministerium.”11 Well, that is true of c. 145, but throughout the subsequent 51 canons in this section,12 “every ecclesiastical office” is called an officium not a munus.

Here, I have to laugh. Because Father Harrison counters my assertion which regards the predication of officium with munus, with the assertion that the English translation has office for the Latin word munus. Does he think that is an argument?

I am talking about the Latin text, and he is talking about the relationship between the English and Latin texts. That does not disprove what I say. To disprove what I say, you would have to find in those next 51 canons a Latin sentence which connects the noun ministerium with officium, or vice versa, with the Latin verb esse, to be.  Because that is what predication is, the connection of two nouns with the verb to be. And since every definition is founded upon a predication, if you cannot find such a sentence, your argument that the two words mean the same thing HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION IN THE TEXT NOR IN LOGIC.

But perhaps Father really does not understand things of this kind. I wonder if he has ever read a treatise on Logic or on Grammar. He does cite my Scholastic Question, so he has read something about both.

Next after making several sweeping assertions without any proof, he accuses me of his own sin, saying that I make a sweeping assertion regarding the whole of Canon Law on the meaning of munus and ministerium. While it is true I make such an assertion in my Scholastic Question, that the assertion is global, and affirmative does not make it unfounded, since I had already studied the Code before making it, and since at the academic conference in October 2019, here at Rome, I demonstrated it textually and conclusively.  But perhaps Father Harrison did not know that. (see here: https://fromrome.info/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/).  I therefore make a quite founded assertion. And if anyone reads that study he will see that ministerium never means munus in the Code of Canon law of 1983, and that canon 17 requires us to accept that as the teaching of the Magisterium on this debate.

Father Harrison attempts to refute that conclusion by saying that Canon Law does exactly what I say it never does. He quotes Book III, title 2 of the Code, but cites no canon. As I can find no canon there which says a ministerium is a munus, I do not know how to respond to Father Harrison’s implicit assertion that I am ignorant or a liar. His accusation is grave, and he should have cited his proof. What Father Harrison is arguing, is that since this section begins with the Title, De divini verbi ministerio, that all the occurrences of munus in this section are to be read as ministerium.

As I said before, a definition is founded upon a predication, which is a sentence in which two nouns are conjoined by the verb, to be, in one of its forms, in the present tense.

What Father Harrison has done is created a new unheard of definition of a definition. According to him, if a noun appears in a title of any text, any word in that text which he says means the same thing as the noun, means the same thing as that noun. This means, in the world of Father Harrison, everyone who has ever written a dictionary, will now have to appeal to his infallible authority to determine which nouns mean the same thing as the nouns in the titles of every text. Father has a a lot of work a head of him, and I wish him a long life to fulfill it.  But as for the reason of us who know that his argument is grasping for straw, we can see that such a rule of interpretation is simply a gratuitous assertion posing as infallible principle, to do that which no human has ever done in history.

The common sense way to read a text defies Father Harrison. Because, titles tell us the general topic of the text which follows, and in that text there can be many names and nouns for things related to the topic, not all of them are or have to be the definitions of the nouns in the title. To prove this, pick up any book and read the Title and then open it.

Father follows up this argument, by saying that the ministries of lector an acolyte are offices. I think he is thinking of the Code of 1917, in which both are minor orders. The offices of acolyte and lector were abolished in the new Code. They are now only ministries, which is why a woman can fulfill the duties of each, under certain circumstances. So his argument that the fulfillment of their duty is called ministeria in the Code does not mean that the Code holds them to be munera by definition. Father is also ignoring the meaning of words — he has been doing this the entire time —  since every munus has a ministerium, we should expect that when the Code speaks of the ministry of the clergy to preach, that it will first refer to their munus of teaching. So his argument proves nothing at all. Nay, since as I said, that every office is a munus, does not prove that every munus is an office. So even if there are liturgical munera which are exercises as ministeria, that does not prove they are the same thing, because the title to authority which is an office is not the work done to fulfill the duty of that office, as every sane person can see. As I explained in my 7 part documentary (see here), munus is used to describe liturgical duties in the presence of a priest because the priest has a munus sanctificandi and he coopts minor orders to assist him in this duty at Mass; therefore, the munera being exercised are not theirs, but his. That is why they exercise a ministry properly speaking and can even do so stably, but properly speaking have no munus. This is not difficult to understand.

