Pope John Paul II admitted that a Papal Renunciation could be invalid

AAC Chair Throne Pope John Paul II

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Don’t let anyone tell you to shut up, when you point out that some are saying the renunciation of Pope Benedict was or could be invalid.

Don’t let them coerce you by telling you that it is absurd to suppose that a Papal act be invalid.

Don’t let them get away with such a claim!

Why?

Because, no less that Pope John Paul II declared that a papal resignation could be invalid!

First, the FACTS of the Laws

And not only declared, but he enshrined the possibility into the Papal Law on Conclaves: Universi dominici gregis, n. 3, where it says in Latin:

3. Praeterea statuimus, ne Cardinalium Collegium de iuribus Sedis Apostolicae Romanaeque Ecclesiae ullo modo disponere valeat, nedum de iis sive directe sive indirecte quidquam detrahat, quamvis agatur de componendis discidiis aut de persequendis factis adversus eadem iura perpetratis, post Pontificis obitum vel validam renuntiationem.(14) Curae autem sit omnibus Cardinalibus haec iura tueri.

Which in good English is:

3. Moreover, We establish, that the College of Cardinals not be able to dispose in any manner of the rights of the Apostolic See and Roman Church, much less to detract anything from them either directly or indirectly, even though it be done concerning the resolution of disputes or the prosecution of deeds perpetrated against the same rights, after the death and/or valid renunciation* of the Pontiff. (14) Moreover, let it belong to the care of all the Cardinals that these rights be watched over.

* The reference to a “valid renunciation” is to Canon 332 §2, which lays down 2 reasons for an invalid renunciation (lack of freedom in renouncing the petrine munus, and lack of due manifestation of the renunciation of the petrine munus).

Some would like to have it that Canon 332 §2 is merely laying down the requisites to be observed in a papal resignation, and that it does not exist to be used by anyone, let alone a layman, to discern or determine when a resignation is valid or not.

The assertion is a perfect form of gas-lighting: You cannot let the masses use the Code of Canon Law, you cannot let them read the Papal Law on Conclaves, but if they do, you must convince them that what they see does not mean what it says or that what they read there is something they cannot use in an argument or apply to any particular case! Thus might be the counsel of any modern day Screwtape to his Trad inc. minions.

This objective is supported by the absurd arguments being used to attack those who are examining the resignation, such as that argument evinced by Mr. Sammons the other day:

Evidently, if we take Mr. Sammons at his word, he must rail against Pope John Paul II, against the Papal Law on Conclaves and against the Code of Canon Law of 1983, all which admit the possibility of an invalid renunciation! — Evidently railing against Popes is o.k., so long as you recognize that they are popes. — This seems to be the new dogma of Trad Inc. Even though Catholic Tradition holds that in nothing can a pope be judged but faith.

Having seen this form of gas-lighting, we must begin to ask ourselves, “Whom we should listen to or obey? A Layman or Pope John Paul II?”

After all, to turn Mr. Sammon’s rhetoric against him: What does it matter what Mr. Sammons wants?

Second, the Implications of the Law

As it has been amply proven that Pope John Paul II held that a papal renunciation could be invalid, we should use the intellects God gave us to use and think about what that means. We should not let the gas-lighting false apostles, out there, stop us from thinking.

First, if a papal renunciation could be invalid. That means that objectively speaking it could be invalid. That means that it can be recognized by men who are capable of knowing objective reality. That means that men should recognize it if it be, and should NOT harken to any propaganda to ignore the problem. Because, obviously, if Pope John Paul II wanted us to listen to propagandists who do not want us to see that a resignation was invalid when it was invalid, he would never have mentioned that there could be an invalid resignation.

Second, that means that the Church has the duty to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid, since the Code of Canon Law binds everyone in the Church. The Papal Law on Conclaves binds the Cardinals, and so they are also obligated to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid.

Third. Now how is anyone to do that? Pope John Paul II shows us how in canons 40 and 41, where everyone in the Church who has an office is obliged to examine the administrative act of his superior to see if it is effective and authentic. Though canon 41 speaks only of acts which are null or inopportune, clearly an invalid resignation is both.

That means it was the duty of all the Cardinals as of 11:45 AM, February 11, 2013, when the Consistory ended (approximately, as I do not know the precise minute of termination) until today to examine the act. If the act was invalid, they were obliged to omit the Conclave, and if they find now that it is invalid, they are obliged to say the conclave was invalid.

