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

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

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

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

Here is the report from our Correspondent in Germany:

Dear Brother Bugnolo,

Regarding your question:

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

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

English:

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

German:

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

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

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

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

But there is another finding which is of great interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless,

Catholics must now Rebuild the Church

Screenshot_2019-11-22 800px-Bernardus_van_Clairvaux_bekeert_Willem_van_Aquitanië jpg (JPEG Image, 800 × 461 pixels)

LET US STOP SAYING THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Schism started 6 years and 8 months ago, when the Cardinals seeing that Pope Benedict’s Act of Renouncing the “ministry committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals”, took advantage of his age and weak constitution by announcing to the world that he had resigned the Papacy. — If they had an ounce of respect for Our Lord, Who is Truth and Justice and His gift of the Office of St. Peter, they would have pointed out to him the numerous grammatical and legal and logical problems with the text he read.

Was he coerced or forced to renounce? Was he threatened? Was he confused? Did he just want to retire and not resign? Was he just utterly disgusted with the corruption of the Vatican?

Those are important historical questions, but THEY ARE IRRELEVANT, because as it stands HE NEVER RENOUNCED THE PAPAL OFFICE.  And anyone who does not know this can simply read PPBXVI.org or the From Rome Blog to know it. And if any Catholic refuses this, they are either intellectually incapable of understanding that two words can mean different things, or they are volitionally indisposed to separate themselves from Bergoglio and thus must be presumed to be heretics and schismatics, regardless of what mass they go to!

So, let’s first ennumerate the massive crimes being committed on a daily basis:

Numerous Canonical Crimes committed by nearly the entire Hierarchy who knows this

Cardinal Sodano and everyone else who went ahead and pretended he did are guilty of violating numerous Canons of Church Law, among which are:

  1. Canon 40, which declares NULL AND VOID any action taken by anyone before determining that the Act of one’s superior is authentic and integral — This act is full of errors and thus not integral.
  2. Canon 41, which grants the exception to all subordinates in the case of an administrative act which is NULL — and there is none more null than announcing the renunciation of the ministry of an office without renouncing the office or the ministry! — and which precepts all subordinates TO CONFER with their superior about any inconsistencies in the Act. FAILURE TO DO THIS results in the USURPATION OF POWER, because the subordinate who puts into act an Act which is canonically NULL has in fact arrogated power to himself which he does NOT have.
  3. Canon 1381, which forbids the usurpation of any ecclesiastical office, because if you proceed to elect another Pope when the present Pope has not resigned, you are collaborating in the usurpation of office.
  4. Canon 1382, which punishes with latae sententiae excommunication ALL bishops who consecrate bishops without a Pontifical Mandate (when the Apostolic See is not impeded), which is what anyone who collaborates with the usurpation of the Papal Office does.
  5. Canon 1384, which punishes all who are involved in the usurpation of any ministry, which kind of usurpation includes ALL the persons presently working in the Roman Curia, since the Roman Curia cannot operate without the express mandate of the Roman Pontiff, nor can any post there be filled except by express delegation of authority of Pope Benedict XVI. This also involves anyone who goes along with accepting Episcopal nominations or resignations after Feb. 28, 2013.
  6. Canon 1386, which punishes all those who promise a quid pro quo to obtain or omit illegally an ecclesiastical act or function. This includes everyone who is pretending to grant jobs or offices so long as they go along with the coup d’etat.
  7. Canon 1389 §1, which directly punishes ALL the Cardinals who participated in the Conclave of 2013, for an abuse of power, since Canon 359 forbade that they take any action so long as Benedict XVI had not resigned.
  8. Canon 1389 §2, which punishes ALL Cardinals and Bishops for neglecting to address and resolve the problem of the Renunciation, by acting as if Benedict XVI is not the pope.
  9. Canon 1390 §2, which punishes all Bishops and Cardinals for damaging the reputations of those who remain in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, when such calumny is brought to their legitimate superior (pre Bergoglian).
  10. Canon 1391 §1, which punishes ALL involved in concealing the canonical invalidity of the Act of Renunciation through falsified translations, articles or canonical studies.
  11. Canon 1391 §2 and 3, which punishes ALL who assert in ecclesiastical documents that Bergoglio is the Pope or that Benedict resigned validly.