His clear and correctly expressed intention, p. 15

Father Harrison then moves on to a discussion of substantial error in the act of resignation. His  basic argument is that the Pope is not stupid, and I hold that he was stupid if he did anything other than validly resign the papal office, therefore he did validly resign. — This is another of those arguments that might come to you while shaving, but I recommend you leave it in the bathroom.

But more importantly, Father has misrepresented Canon 332, which in no part of it speaks of the necessity of having the proper intention as a condition of validity or as the definition of the essence of the act. This is because Canon Law regards things in the external forum. What the pope intended cannot be a source of the validity of the act, because, since what he intended is secret and known to God alone, no act of resignation could ever be certain if right intention was required as a cause of its validity. Also, intentions when judged by others are often misjudged. Thus Father Harrison is taking a criterion upon which he asserts his infallible authority to judge to close off consideration of the fact that a juridical act must be judged by external evidence alone, or else no certitude can be had about what it does or does not mean.

Here we arrive at a fundamental point: that a papal resignation is invalid does not mean any grave fault upon anyone, per se. It can simply be an error in the Latin. However, the Code of Canon Law which Pope John Paul II published and which remains the law of the Church which alone judges the act of the man who is the pope, requires that the man who is the pope objectively signify that which the code requires him to signify in a papal renunciation. Lacking munus or any other word which canonically necessarily means munus, means the act is defective. What is the problem with such an approach? You would only argue against that if you benefit in some way from the error.

In the next 2 and one half pages, Father Harrison rails against those who argue that Benedict has acted for 7 years as one who has retained something of the papal authority. His position is that since there can be Bishops emeriti, there can be Popes emeriti. But as there is nothing in Canon law about a pope emeritus, here again, we must have recourse to Father Harrison’s infallible ability to interpret everything and conclude that he is completely unquestionable in his argument (I am being sarcastic). The most eminent canonists of Rome have argued from the first week of March, 2013, that there is no such status as a pope emeritus and that Benedict must stop wearing white, calling himself, the Pope, signing with his Papal Name, and the P.P., and giving Papal blessings. So evidently there are some who think differently than Father Harrison on this point.

In Summary

Father Brian Harrison has presented us with the argument of a priest, who names Pope Francis in the canon of the Mass, and who has developed a long litany of excuses for his own behavior. The principles of his argument are self contradictory, illogical, irrational, and in many cases involve principles of interpretation which he has invented for this argument. He has employed every tactic of the nominalist to prove his case, resorting to the most sordid forms of argumentation and logic. In such wise, he has given everyone who does not want to find the truth reasons not to think.

But, thankfully, in doing so, he has give all rational men a strong motive to doubt that anyone at all who holds that Pope Francis is the Pope, after investigating the evidence of history and the requirements of the law, is truly honest or rational.

Contrariwise, he has negatively proven that LOGIC, REASON, GRAMMAR, AND LAW ALL TESTIFY THAT BENEDICT IS THE POPE! Since to argue his case, he chose to attack all four of these. All Catholics therefore who understand that our Faith requires us to accept logic, reason, grammar and Church Law, thus can conclude that Father Harrison’s argument comes from the ancient serpent who wishes us to destroy our minds, our speech and live lawlessly. And that is the spirit of the man of Sin, whose time is rapidly approaching.

I therefore conclude, that Benedict XVI is the pope, since he remains such unless it can be proven he is no longer such. That is my duty as a Catholic. And I invite you to be dutiful Catholics.

Viva Papa Benedetto!

Watch my 7 part documentary proving that Benedict XVI is still the pope, which I published at Easter this year, at >

+ + +

Help Support Br. Bugnolo by making a free-will subscription to FromRome.Info by clicking this image:

Join Br. Bugnolo in a crusade of Charity for the Catholics of Beirut, by clicking this image:

[simple-payment id=”20843″]