CONCLUSION

So you see, now, how wrong Cardinal Burke was, when he condemned a whole category of Catholics as “extremists” if they doubted that Bergoglio was the pope. Because if that doubt arises from an invalid resignation, then they are not only NOT extremists, they are the most faithful Catholics in the Church, and they are doing what all Cardinals should have done and still refuse to do!

No, your Eminence, there are No Extremists here, but there are a lot of Presumptuous Princes!

Now almost no one in the Church is a canon lawyer, but a good number of the Cardinals are. And if you have studied canon law or civil law, then you know a general principle of law which is applicable in this case:

A cessation of power is never to be presumed!

As I mentioned previously, this general principle of law is enshrined in Canon 21 (and implied in many other canons, such as canon 40). It is really a summation of common sense. Because if one presumed the cessation of power, then the rule of law would break down, because presumption has a way of inclining to disorder and chaos, in particular, to the kind of disorder and chaos we have seen in the Church for nearly 7 years.

Now a papal renunciation pertains to a cessation of power, as the learned and eminent Canonist I spoke with recently admitted. Therefore, we cannot presume a pope has validly resigned. The presumption, rather, is that he has not resigned. Presumption here refers to the inclination of our judgement prior to seeing the facts and evidence.

Now Canon 332 §2 says that a pope resigns when he resigns his munus.

But Pope Benedict in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces the ministerium he received.

Therefore, at this point, before any further study, each and every Cardinal had the duty to presume that the renunciation was invalid. He had to presume this, because, the presumption of law requires that he hold that there has been no cessation of power, when a pope renounces ministerium instead of the required munus.

Canon 17 then requires the Cardinals to examine the Code of Canon Law (as I did here) to understand the proper sense of terms, or the canonical tradition (as I did here), or the mind of the Legislator (as was done by Father Walter Covens here).  But all of these conclude the renunciation of ministry does not effect a renunciation of the papacy.

So who is the extremist now? The Catholic who holds, as he should, to what the law presumes? Or the Cardinal who did not do his duty nor his homework but rails at Catholics who have done what he neglected to do? Presuming against the very presumption of the law.

It almost seems as if the Cardinals were already inclined to rid themselves of Pope Benedict, and so, whether he was in error or not, whether he wanted to  bifurcate the papacy or not, whether the renunciation was valid or not, they did not bother one iota to due their due diligence before convening in Conclave. — If there ever was a reason to doubt the validity of the Conclave of 2013, this is the first and prime of them all!

Third, Action Item:

Ask your favorite priest, Bishop or Cardinal, when did he apply canons 40 and 41 to the Papal renunciation?

Because in those 2 canons, all who hold an office in the Church — even the simple priest who is no longer mentioning Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the Roman Pontiff is named — all, I say, had the duty to examine the Latin text of the Renunciation and determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of the Latin text of Canon 332 §2. So ask them, “On what day and hour, in what place and with what books and references did you do your duty specified in canons 40 and 41 as regards the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, called, “Non solum propter”?” — You have every right to ask this question, before listening to anything they say about the renunciation, because obviously, if they never did their duty, they have no moral right to tell you anything about what the Act of Renunciation means, let alone, to regard anyone else as the Pope, other than Benedict.

(For more information about Canons 21, 40 and 41 and what should have been done on Feb. 11, 2013, after Pope Benedict XVI read his Act of renunciation, see here).

______

CREDITS: The image of the Pope is from https://agrellcarving.com, who carved the Throne on which he is sitting and which produces other fine products of furniture (This is not a paid advertisement, but the image is copyright by Agrell Carving).

Pope Benedict’s Renunciation is invalid for 6 Canonical Reasons

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Catholics begin the effort to make known to the clergy that they were defrauded of their loyalty to Christ’s Vicar on Feb. 28, 2013, it is important to have at hand a short summary of the canonical problems in Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Non solum propter. (Official text here at Vatican website)

Here is such a short summary.