Canonical Basis for taking Action against All of them

Now, from Canon 1399, it is clear that all these crimes are sufficiently grave as to require punishment. And Canon 1401 clearly puts these matters under the jurisdiction of the Church, in as much as regards faulting particular persons or imposing punishment. Nor does Canon 1405 prevent action against the Cardinals and Apostolic Legates for their part in this crime, because inasmuch as the resolution of the problem requires only a public confirmation of its existence and the removal of criminals from the claim to power which they have no right to, the Church has the right in ALL of Her members to take Canonical action, on account of the Apostolic See being impeded.

This is established by the principle, that the Salus animarum in Ecclesia suprema lex est (cf. Canon 1752). It is moved on the basis of justice in fulfillment of the observance of the Seventh Commandment of the Decalogue (Thou shalt not steal).

The example of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Norbert of Xanten shows the way. During the schism of Anacletus II who usurped the Papacy, they called on the Kings of France and Germany to convene imperfect Synods and declare in favor of Pope Innocent II the rightful Bishop of Rome. — Their example and their canonization means that the Church wants us to imitate them in this!

The solution of the problem does not require a Canonical judgment in Tribunal, however. And therefore any group of Bishops in any part of the world can hold an imperfect Synod and declare their position on the matter. Each Synod should be directed to petitioning the government of their nation state to recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the Pope. This will liberate the local Church from the malign influence of the Apostate Revolutionaries.

The mere enumeration of these crimes should induce any Bishop, priest, deacon, religious or layman or lay woman to take notice and examine the facts, and if not, they should be presumed to be simply too corrupt to care. Move on to the next Bishop, priest, deacon, religious or lay person and try to convince them.

Even if the Bishops of your locale will not act, this does not prevent Clergy, Laity and Religious to hold public meetings to declare the same thing, which the objective to urging their Bishops to act or reproving those bishops in the local for their complicity in the revolution.

SO LET US STOP SAYING THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE. I have shown you that it needs to be done, How it can be done, and That it can be done without the violation of any Canon of Church law.

So I ask all Catholic bloggers, writers and website publishers, to take the first step and republish this article of mine, and join with The From Rome Blog in an alliance calling for action and the formation of action committees in every nation to do what we can do to stop the Apostasy. Each of you can start by declaring yourself for Pope Benedict XVI AND for the Canonical resolution of the Schism and punishment of the criminals. — Stop being wussies and lamenting each day that nothing is going to be done, or nothing can be done, as if you lived on another planet, had no personal responsibility, or are busy with something, in Heaven, Earth or Hell, which is more important!

And do not tell me that you are risking more than me. I live not a kilometer from the Vatican, at Rome, and the Vatican reads my blog daily. I could be arrested at any moment. — You know what? — I DO NOT CARE. I KNOW THAT THE CAUSE IS GREATER THAN MYSELF. I EXIST TO SERVE JESUS CHRIST!

The Feast of Saint Cecilia gave a sign from Heaven about all of this. Bergoglio being out of town in Thailand, the world capital of sex trafficking for minors: at Rome, the two weeks of clouds and rain broke, and God’s sun returned. The unnatural pairings which were so common in recent weeks disappeared and nature reasserted herself, in a way that gives hope, that if WE only collaborate to exorcise the darkness, the Church will return to Holiness in her members and rulers. See video below:

A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says

hqdefault

Let us read Non solum propter
according to the rules of Latin grammar

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In my previous article, Pope Benedict’s Forced Abdication, I spoke of the evidence which seems to indicate that Pope Benedict’s resignation was demanded and that the text of Renunciation was hurriedly prepared, which left it full of errors: at the end of which, I promised to examine the text and expose these errors. I did this yesterday in my article entitled, Clamourous Errors in the Latin of the Renunciation, wherein I detailed and identified more than 40 grammatical and canonical errors in the text.

Now, I will fulfill the promise I made yesterday to give an English translation of what the Latin really does say, rather than what most translators (including myself here) attempt to make it say, to make it intelligible. So, I warn my readers, what follows is a discourse, written by someone with scarce knowledge of Latin, and thus, that the English translation will appear to be a poor translation, when it is in fact an exact rendering of the sloppy and erroneous Latin.

Since I am a published translator, however, I will try to give the document the best possible English syntax within the rules of Latin grammar, without however altering the Latin signification.

