Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation  (Read 4559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17257
  • Reputation: +9592/-4144
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • Catholic Men Purporting to Lead: Please Mind the Maiden
    A perennial lesson of the ages is that when men of a realm fall into gross dereliction, Our Lord sends holy women to remind them of who they are. Reminder alert!

    :facepalm:

    Men need to alert the "Maiden" to the fact that she's being strung along into constructing false arguments from her emotion ... wishful thinking stemming from a contempt for Bergoglio.

    Ratzinger resigned.  Period.  Unless evidence can be brought forth that he was practically forced out of office, he made it very clear that he was stepping down as pope.

    And Ratzinger has embraced nearly as many heresies as Bergoglio.

    Offline JJkul

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 7
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Ratzinger resigned.  Period.  Unless evidence can be brought forth that he was practically forced out of office, he made it very clear that he was stepping down as pope.

    But there isn't actually any forcing a pope out, is there? Even if a pope is threatened into resignation, it would be his own freely-willed act to give into the threat.
    ____
    Joseph L.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17257
    • Reputation: +9592/-4144
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • But there isn't actually any forcing a pope out, is there? Even if a pope is threatened into resignation, it would be his own freely-willed act to give into the threat.

    No, Canon Law indicates that resignations made under threat are not considered to have been freely given and are null and void.  Yes, ultimately, no one forces any human being to act against his free will.  But that's not on the level at which the law operates.

    So, for instance, someone goes up to a Pope-elect and says, "If you don't resign, I'm going to start torturing your nephews and nieces to death."  Would resignation under those conditions really be "free"?  Sure, he could resist and refuse to resign.  But if he does give in, is that really a free choice?  Not really, and that's the way it's looked at by law.  Now, this can obviously get blurry.  How much pressure is required in order to compromise this freedom?

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quotes pulled from the comments section of the "non veni pacem" blog.
    https://nonvenipacem.com/

    Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
    I don’t even believe it was a “serious error” per 188 and Miss Barnhardt. Benedict did not make a mistake. He knew what he was doing and NEVER intended to and never did split the papacy. He didn’t even renounce the ministry rather he announced his inability to “administer rightly” two of the powers. We know his inability stemmed not from a lack of vigor on his part so much as the malfeasant disobedience of subordinates. Benedict is Pope but not because of error and not because of a faulty conclave or Bergoglio’s heresy. By his “triumphal decision”, Pope Benedict cooperated with God thus moving the diabolical network to gloatingly reveal itself. Benedict has been heroically and prayerfully waiting for us to figure out that he never stopped being the one and only Holy Father. Please see my comment on an earlier post that shows the precise translation of Benedict’s Feb 11th, 2013 announcement. Here: https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/16/bux-for-the-win-helping-to-overcome-problems-that-today-seem-insurmountable-to-us/


    Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
    "A more precise translation of the Declaratio of Feb 11, 2013 shows that Pope Benedict did not intend to split the Papal Office. Neither did he abdicate the Papal Office, rather he announced his inability to “rightly administrate” or “administrate satisfactorily” two of the papal powers and thus he abdicated from using those powers. Abdicating the use of power is NOT the same as resigning the Papal Office. A pope who is imprisoned cannot use those powers although he still rightly has them since they belong to the office."


    Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
    I agree with your explanation, docmx001. Unlike you, Miss Barnhardt reasons that Canon 188 is applicable because part of the serious error is that Benedict thinks that becoming Pope leaves an indelible mark. That’s how she seems to interpret his use of “always” and “for ever”. Your explanation even more convincingly shows that Benedict knows he did not surrender the office or even the power to govern that belongs to the office (nor did he create a diarchy). Rather he announced to everyone his de facto situation: I have the office; thus, I have the power to govern and teach. But because of others’ disobedience I am unable to “administer rightly” those powers; so I am going to set them aside.

    Benedict understands rightly that the powers to govern and to teach still belong to the office itself and he is reassuring us that he holds the office “always” and “for ever” because he never did and never intends to resign from it. Until he dies, Benedict is Pope. He “retains the keys irrevocably” because he will never resign the office. In order to protect the Spotless Bride of the Lamb, he’s made the “difficult yet triumphant decision” to hold on to the office, even if it kills him. He is the Holy Father that little Jacinta Marto of Fatima saw weeping and praying in the big house.