6 canonical errors in the Act of Renunciation

  1. In the Act, the Roman pontiff renounces “the ministry committed to him through the hands of the Cardinals” on the day he was elected. But canon 332 §2, in the official Latin text of that canon, requires that the renunciation be of the petrine “munus”, that is the Papal Office (cf. canons 331, 333, 334, 749). Therefore, the act is NOT a renunciation of the papacy. Thus, in regard to canon 332 §2, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS. And if it  be said or thought to be an act of renunciation of the papacy, then the assertion or estimation is false by reason of Canon 188, which declares IRRITUS any renunciations of office vitiated by substantial error, that is by an error which touches the substance of the act (which, in this case, is constituted by the essence of the act as an act of renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium).*
  2. In the Act, the Roman Pontiff does not name the office by any proper canonical term, and thus the act is also an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be duly manifested (rite manifestetur), since that which is not named is not manifest.
  3. In the Act, the Roman Pontiff’s liberty regards that which he does, not that which he does not do, which, since he does not do it, whether he be free to do it or not, is not expressed. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be freely executed (libere fiat).
  4. In making a declaration of renunciation, instead of renouncing, the act is also an ACTUS NULLUS, because canon law does not regard declarations to be canonical acts. They are merely announcements. (cf. Penal section on announcements regarding persons who have incurred latae sententiae excommunications ipso iure).
  5. In making what appears to be a renunciation of the papacy, without naming the papal office as required by Canon 332 §2, the man making the declaration, inasmuch as he is the man, who received the office and who is attempting to separate himself from the office, had need to obtain from the man who is the Pope, an express derogation of the terms of canon 332 §2, in virtue of canon 38, and since he did not, since no concession of derogation of that requirement is mentioned in the act, then by reason of canon 38, the act, which is both contrary to the law of Canon 332 §2 and gravely injurious of the right of the faithful to know who is the true pope and when he has canonically resigned, is an ACTUS SINE EFFECTU, that is an act which lacks all effect.
  6. Finally, in renouncing “the ministry”, the Roman Pontiff posits a legal act which is not foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, since no canon therein speaks of a renunciation of ministry. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS according to the norm of law. Therefore, in accord with canon 41 no one with an office in the Church has any duty to recognize it.

__________

* I do not include substantial error as one of the canonical errors in the Act, because the act was never one of a renunciation of the papal office. The argument that substantial error vitiates the act, technically, has more to do with the mis-perceptions or false claims made about the canonical value of the act, than with the act itself. Speaking of substantial error is thus necessary when discussing it with someone who is operating under the false premise that the Pope renounced the papacy, but eventually one must talk about the reality of what the Pope actually said on that day, and distinguish that reality from the misperception which was published to all the world.

POST SCRIPT: Note that in the title of this post I use the word “invalid” in the common sense of an act which does not effect what one thinks it effects, but properly speaking the term should be “vitiated” or “erroneous”, because as you can see from the list of 6 canonical errors, 3 regard nullity, 2 regard invalidity, and 1 regards being without effect.

 

Facts vs. conjecture

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Here at the From Rome Blog, my posts regard both history and conjectures about why that history came about or what it means.

Having recently viewed a video by someone who follows a man who claims to be Christ in His second coming, because the video referred extensively to posts at the From Rome Blog, I see that not everyone who reads my blog understands how to discern facts from conjecture.

A Blog, it must be said, is a very personal publication. As human beings we naturally seek to know the truth. Some of that we can know  directly through the facts of history, and some of that we cannot know directly, so we must resort to interpretations. The weakest kind of interpretation is the conjecture, for a conjecture is an interpretation in which the facts (to prove it) and which are not know, are conjectured to exist.

Conjectures by their very nature tend to follow the sensibility as much as the rationality of those who write them. My conjectures do the same, and some of them might seem sensationalist. But I know how to distinguish my own conjectures from reality.

I write this post because I see that not everyone of my readers understand this.

So for clarity, I make this declaration.

That Pope Benedict XVI is the pope is statement which is not a conjecture, but rather the presumption of the law, because the law of the Church says that a pope resigns when he renounces his munus. And since Pope Benedict XVI has never done that in the way canon 332 §2 requires him to do it (fact), as the man who is the pope, we all must recognize that he is still the pope.

However, why he resigned the ministry and not the munus, and more so, why he even resigned, is something of which not a few Catholics do not see sufficient explanation in what has been reported, said, stated and repeated. This is because there is an inherent irrationality about saying Pope Benedict XVI resigned for this or that reason, and not finding the facts which make that evident (for example, in Non solum propter, he says he is resigning for health reasons, but he is still in rather good health after 6 years).

Since I seek the truth I understand that conjectures to complete the information lacking in what we know are possibly as much correct as incorrect, but at the same time I recognize that historically those who engage in such conjectures are more often wrong, because to make a conjecture which turns out to be verified by future revelations of facts, takes a great deal of familiarity with all the known causes which could have possibly influenced the event about which one is conjecturing. That is why insiders normally are better at conjecturing. And I am not an insider.