The Translation

Not solely for the sake of three acts of canonization, have I convoked you towards this Consistory, but also to communicate on behalf of the life of the Church your act of decision-making of great importance. Having scouted out my conscience again and again before God, I have arrived at certain cognition — my strengths by my worsening age are no longer apt — to administer the Munus petrinum equitably. I am well conscious that this Munus according to his spiritual essence ought to be pursued not only by doing and speaking, but no less by suffering and by praying. Yet, however, in the world of our season, subjected to hasty acts of change, and perturbed by questions of great value on behalf of the life of faith, a certain vigor of body and soul is necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and the Gospel to announce, which (strength) in me in these furthest months is lessening in such a manner, that to well administer the ministry committed to me, I ought to acknowledge my incapacity. On which account, well conscious of the weight of this act I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th of April, 2005, to vacate from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time, the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those who are competent.

Dearest Brothers: from my whole heart you I thank for all your physical love and the work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry and I ask pardon for all my failings. Moreover, now We completely trust the Holy Church of God to the care of the Most High Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His holy Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness, the Cardinal fathers in electing a new supreme pontiff. As far as regards myself, may I also wish to serve with my whole heart in a future by a life dedicated to prayer for Holy Mother Church.

DISCUSSION

The Act is confused by switching between the first person singular and plural. It is signed with the name of the We, the Pope, but most of it is said by the I, who is Ratzinger. It contains the glaring errors which render the act canonically nullus (null), namely, it is a declaration of the man, Ratzinger, that he is going to renounce on Feb 28. But he never did renounce on that day.

It is also canonically, invalid, because it refers to a renunciation, never made, of the ministry received from the Cardinals. But what is that. That is canonically nothing, since a ministry flows from an office, or if it does not flow from an office, it is like being a lector or acolyte. Neither of which is the Papal Office.

It is also canonically, irritus, that is improperly manifested, because what on earth does it say and mean and why is the man who is the Pope saying that which has no effect in Canon Law?

It is also a nonsensical act of declaration by the man, Ratzinger, that a Conclave must be called. And that he is going to renounce to make the chair of Peter vacant or go on vacation (the Latin is ambiguous). Why add the consequences or intent of the act of renunciation, which is going to be made, but which was never made, UNLESS there is some doubt that the act you are making will cause the Chair of Peter to be vacant and necessitate a Conclave?

The Latin text obviously was NEVER shown to a Latinist who had the authority and opportunity to correct it. The Latin text was also obviously never shown to a canonist, who had the authority and opportunity to correct it.

I think it is safe to presume, therefore, that the text was never shown to anyone to be recognized according to the norm of Canon 40 nor acted upon according to the norm of Canon 41. For Canon 40 requires that all subordinates determine whether the written administrative act of their superior is authentic and complete. And this act is so rife with errors one can doubt a Pope wrote it, seeing that he has dozens of experts to help him write his acts. On that basis, one should have asked if he was handed this act and forced to sign and read it! Also, on account of Canon 41, since it is an actus nullus, one has no obligation to put it into effect, and if he does put it into effect he is guilty of the usurpation of power; likewise, by the same Canon, every subordinate is obliged to omit its execution until he confers with the superior who posited it regarding the inopportune commands contained in it, such as seeming to call for a Conclave when you have not yet renounced the Papal office.

Finally, if the act meant something, it meant that on Feb 28, 2013, the Pope was going to renounce the Petrine Ministry. Since the Pope never did that at that hour, it does not even effect a renunciation of ministry!

Thus, Pope Benedict XV remains the only true Pope with all his rights an privileges as before Feb 11, 2013. This act will go down in history as an embarrassment to the papacy. That the Cardinals pretend nothing was or is wrong with it, either means that they certainly are not competent to elect a Roman Pontiff, or that they were complicit in forcing his resignation. Both may explain the ‘what’ they have not been doing since Feb. 11, 2013.

 

Clamorous errors in the Latin of the Renunciation

Resignation

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratres carissimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

 

 

A Pilgrim’s Visit to the Basilica of Saint Paul’s, Rome

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Every devout Catholic has the dream — or maybe had the dream before Bergoglio — of visiting the Eternal City one day and venerating the tombs of 150 thousand Catholic Martyrs who are buried in it, chief of whom are Saints Peter and Paul. However, most Catholics never have the chance, because of the cost of travel or the lack of time, or simply because traveling to a foreign country where they speak a different language is too intimidating.