    The rarely referenced vision Sr. Lucia mentions in her third Memoir describes a mysterious scene that no one seems to want to touch. The possibility cannot be denied that Benedict’s residence in the Vatican seems to fit the bill.

    “One day we spent our siesta down by my parents’ well. Jacinta sat on the stone slabs on top of the well. Francisco and I climbed up a steep bank in search of wild honey among the brambles in a nearby thicket. After a little while, Jacinta called out to me:
    “’Didn’t you see the Holy Father?’
    “’No.’
    “’I don’t’ know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.’”

    Just because the powers to govern and teach have been set aside, someone who does not hold the Papal Office cannot come along and use a power that’s only to be used by the office holder. Even if that someone has been “elected” at an unnecessary conclave. Someone who does that is a usurper. Canon 188 does not apply because there has been no serious error since there has been no resignation.

    Exchange of comments between the blog owner "docmx001" and "Islam_Is Islam" can be read here: https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/28/tosatti-via-socci-he-has-intended-to-remain-still-pope/
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17257
    • Reputation: +9592/-4144
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    "A more precise translation of the Declaratio of Feb 11, 2013 shows that Pope Benedict did not intend to split the Papal Office. Neither did he abdicate the Papal Office, rather he announced his inability to “rightly administrate” or “administrate satisfactorily” two of the papal powers and thus he abdicated from using those powers. Abdicating the use of power is NOT the same as resigning the Papal Office. A pope who is imprisoned cannot use those powers although he still rightly has them since they belong to the office."

    Nice try.  In that same declaration, he CLEARLY STATED that he was vacating the office to the extent that a new Pope needed to be elected by Coclave.  He stated that precisely so that there would be no ambiguity about what he was doing.


    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nice try.  In that same declaration, he CLEARLY STATED that he was vacating the office to the extent that a new Pope needed to be elected by Conclave.  He stated that precisely so that there would be no ambiguity about what he was doing.

    I just don't know if it's as clear cut as you state. See my next post where the two gentlemen discuss the actual translation of the Latin (each believing Benedict is still the true pope). 

    Also, since this deception happened, is there any wonder why the rest of Benedict's Declaratio shouldn't be more thoroughly dissected?

    Quote from: Veri Catholici
    The Vatican, worried to Hell, that anyone will notice that the Latin text of B16 abdication contains both words, munus and ministerium, but renounces only ministerium, has translated both into modern languages with the word "ministry" thus falsifying the document!
    https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1064193700643913729
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/litteral-english-translation-of-benedict-xvis-discourse-on-feb-11-2013-a-d/

    Literal English Translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.
     
    by The Editor

    By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

    There being few in the Church today who know the Latin tongue well enough to read an analyze a canonical text, I offer here my own translation of the discourse which Pope Benedict gave during the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013 A. D..  You can find modern translations of this discourse at the Vatican Website, with notable errors and seemingly purposeful misrepresentations.  Compare my own with theirs, if you like, to know which words have been altered in the vernacular versions.

    Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI, Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.

    Not only for the three canonizations have I called you to this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate to you a decision of great moment for the life of the Church. Having explored my conscience again and again before the Lord, I have arrived at certain recognition that with my advancing age my strengths are no longer apt for equitably administering the Petrine Office [munus Petrinum].

    I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying.  Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me.  On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 29, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].

    Dearest brothers, I thank you with my whole heart for every love and work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry [ministerii], and I ask pardon for all my failings.  Moreover, now We confide God’s Holy Church to the care of Her Most High Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness the Cardinal fathers in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.  In my own regard, I wish to serve in the future by a life of prayer dedicated to the Holy Church with my whole heart.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    [From the halls of the Vatican, Feb. 10, 2013]

    As can be seen from Ganswein’s talk at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016, and from the other comments made by Benedict XVI afterwards, this text regards the resignation of ministry, not office. If one were to say it effects the resignation of office, he would be in substantial error, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

    Unlike Archbishop Ganswein, when he spoke at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016,  I translate munus as office, following not only all the Latin Dictionaries which I have at my disposal, but the Latin text of Canon 145, which defines every office in the Church as a munus. See also, Pope Paul VI’s decree, Christus Dominus, which uses the same term for office.