So please do not take my conjectures as dogma or history. They are not.

The fact is, that Pope Benedict XVI has never resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.

But why he has or has not, is not certain to us. We would have to ask him, and he has not, to my knowledge, ever been asked why he renounced the ministerium and not the munus. So conjectures go on and on.

However, when it comes to canonical arguments, those arguments are as sound as the canons, principles and reasoning based upon them. Their certitude is thus much higher.

So when reading my blog, please keep this in mind.

 

 

Will the Mafia of St. Gallen triumph?

DuEI2k0X4AEtR6u

IF YOU LET THEM

A CASE STUDY by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Mafia of St. Gallen rules by lies. Their entire project is built upon a lie, which they were successful in passing off to the world and defending during nearly seven years.

I speak of the false notion that Pope Benedict XVI resigned the papacy, when in truth all he did was resign from active ministry.

The Mafia of St. Gallen should really have a second name, the Mafia of Holy Gall, because if they are anything, they are bold liars. Nevertheless, they are bold because being composed of those practiced in sexual abuse of others, they know how to gaslight the faithful.

These tactics they have used on the Bishops and clergy, and through them, by getting them to spread false ideas of virtue and prudence, they have succeeded in gaining control of nearly all Catholic Media.

ON POINT

For those Catholics, like myself, who have been trying to get the world see their lies, the most effective weapon this Mafia has against us is not to directly attack us, but to ignore us in public. Then to get other Catholic news agencies to ignore us in public. Then to get Catholic social media sites to ignore us.

The present sites have decided to ignore totally all which is published at The From Rome Blog: Church Militant, The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, Catholic Family News, Gloria.TV (since Nov. 19), Chiesa e Post Concilio, UnaVox, LifeSite News, National Catholic Register, etc. etc. etc., and nearly all sites for the Traditional Latin Mass. — There is no need to mention sites run by the clergy, as they ALL ignore The From Rome Blog. None of these groups do this by chance, its by a predetermined deliberate decision. In many cases they have been asked by members of the clergy or Cardinals to do this. In other cases its because of who funds them or their fear of losing funding or advertisement if they buck the Great Narrative.

This is important, and not merely a personal lament. Because, you see, all the work that investigators like myself do, is pointless if no one ever knows about it.

But there is something you can do, and that means you have to recognize that it is not enough that you visit sites which expose the Mafia for what they are, YOU NEED TO SHARE THAT NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA with others.

I have repeatedly seen that when I specifically ask 1 friend to share 1 of my blog posts, that The From Rome Blog will receive about 750 hits in the next 36 hours on account of that 1 friend sharing one post, on, let’s say, FaceBook.

At present, there is only one of the 20,000 sometime readers of my blog who share my posts on Facebook. I won’t name the other sites which regularly feature a link to one or more of my posts, lest they be attacked by the Mafia. (THOUGH I THANK THEM PROFUSELY).

But I think you can see, that YOU my readers need to step up and do your part.

Because, we must ask ourselves: Will the Mafia of St. Gallen succeed?

And, we must respond: YES, IF YOU LET THEM.

______________

CREDITS: Many thanks to ComplicitClergy.com for the use of their graphic. They do excellent work exposing the Lavender Mafia, and you should be reading their site regularly to know how to avoid the tentacles of the ecclesiastical Mafia.

Don’t give up on those who think Bergoglio is pope

Confessions of a hard-headed and lazy-minded friar

Don’t give up on your brothers and sisters who uncritically accepted that Bergoglio is the pope. Keep trying to get through to them, and give them some time. Most people are either too busy with their own lives or not yet intellectually or emotionally prepared to hear that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because he never resigned validly.

To help you understand this, I will confess myself till last fall to have been one of these Catholics.

On Feb. 11, 2013, I was in Rome. I was studying theology and canon law at the Faculty of Saint Bonaventure. When I returned from classes that afternoon, my landlady knocked on my door, and asked me: “Have you heard, the Pope resigned!” — “What, I said!?” — “Come see it on television.

I should have immediately sought to find out what the Pope actually did say.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

I should have immediately been suspicious that the journalists were playing with the facts.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

Feb. 12-16: The next days, I should have gone to the Vatican to get a copy of the Latin.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In my Canon Law class, I should have asked a question about the Renunciation, or at least sought out my professor about it.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

I was, as the days passed, somewhat suspicious that the Latin text was not being published. I should have kept my suspicion and acted on it.