For that reason, thankful for all the help my readers have and do give me, I want to offer you a virtual tour of the Basilica of Saint Paul, outside the walls, here at Rome: one of the Seven principle Basilica’s of the Church of Rome, by sharing with you the photos and videos I took on the Feast Day of the Dedication of the Basilica, this Nov. 18, 2019.

The riches of the Church belong to us all, and so, I release all these photos and videos to the public domain so that any Catholic anywhere can use them on social media or elsewhere, as they wish.

History First

Saint Paul the Apostle was a devout observer of the law. You might call him a fanatic. He was so incensed at what he believed was the heresies taught by the first Christians that he obtained letters of authority from the Sanhedrin to go around arresting us at will and hauling us off to the Temple prison.

Saint Paul brandishes the sword of the word of God, clothed in the attire of a Jew of the First Century. This statue stands in the great Atrium in front of the facade of the Basilica.

The future Saint was then called Saul. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and named after the first King of Israel, Saul, a fiery man much devoted to God, who eventually fell out of pride.

The Fathers of the Church tell us that the first Catholics, though they feared Saul very much, prayed for his conversion. Our Lady was especially doing this.

Thus it was, one day, while traveling on horseback to Damascus in the Roman Province of Syria, about the year 34 or 35 A.D., that the Risen Lord Jesus descended from Heaven and appeared to Saul, knocking him off his horse and off his horse of pride, and revealing His Divinity to him.

The Altar of the Conversion: showing the moment Our Lord revealed himself to Saul. The statues on the left and right are, respectively, those of Pope St Leo the Great and St. Benedict, placed there because Saint Leo restored the Basilica and the sons of St Benedict for long ages cared for it.

The conversion of Saint Paul is one of the great moments of the Post Pentecost Church, and you can read the story in the Book of Acts. It is also one of the great events which give Catholics of all ages hope, that with our united prayers to God and supplications to Our Lady we can obtain the conversion of some of the greatest enemies of the Church in our own day.

Saul after his conversion spent 3 years in the Desert as a hermit and then returned to his home town in Tarsus, where Saint Barnabus found him, when the Church in Antioch had discerned that it was time for the Gospel to be preached with particular emphasis to pagans, that is to gentiles, the ancestors of nearly all Catholics of today. After a time, Saul and Barnabus were consecrated Bishops and sent to Cyprus and Asia Minor. At Cyprus, Saul preached effectively to the Roman Consul Paulus, its governor, and in gratitude for his hospitality changed his name from Saul to Paul.

After much labors and after founding many Churches in Asia, Greece, Illyria and Italy (maybe even in Spain), Saint Paul came to Rome at last to help Saint Peter spread the faith in the Imperial Capital, thus fulfilling a prophecy to  both of them that they should work to established the center of Catholicism at Rome so as to chain the Spirit of the Antichrist until the end of time.

This magnificent Statue of Saint Peter the Apostle stands guard to the right of the Main Door of the Basilica’s facade.

Saint Paul was martyred by the Romans during the persecution of Nero. He was taken to Tre Fontane, to the south of Rome, where an abundance of water from 3 fountains made it easy to wash iron swords. He was beheaded, and the Catholic faithful took his mortal remains and buried them at some distance, at the place where there now rises one of the Greatest Basilicas of the Catholic world.

There are many statues of Saint Paul at his basilica. This one shows him as the author of many Letters, which are nor preserved intact in the New Testament. It stands guard to the left of the Main Door of the Basiica.

Basilica, the word, comes from Greek, and it means Imperial. We call our largest and most beautiful churches basilicas because at one time their use was reserved especially for Catholic Emperors.

The Tomb of this Great Saint has been carefully guarded and preserved for 20 centuries. It has been progressively ornamented and built up from the 5th century onwards. A greast Basilica in wood stood on this spot until the 19th century, when a great fire destroyed it. Seventeen years later, it’s reconstruction was ordered by Pope Gregory XVI, whose statue, as a token of gratitude, stands outside the Atrium on the right flank.

Oh, the Magnificence!