    Having spoken with one of the most eminent Latinists who has worked at the Vatican, I note that the Sedes Romae refers to the time Zone, and is not an appositive to Sedes Sancti Petri. Note there are 2 things declared:  that I renounce… and that a Conclave be convoked….  Note also, that in the original text the commisso in the phrase, “committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals” was erroneously written and spokenas commissum.  (Cfr. Pope Gregory XIII’s 1582 edition of the Decretales Gregorii IX. Book. I, Tittle III, de Rescriptis, c. XI.)

    **********
    [/font][/size]

    Quote
    Islam_Is Islam says:
    November 24, 2018 at 12:11 am

    Great, Brother Alexis! Thank you. Your translation is similar to the one below except for the “could be vacant” phrase which seems rather important.



    Dear Brothers,

    I have convoked you to this Consistory not only on account of the three Canonizations,

    but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church.

    After having examined my conscience again and again before God, I have arrived at the definite understanding that as my age advances my physical powers are no longer suitable for rightly administrating the Petrine office.



    I am well aware that this office according to its spiritual essence must be executed not only by being active and by speaking [administering] but not less than by suffering and praying [sanctifying, atoning, supplicating]. However, in the world subject to the rapid changes of our time and shaken by questions of great consequence for the life of the Faith, indeed a certain vigor of body and soul is necessary for governing the Barque of St. Peter and for proclaiming the Gospel, which [vigor] has diminished in me in such a way that I should recognize my incapacity for administrating satisfactorily the ministry (management or active duties and teaching) committed to me. For this reason well aware of the seriousness of this act with full freedom I declare that I abdicate with regard to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th day of April 2005 in such a way that from the 28th day of February 2013, at the hour 20:00, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter could be vacant [provided/if the See of Peter be vacant] and that a Conclave would have to be convoked by these whose competence it is.



    Dearest Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and labor with which you have carried the weight of my ministry with me and I ask pardon for all my failings. But now we confide the Holy Church of God to the care of Its Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ and implore His Mother Mary, in order that She may assist the Cardinal Fathers by her maternal goodness in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. As far as I am concerned, I by all means wish in the future to serve the Holy Church of God most sincerely by a life dedicated to prayer.



    From the halls of the Vatican, the 10th day of the month of February 2013



    Quote
    The Editor says:

    November 24, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    There is no could be in the Latin where you put it. The subjunctive form of vacet is such because its in a subordinate clause of purpose, not because its in a condition or contrary to fact assertion.



    Quote
    Islam_Is Islam says:

    November 25, 2018 at 4:55 am

    Thank you for your explanation. I don’t mean to be argumentative; I am only trying to get to the bottom of Pope Benedict’s meaning and its implications. You mentioned the lack of subjunctive voice for competit to be a discrepancy. Would you please remark on the following as a possible explanation for the translation as “could be”? “Since the use of the subjunctive actually provides for a ‘condition’ based on Gildersleeve and Lodge, ‘provided the See of Peter be vacant . . .,’ which takes the burden off using the Subjunctive for ‘competit’ which, because it is in the Indicative Mood (may appear to be a discrepancy).” [More specifically,“Ita” and “sic”, although “usually antecedent to a consecutive ‘ut’, it may also be antecedent to a Final ‘ut’… when the design or wish intrudes … So not unfrequently when a restriction or condition is intended …” (Gildersleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar, P. 353.) This is what I believe Pope Benedict intended here in using “ita” with “vacet”. (The idea of condition, I firmly believe, is what Pope Benedict intended here in using “ita” with “vacet”.) “The infinitive clause becomes subjunctive by the principle of ‘Attraction of Mood’” (Gildersleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar, p. 424)] {From footnotes 11 and 12 of an earlier comment under The Validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s Resignation Must be Questioned posted on November 19th at From Rome}



    Thank you again; you are the first to even allow a discussion of these fine points. It is a great relief.