BUT I DISMISSED MY SUSPICION

Feb. 20: A friend on the internet sent me a copy of Prof. Radaelli’s appeal to the Pope to take back his Renunciation. I read it, and should have strove to understand it better.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

I should have payed attention to everything that was happening on Feb. 28.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

I should have gone to the Vatican to speak with some Cardinal or Bishop to understand what had happened.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

Then there was the Conclave and Bergoglio was elected. Rorate Caeli blog published immediately a denunciation, saying this man was a heretic an raving nutcase. I should have taken them more serious.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

I came to know more and more that Bergoglio was a left wing looney. That should have left me some motive to investigate how and why the Renunciation took place.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

The English translation of the Act was published near the end of March, 2013. I knew the delay meant that something was rotten in Denmark. I therefore should have looked at the Latin (I am nearly fluent in Latin).

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

I let the months pass.

I let the years pass.

2016: Someone told me that Ann Barnhart was saying the Renunciation was invalid. “Who is Barnhardt, I asked?” “She is the woman who burned the Koran on video”. “Oh, I said, Hmm”. I should have searched to know what she had said, for anyone who can burn a Koran is worth listening to.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

Then someone told me a few months later that Ganswein had said in his talk at the Gregorian that Benedict was till the pope. I should have investigated.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In 2017, someone told me again about Barnhardt. I should have taken the time to find her blog.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

Someone then told me that Father Gruner said the Renunciation was invalid in some video. I should have looked into this, because I know that Fr. Gruner was no loony.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In 2018, in the Spring someone told me about Barnhardt again. This time I found her blog and read a little of it. I should have read all of it and listened to her videos.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In August of 2018, someone told me about Barnhardt again, and I read her core argument. She seemed to have a good argument. I should have opened up my Latin version of the Code of Canon Law and looked at what Benedict had said in Latin.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In September 2018, the topic became more talked about, since Veri Catholici at the beginning of the Month was proposing a Second Synod of Sutri. So I looked more at the issue, but not enough. I was still reading the English translation of the Code, even though I had the Latin on my bookshelf. I could have opened it.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In October 2018, I heard someone say that Pentin quoted Bux about there possibly being substantial error in the act of the Renunciation. I know of Bux and know he is a theologian of repute. So I read the Text of the Renunciation in Latin and the Code of Canon Law in Latin and saw immediately that the Renunciation WAS INVALID. I should have done something.

BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.

In November, 2018, after burying my mom, I had more time, now that I was not carrying for all her needs during the night, to examine this problem of substantial error. I saw the issue was grave and needed to be studied. I finally resolved to do what Mons. Bux said and investigate the issue. So I wrote my Scholastic Question, gathering all the arguments on both sides of the debate.

CONCLUSION

I often wonder why it is so hard to convince others of the truth of the failed renunciation. And you may also. Maybe you are tempted to give up on others who simply do not want to listen or care.

I hope that this sincere confession of my own encourages YOU to realize that some of the greatest and most zealous souls to fight for Pope Benedict may be among those priests and religious who have on many occasions ignored you or this issue, have yet to seriously consider it. Just like I did for 6 years.

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.

 

 

Meet Giovanna Chirri, mother of the notion that Benedict resigned the papacy

giovannachirri_904617

This is our English translation of the article published by ChiesaRomana.info yesterday.

How did it happen that the entire world
thinks that Pope Benedict XVI
renounced the papacy?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Behind every great man, there is a woman;
and behind every great act of a man, the insistence of a woman.

Today, nearly the entire world believes that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the papacy on Feb. 11, 2013.

And perhaps, dear readers, you think so too.

But the truth of what really happened that day has been obscured by the psychological presumption induced by the announcement made moments after the renunciation, by Mrs. Chirri. I am not kidding you!

Did you know that? The entire world thinks that way because of a single tweet, from a pool reporter for ANSA, known as Mrs. Giovanna Chirri. and here is that tweet:

In English, that reads:

B16 has resigned. He leaves the pontificate as of February 28.