When you enter the Basilica for the first time, your breath is taken away by its unbelievable enormity and magnificence. I have visited the Basilica on several occasions and still have the same experience. Here are some vidoes to share that with you. Beneath each video is a brief description of what you are looking at.

This video I took standing in the central nave, with my back to the left entrance door. It is the sight you see upon entering from the front of the Basilica.

This next video, I took with my back to the High Altar, facing the Apex of the nave.

Here is the same, from another position.

And finally, here is the High Altar from the Apex of the Nave, as I walk down into the very crypt where the Apostle of the Gentiles is buried. (Those are olive trees, which are common decorations in churches in Italy).

The Goal of Every Pilgrim

The goal of every pilgrim, is, yes, to kneel before the sarcophagus of the Saint and pray one’s heart out for the graces and help one needs. I prayed for all of you who read my blog, but most of all for the Church of Rome that She might be liberated from the forces of darkness which have take her hostage.

The Tomb of Saint Paul the Apostle, and the chains which held him bound as a prisoner of the Roman Emperor.

As you pause on this image, PLEASE PRAY for Holy Mother Church! Pray intensely, with all the faith, hope, and charity you can muster!

Why Revolutionaries call their opponents Extremists

Or How one Eminent Canonist at Rome
Just Admitted that Bergoglio is a Usurper

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The salvation of souls is the most important thing. That is why in the time of perfidy and falsehood it is a grave moral obligation to warn the faithful of the imminent danger to their souls, from whatever quarter that threat comes.

I too, personally, cannot comprehend or contemplate the prudence that would keep silent while letting wolves gobble up sheep and ship them off in boat-loads to Hell.

That is why, I think every catholic who is struggling with the question of whether Berogoglio is the Pope or whether Benedict did not really resign, needs to read the report I file here below.

I say this because I have just had the occasion to talk with one of the most eminent and respected canonists in the Church and show him my Disputed Question on the Renunciation. He holds a doctorate in Canon Law and a very important position in the Academic world here at Rome. I met with him this morning, as he graciously granted me an audience despite knowing something about my writing on the subject.  I respect that.

And for that reason, since I am interested in truth, and not in damaging reputations, I won’t mention his name. But since what he said is important and needs to be heard by everyone in the Church, I will summarize as best I can remember. (I did not record the conversation, and what follows is not a transcript.)

I explained my academic background and preparation. Then I mentioned the comment of Mons. Nicola Bux, last year in October, about the possibility that in the Renunciation of Pope Benedict there was a substantial error which made it invalid to cause him to lose the office of the Papacy, then we discussed the problem according to canonical principles.

This eminent canonist in the course of our 20 minute conversation, agreed with me on the following points of law:

  1. A papal resignation falls under the category of legal acts which pertain to the cessation of power.
  2. The cessation of power is never presumed, it must be manifest in the legal act.
  3. The Roman Curia assists the Pope in the exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but no one in the Curia, not even the Secretary of State shares in the Petrine Munus.
  4. During a sedevacante there can be no innovation in the law.
  5. If Ratzinger did validly resign, then from the moment he did, there was a sede vacante.
  6. During a sede vacante the entire Church is obliged to judge who is not pope and who is pope based on the norm of the law, not on the hearsay or claims of anyone, let alone journalists.
  7. Canon 145 §1 does define every ecclesiastic office as a munus.
  8. Canon 332 §2 does require the Church to recognize that a papal renunciation takes place when there is a free and manifest renunciation of the Petrine Munus.
  9. Canon 1331 §2, n. 4, does not forbid an excommunicate to exercise or hold a ministry in the Church, and does not equate ministerium with dignity, office or munus.
  10. Christ’s promise and prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter is infinitely more important of a support for the Pope than all the prayers and good works of the Church for the Pope.
  11. It is necessary that the entire Church take care that a Petrine Succession, that is, the passing of the office of the papacy from one man to another, takes place in the way canon law and the will of Christ intend it.
  12. Our concern for the solution of this problem should be based on the highest charity and justice for both Benedict and Francis.
  13. There is no canon in the Code of Canon Law which says that ministerium = munus.

So much for what we agreed on. It was very substantial, and I much appreciated the occasion to speak with such a brilliant mind on the law.