    Quote
    The Editor says:

    November 25, 2018 at 5:00 pm

    Your citation of the Latin Grammar is inconclusive, because you have to give examples. In Ecclesiastical Latin ita ut introduces a subordinate clause of purpose. Its a grave error found in many modern Latin grammars in English to attempt to reread into Latin the expansin of moods and tenses which we have in Modern English. There is no conditional mood in Latin, you can never translate the subjunctive of any verb as could, unless it be the verb “can” [posse]. You can only use the English subjunctive or may or might, depending upon the Latin construction. I explain this in my Latin Grammar published by The Francisan Archive. But as is said in argument 13, If you renounce something, which is of itself not the substance of the thing which is to be renounced, you have not renounced the substance of the thing. Just as if a Father renounces acting like a Father, he remains the Father. Only a phenomenologist would disagree. But the Church is Thomistic and Aristoelian in its laws, because the Church is founded on realities not appearances. If you reject only the accident of a thing, you still have the thing. Christ shows us this in the Eucharist, when He has renounced all the accidents of His Humanity to appear as Bread. But its still Him.






    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 212
    • Reputation: +64/-69
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

    O ya, definitely, 100% for certain that Benedict did NOT intend to resign. Yep, this is a no brainer. Got the absolute truth from God through Barnhardt. The new house theologian for trads. 


    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 212
    • Reputation: +64/-69
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • O ya, definitely, 100% for certain that Benedict did NOT intend to resign. Yep, this is a no brainer. Got the absolute truth from God through Barnhardt. The new house theologian for trads.

    Sometimes people out smart themselves to the point of becoming stupid.

    Bergoglio is not the Pope for the simple reason he is not a Catholic. No one needs Benedict to have a false abdication in order for Bergoglio not to be a pope.

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/08/the-official-latin-of-pope-benedicts-attempted-failed-abdication-says-the-see-could-be-vacant/

    The Official Latin of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Failed Abdication Says “the See COULD Be Vacant”.

    Years ago I had a bunch of people all saying the same thing to me:  “Ann, you MUST learn and use the Subjunctive mood.  Use of the Subjunctive is a social sorting mechanism, and if you want to be taken seriously and sound like an intelligent person, you have to learn, understand and use the Subjunctive.”

    And now, here we are, and all of those seemingly random admonitions from years ago are sounding downright prophetic.

    The Subjunctive mood in language is the grammatical form of the hypothetical.  In English it is fading fast from American mainstream usage, due largely to the fact that grammar is no longer taught to American school children, and also due to the fact that Americans are largely unread, and that which they do read tends toward teenaged vampire novellas.  I know that Americans do not know or understand the Subjunctive mood because whenever I use it in writing, I generally get an email or two from a reader trying to correct me.

    Look at the following two sentences and tell me which one is grammatically correct:

    If I was her, I would not put up with that.
    If I were her, I would not put up with that.

    The second sentence is grammatically correct.  “If I WERE”.  Every time I use the Subjunctive in writing, I get emails from people saying, “You don’t say ‘I were’, you say ‘I WAS’!”

    The “strange” shift from I was/He was to I were/He were AFTER the signal word “if” is the Subjunctive verb form conjugation.  Other words that signal this hypothetical mood and thus the use of the Subjunctive include “maybe”, “perhaps”, “I think that”, “I hope that”, “I wish that”, “in such a way that”, etc.

    In Latin, the present Subjunctive has its own unique conjugation form, and it sticks out like a sore thumb – far more than the Subjunctive sticks out in English.  When the Subjunctive appears in Latin, it is a huge red flag.
     Here is an explanation of the Present Active Subjunctive mood in Latin:

    Quote
    From here on, I will use the traditional term Subjunctive, although I would prefer to call it a Conditional as used in most modern foreign languages. I want to impress on your mind the sense of these new forms rather than their formal traditional title. When I say Conditional, I am calling forth all the associations that go with unreality, possibility, potentiality, in the English words “may” and “might” and “could be” and ” if it were…”. These are in a different world from the world of fact, where things “are”, where “is” can be counted upon to “be”, where facts are facts when you get down to brass tacks.