This tweet is in fact the first announcement of the renunciation. It caused Giovanna Chirri to become immediately the most famous journalist in the world, for that moment. For the sake of posterity she subsequently gave several interviews so that we all might understand better the series of events which took place on that day.  Here is her testimony, given to the magazine, Familiga Cristiana, on the third anniversary of the Renunciation (Italian original here), the English translation of which is our own:

Though the Consistory should have concluded at that moment, the Pope remained seated, and began to read, again in Latin, from a white sheet which he held in his hand.  He said two things first of all: that he had not convoked the Cardinals solely to hear his approval of two decrees for the canonization of saints, but that he had to say something “important for the life of the Church”, and that he was growing old: his precise words were ingravescente aetate.  At these words I felt as if a hand was placed upon my throat and a ball was being inflated in my head: because Ingravescentem aetatem is the document whereby Pope Paul VI took from the Cardinals the right to elect a pope, after they obtained their eightieth year of age: they were words which signified retirement.  Benedict XVI continued to speak in a Latin, which fortunately was much more comprehensible than that of Cardinal Amato; he spoke for some time, saying that he no longer had the strength to govern the Barque of Peter in a world which is increasingly face paced.  He explained that in conscience he had decided to leave, that the Cardinals will have to hold a Conclave to elect a successor and that he was establishing the beginning of the sede vacante at 8 pm on February 28.

I heard what he said but as one who had not heard; I was breathless and my legs trembled as I sat. I could not hold my left hand steady, even when I tried with my right hand.  I began to make telephone calls seeking help and confirmations.  At the Vatican, where obviously, everyone had something else on their mind, no one picked up the phone.  I was prey to a sensation of terror which I had never experienced in my life.  At this point, Pope Ratzinger had finished speaking. Some of the faces of those present grew pale; Monsignor Guido Pozzo, sitting next to him, seem to have turned to stone; different Cardinals had fixed stares and the muscles of their faces were frozen.  In an unreal silence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, said in Italian: “This news strikes us as a bolt of lighting out of the blue”.

As you continue to read her testimony in Italian, you see immediately that after three years, she has understood in part the error she made that day, for she no longer speaks of a renunciation of the papacy, but expressly now speaks only of a renunciation of ministry.

Hence, if on February 11, 2013, Mrs. Chirri announced to the world one thing, and three years after in 2016, she explains that Benedict had renounced something else, perhaps we can shake off our presumption that what she said first was correct? One thinks so.

Compare what she said in 2014 on the first anniversary of the renunciation, when she was interviewed by Antonio Sanfrancesco, likewise of Famiglia Cristiana, in an article entitled, La Giornalista che diede la notizia, Non rispiravo, ero terrorizato (qui). A title – which in English, means: The Giornalist who broke the story, I could not breath, I was terrorized – which does not give the reader any confidence that she had a clear mind at the moment of her tweet.

This history and the alteration of the narrative is important for all of us because, according to the norm of Canon Law, there is no canon which regards a renunciation of ministry!  This is because in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, ministry is never associated with power or office, but only with action or the execution of a duty.  Moreover, in canon 1331 §2 °4, ministry is not even listed among those things which an excommunicated person is forbidden to acquire.  Hence, in the Code, an excommunicate can exercise a ministry.

Obviously, if the thing, according to its genus, which Pope Benedict renounced on Feb. 11, 2013 is something which someone not in communion with the Church or with the pope, can exercise, how can it be possible that in renouncing it Pope Benedict separated himself from the papal office? That does not make sense. It’s not even rational to contemplate.

Hence, it appears that in changing her story, Mrs. Chirri no longer agrees with what she wrote on that day:

Indeed, let us read that tweet with precision: it contains the words, dimesso, lascia and pontificato, which in English are resigned, leave and pontifcate.  But no where in the Latin text of the renunciation does Pope Benedict use any Latin words which mean these things!

Hence, if we are to speak properly and with precision, her tweet is not a report of news, but an interpretation of the event, an interpretation which arises out of the state of her mind in that moment in which she rushed to get the scoop on the news before any other journalist.

Now, at last, perhaps the time has come for the Church to recognize that none of us is obligated to understand that act of renunciation according to the state of mind of Mrs. Chirri, the Mother of the Papal Resignation. I call her, “the Mother of the Papal Resignation”, because in the understanding of the world, it was she who gave everyone to understand the act as an act of renunciation of the papacy, not merely of the ministry, an understanding and interpretation which all who study Canon Law are forcing themselves to find in the Code of Canon Law, but fail to do so, because it ain’t there.

ORIGINAL CREDITS: Testo di Famiglia Cristiana citato dall’articolo citato qui sopra. L’immagine in evidenza, della Sig.ra Chirri trovato sulla pagina di Famiglia Cristiana nel articolo di 11 Febbraio 2014, citato qui sopra, ma senza attribuzione di proprietà intellettuale. Si presume fair use per tutti due. Il tweet di Chirri è replicata dal suo conto su Twitter che è ancora in rete.