However, we had fundamental disagreements. Here I will list those which I remember. These are positions which I do not hold, but represent substantially those of the canonist:

  1. Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis for the purpose of taking from him a legal claim to the Papacy is the greatest evil in the Church.
  2. Any canonical study or investigation which so questions Pope Francis’s claim if it is motivated by such a motive, is to be entirely refused before even being heard.
  3. Scholastic theology is not the mind of the Church and it does not determine reality.
  4. Canon Law does not determine reality.
  5. Munus is contained in ministerium, so he who exercises ministerium holds a munus.
  6. Canon 17, which establishes the legal norm for the interpretation of every canon, is not operative in any discussion of Pope Francis’ legitimacy or Benedict’s resignation.
  7. Catholics investigating either issue should read and accept the scholarly works of only those authors who sustain that Bergoglio’s claim is valid and the Benedict’s resignation is valid.

Discussion

The usurpation of power is an act whereby someone who does not have claim to a right, claims that right. We live in an age of usurpation, as can be seen from the daily news. But when you encounter a canonist who takes the position that the holding of power makes legitimate the claim to power, you are face-to-face with proof that there is no reason or legal obligation to support their revolution.

So, though we did not discuss the opinions of Cardinal Burke, when I consider that Cardinal Burke called all who question the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ claim to the papacy, “extremists”, I wonder what he would say on these same points. Because what is extremism, in the bad sense of the word, anyhow? Is it claiming that 2+2 must = 4, and that those who say it does not are wrong? Or is it saying that anyone who questions a legal claim, because it lacks a foundation in law and right, is nuts?

The most egregious affirmations made by this canonist are contained in nn. 5 and 6.  To reject the norm of canon 17 in the reading of the Code is basically to throw in the dust bin any obligation to hold that the Code means what Pope John Paul II said it meant and what it itself or canonical tradition says it means.

To claim that munus is contained in ministerium is pretty much to reject the entire Incarnation, because that is the doctrine of those Christians who claim that the doing of a ministry gives you authority. It’s the protestant principle of office, as a very eminent historian of the comparison of ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation recently affirmed to me in a private chat.

So, basically, if munus is contained in ministerium, then if anyone starts dressing like the Pope and acting like the pope, nominating bishops and consecrating them, THEN HE IS THE POPE! Because, after all the papal office is contained in the papal ministry, do the ministry and you have the office!

Finally, for a canonist to say that Canon Law does not determine reality in a discussion on the question of the canonical validity of the Renunciation is basically to concede that the Renunciation is clearly and manifestly NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE NORM OF CANON 332 §2.

So the next time anyone tells you that you must accept Pope Francis as the pope BECAUSE OTHERWISE you are a sinner or a heretic or a schismatic, maybe you should reply,

“In the Catholic Church only he is pope who has been canonically elected after the death or canonical resignation of the previous man. If one of the most eminent canonists of Rome, who supports Pope Francis, admitted to Br. Bugnolo on Nov. 19, that the Renunciation is not in conformity with the canonical requirements of the law, then I think I have an UNSHAKEABLE RIGHT by baptism to refuse Bergoglio as a usurper, for clearly, Bergoglio’s own supporters after nearly 7 years should have a canonical argument which proves his claim! And if they do not, there is none! And if there is none, why in Heaven or Earth, to I have to accept him without such a claim?”


POSTSCRIPT: It is VERY noteworthy that this eminent Canonist did not use certain arguments. He did Not:

  1. Cite the maxim referenced in Canon 1404, the First See is judged by no one (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur), because he recognizes that an act of renunciation is of the man who holds the office, in as much as he is the man who accepted the office, not inasmuch as he is the man who holds the office.
  2. Appeal to universal acceptance: a crazed notion invented by some English speaking laymen, who having selectively quoted from John of Saint Thomas, want to apply a reflex principle, developed in an age before there was a Code of Canon Law, for troubled consciences in the time of a valid election, to silence honest inquiries into an invalid election which the principles of the Code of Canon Law clearly put it in doubt.
  3. Employ any ad hominems. That is, he did not insult me or question my motivation.
  4. Appeal to any meeting held in the Vatican after Feb 11, 2013 12 pm, noon, and before Feb. 28, 8 pm, when Benedict left the Vatican, in which there was an official determination or discussion of the canonical validity of the act to determine it was valid. Being an expert canonist at Rome, he would have heard of any, after nearly 7 years.
  5. And most importantly, perhaps, he made NO appeal to anything said by Benedict after Feb. 28, 2013, evidently because as a sane canonist, he recognizes that no testimony after the fact, regarding liberty or intention, has any bearing on the validity of a past act. Both need to be manifest in the act itself at the time of the act.