    In short the Indicative is the world of Western Civilization and American practical hardheaded ability to take the world as fact. In contradistinction, what we are going to discuss is the shadowy world of the unknown, the unreal and the un-factual.

    It feels good to take a positive, factual view of the world, but no one can go very far into living without observing that there are various levels of reliability and truthfulness. On a scale of one to ten I could outline the following:


           1       2       5       6       7       8       9       0

    Engl.=
           is
                  perhaps
                          maybe
                                 just possibly
                                         might be
                                                might possibly be
                                                       could  possibly be

    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

    Now, let’s look at both the text AND the video of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial abdication announcement:
    [/font][/size]

    Quote
    Fratres carissimi
    Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.

    Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

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

    Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

    Here is the video, and the key timestamp is 01:28 when Pope Benedict clearly says, “sedes Sancti Petri VACET”.



    So there is absolutely no debate, we have the official text in writing AND we have video of Pope Benedict clearly saying the words of the text.

    Here is the problem.  Every translation of this that I have seen, including the Vatican website and the subtitles on the video above, as well as all of the thought leaders out there arguing that Pope Benedict said, “the See of St. Peter WILL BE VACANT” are wrong.  That is NOT what “sedes Sancti Petri vacet” means.  “Vacet” is NOT the future indicative tense.  The future indicative “WILL BE VACANT” in Latin is “VACABIT”.

    Pope Benedict wrote and said “sedes Sancti Petri VACET”, which is the present SUBJUNCTIVE, and we have further confirmation of the intentional use of the subjunctive mood in this sentence by the signal particle “ita ut” in the previous clause, which means “in such a way that”, which not only throws up the red flag signal of the subjunctive mood, but signals a specific type of subjunctive mood called the POTENTIAL SUBJUNCTIVE. In English, the Potential Subjunctive must be translated as “COULD BE…”

    So what is the actual, accurate translation of the Potential Subjunctive “sedes Sancti Petri VACET”?

    “THE SEE OF SAINT PETER COULD BE VACANT”

    I couldn’t make this up in a thousand years if I tried, folks.

    Here is the full conjugation table for the Latin verb “vaco”.

    Why does this matter?  Well, let’s think about how well the Potential Subjunctive would go over in other juridical contexts.  Let’s start with marriage vows.

    Impressive Clergyman: Do you Wesley, take Buttercup to be your lawfully wedded wife?

    Wesley: I COULD….

    That isn’t assent, folks.  Wesley and Buttercup would NOT be married if either of them said, “I could” instead of “I do.”

    Let’s now consider a legal contract – say, a MORTGAGE.  How do you think it would go over if you arrived at a closing on a real estate transaction in which you were buying a house using a 30 year mortgage; the bank’s representative is sitting across the table and you, the borrower, take the mortgage agreement and strike out all instances of the future indicative tense, and replace it with the potential subjunctive.  So, for example:

    ”The borrower, John Smith, will pay 360 monthly payments of $1225.00 to the lender, “First National Bank of Springfield” becomes…

    ”The borrower, John Smith, COULD PAY 360 monthly payments….”

    You should be laughing at the very notion.

    Folks, this is what Pope Benedict did in his faux-abdication announcement.  And he CLEARLY went out of his way to do it.

    I have been aware of this for over two years, but I intentionally did NOT cover it in my video because I wanted to really drive home the “Substantial Error” point, but also because I knew that my audience would be mostly American English speakers, and if I started in on Latin Grammar and the use of the potential subjunctive in Latin, I would lose 90+% of the audience.

    But, after having been asked by multiple people to PLEASE post about this, I am happy to write this up and explain it.