________

CREDITS: My photograph of the Holy Water fount at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. The sculpture beneath it shows a cherub inviting the faithful to bless themselves with the Holy Water, while a demon cringes that anyone do something so extremist.

THANKS TO MY READERS: I wish to take this moment to thank all my Readers at this blog for encouraging me in my work and study to study the Renunciation. I would not have been prepared to debate the Renunciation with this eminent canonist, if I had not already learned a great deal from trying to answer your many questions and concerns during the last year.

 

Pope Benedict’s forced Abdication

HOW IT WENT DOWN

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the long time readers of my blog, From Rome, know, I have extensively covered the Renunciation of Pope Benedict in articles analyzing it’s canonical value (here), who perpetrated the seizure of power from him (here), how it lead to his de facto imprisonment (here) and how, nevertheless, He has triumphed over all his enemies by it (here). Moreover, I have covered the signs he has given after the fact that he never resigned validly (here, here and here). And in many other articles.

Now I want to focus on how the Renunciation happened, that is who was behind it and how it went down, to show that in some respects it might have been a forced and in others, a free act, and how and why Benedict may have sound reasons to be continually hesitant to admit what he really did and why.

History is Context

Fred Martinez, of Catholic Monitor Blog, is doing some excellent work at cutting through the propaganda of the controlled Catholic media. In his post of Monday, October 29, 2018, entitled, “Is Francis our first gay Pope?” he laid out in great detail all the evidence that the core agenda of Bergoglio is to achieve the agenda of the LGBTQ movement.

Two days and one year later, Raffaela, who blogs at, Il Blog di Raffaela. Riflessione e Commenti fra gli amici di Benedetto XVI, published a very excellent historical chronical of Pope Benedict’s war against pedophilia in the Church, in a blog post entitled, “Le decisioni e l’esempio del Papa Benedetto XVI nel combattere la piaga della pedofilia nella Chiesa. Cronologia (English translation: The decisions and example of Pope Benedict XVI in fighting against the plague of pedophilia in the Church. A Chronology).

These two excellent contributions to Church history by lay bloggers are the necessary context to understand the forced abdication of Pope Benedict, or rather, to discern what I believe are the general and specific indications that in some way the Renunciation was demanded of Pope Benedict and in some way it was a free act.

Rules of Power

The first forensic criterion to employ is the common principle, often quoted here in Italy, of Cui prodest? This Latin maxim means, literally, Who is profiting from it? And the soundness of this principle in forensic investigations is based on the principle of moral theology, that no one does anything purposeful without a reason, and thus no one commits a crime unless something is to be gained by it.

So, Rafaella shows us that Benedict was a strong opponent of pedophilia in the clergy and was willing to remove Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests and even place Commissioners on large and powerful groups, to punish this abominable vice.

But after his abdication (I use this term to refer to a forced renunciation), there comes into power Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Mafia of St Gallen and the Lavender Mafia, who are pushing the gay agenda, openly and flagrantly.

The common sense inference, then, is that one of these three groups or all of them insisted on the removal of Pope Benedict.

This is less a conjecture than a simple application of the rules of power struggles. The Papacy since the time of the Italian Risorgimento, has lost all real temporal power. It can be invaded at any time, and the powers of the nations can at any time take away its status as an independent diplomatic entity. The result of this loss of temporal power, means in truth, that the Papacy is left with a small enclave which is populated only by the Roman Curia and ruled by the Cardinals.

Now while the Cardinals each do not have as much power as the Pope, all of them together, with all their political and financial connections round the world, do in fact have more power than the pope.  Therefore, it would not be surprising if in the century following the suppression of the Papal States, that the College of Cardinals would come to dominate the power structure of the Vatican and that the Pope might become simply the public pawn of an all male club of ecclesiastics.

Now if these political inferences are correct, it would be expected that if a Pope started to impose discipline upon the subjects of each faction of Cardinals, by booting out of the priesthood or suspending some of their best friends and supporters, who were pedophiles, that eventually a zealous pope might in fact undercut all the power structures which put him in and maintain him in power.

What was happening in the year prior to the Renunciation?

With these speculations as a preface, let’s consider just some of the groups that Benedict XVI penalized in the year prior to Feb. 11, 2013, and watch how the timeline supports the inferences of risk, which I just outlined.

  1. On Feb. 2, 2012, Mons. Scicluna (who now leads Bergoglio’s pro gay clerical investigation team) marks out Pope Benedict as the person responsible for punishing pervert priests.  This may sound like praise, but it also might be painting a bull’s eye upon the target to be removed.
  2. From Feb. 6 to 9, 2012, there is a Conference in Rome for Bishops and heads of religious orders on the need to remove perverts. Members of the Conference again finger Pope Benedict as being the prime mover of it.
  3. Feb. 16, 2012 onwards: The Legionaires of Christ, their Movement and their woman’s branch come under strictures and strong measures against sexual perversion and the evil role of their founder.
  4. Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
  5. May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
  6. Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
  7. July 2, 2012: Pope Benedict appoints Archbishop Muller to the CDF. Shortly after this, he begins considering a renunciation. Before the end of summer, he mentions it to Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, who was effectively the real monarch at the Vatican and who was blocking Benedict on many things. (Why mention this to your chief opponent?)
  8. October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
  9. October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
  10. January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
  11. February 1, 2013: Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles announces that Cardinal Mahoney is banned from all public activities as a Bishop on account of his gross mishandling of cases of pedophilia in that Archdiocese. At the same time he names 126 priests of the Diocese as involved in such crimes. (Sicluna and Mahoney share the same episcopal lineage)
  12. Feb. 5, 2013: New promoter of Justice at the CDF, Fr. Oliver, mentions Sicluna in a statement wherein he fingers Benedict as the key man in the Vatican for punishing pervert priests.
  13. Feb 7, 2013 — From Rome Blog has it from a source at Rome, that on this day, Mr. Gotti, who had been dismissed from IOR the previous summer, without the knowledge or consent of Pope Benedict, had an hour long meeting at the Vatican with Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, in which the Cardinal affirmed Benedict’s decision to reinstate him fully and back him in his investigation of the Vatican Bank.
  14. Feb. 11, 2013 — On a single sheet of paper, to the surprise of nearly everyone, who is left speechless, except Cardinal Sodano, Pope Benedict reads out a statement of renunciation.

In short, in one year Pope Benedict had shown himself willing to take down the most powerful priestly institute in the conservative flank of the Church AND to take down one of the most powerful Cardinals in the liberal flank of the Church.

An Examination and Discussion

The decision to tell Mr. Gotti that he would be reinstated on Feb. 7, and the decision to renounce on Feb. 11 simply do not add up. You cannot have any real hope that you will reinstate someone if you are planning ahead to resign in 4 days. That makes no sense. Also, it makes no sense that Benedict was planning to resign since the summer (as Bertone claims in 2016), and never find the 14 errors in the Latin text you are planning to read out-loud in the Consistory of February.

We do know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is ground zero of a  Jewish Gay Mafia with strong ties to the financial industry, and that the Archdiocese has strong ties with this Mafia. We know that on Jan. 5, 2013, the ATMs at the Vatican were shut down by Deutch Bank, a move many have speculated was a signal to Benedict that the financial powers wanted him out.

Conclusions

I believe, therefore, that the demand for the Pope’s resignation was most probably made after February 7, 2013 and before the consistory of Feb. 11, 2013. — If Giuseppe Auricchio, the seer of Avola, Italy, can be believed, he foresaw that Benedict would receive a demand he could not agree to. — If you examine the text of the renunciation, you will find a Latin rife with errors, of the kind which would result if a non expert wrote it and had only 4 days or less to find errors in it. So it is very possible that Benedict was given a text, and that He modified it to make it appear to be a valid resignation, but in fact rather to make it to be an invalid resignation. And that, not knowing who was behind those demanding his resignation, he has never admitted what he really did, so as to protect himself and the Church from this Mafia.

I have not proven a crime, however, I have only outlined a chronology that needs to be further investigated, a chronology which leads me to use as an operative hypothesis, that Benedict DID NOT write the original text of the Renunciation, only changed perhaps the word munus to ministerium.

In my next report, I will discuss the errors in the Latin text and what they show about who may have written it.