    The fact that even Trad priests who read and recite Latin every day aren’t even aware of this, and in fact use the incorrect translation “WILL. BE. VACANT!” as their primary rebuttal to the Barnhardt Thesis only proves that being able to read and recite Latin is NOT the same thing as being FLUENT in Latin.  Most Trad priests today only study Latin enough to make them comfortable in praying the Mass and the Divine Office, which is fine.  It does not make them Classicists, Latin scholars, nor even Latin speakers.  As an example, I can recite/pray large swaths of the Mass in Latin by now, and know the meaning of what I am saying just from the repetition of going to Mass every day for years and years.  HOWEVER, I literally couldn’t ask you to pass me the salt in Latin if my life depended on it.  I do remember from the Gospel that “salt of the earth” is “sal terrae”, so maybe the best I could do is point at the salt shaker, say, “SAL”, and then gesture towards myself.  So most Trad priests today don’t have sufficient Latin to recognize this use of the Potential Subjunctive “VACET”, and think that the future indicative “will be vacant” is accurate, when, in fact, it is wildly incorrect.

    Now, if Trad priests who say the Mass in Latin every day miss this, imagine all of the Novus Ordo Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who have ZERO knowledge of Latin.  When Pope Benedict gave his faux-abdication speech above, almost NO ONE IN THE ROOM HAD ANY IDEA WHAT HAD JUST HAPPENED.  There was one person that we can see in the video that knew enough Latin to realize what Pope Benedict was saying.  It is the priest on the far right.  Watch his eyes and the stunned look on his face, and how he is looking out at the hall filled with Cardinals who have no clue what is happening… BECAUSE NONE OF THEM KNOW LATIN.

    Latin is the language of the Church because it is an incredibly PRECISE language that leaves very little room for confusion or ambiguity.  Now do we see why satan HATES Latin, and why priority number one of the Freemasonic-Communist-Sodomite infiltrators was to purge the knowledge and use of Latin from the Church when they came to power in the 1960s?

    So, this is YET ANOTHER data set in this bizarre situation pointing to the fact that Pope Benedict’s attempted partial resignation was invalid, and that he remains the one and only living Pope.

    I hope this helps.

    Mary, conceived without the stain of Original Sin, pray for us.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/09/update-to-the-latin-subjunctive-post/

    UPDATE to the Latin Subjunctive Post!

    I have received some of the best email feedback over the past 18 hours that I have ever received.  I have heard from a slew of Latinists, and what struck me was their kindness and gentility even to the point of being deferential.  I have, as of this writing, only received ONE nasty email, which resorted to the VERY tired “gaslighting” tactic, bandying about accusations of “insanity”.  Sadly, that correspondent was…wait for it…a priest.  Sigh.  But remember, folks, these priests in the various Ecclesia Dei communities know that Antipope Bergoglio WILL come after them and the Mass of the Ages itself eventually, and they are frightened.  That fear is why they are lashing out.  Although, I must admit that I do not understand how the whole “go along to get along and maybe the crocodile will eat us last” strategy can possibly be thought viable by anyone anymore.

    While I have now at least FOUR different “theories” as to the nuance of the Latin subjunctive and the use of “vacet” in the February 11, ARSH 2013 attempted partial abdication statement, ranging from “Potential Subjunctive” (citing Gildersleeve) all the way to “Subjunctive as Indicative” and points in between (citing Allen & Greenough and Linnekugel), all the Latinists agreed that the nuance of this Latin grammar question is NOT something to hang one’s hat on with regards to the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial abdication.  As per my video presentation, the crux of the matter is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR per Canon 188, not the Latin subjunctive.

    One Latinist that I was especially pleased to hear from is a professor of Latin at a German university.  It turns out that he is one of the curators of a website that has been translating and posting my essays into both German and Polish for years now.  I was aware that this website existed, but I did not know whom the curators were.  Now I do.  This professor said in his email that if he were to include in an exam this example of the particle “ut” preceding the subjunctive, that he estimates that 95% of his students would, after a lesson on the particle “ut” and how it signals the subjunctive in various contexts, miss the nuance and get this translation wrong.

    Given the quality of the feedback, I wish there were a way to get these Latinists together around a table to discuss it.  It would be a fascinating discussion indeed.  Maybe someone with a blog specializing in “slavishly accurate” Latin translations might oblige the group?  After all, I don’t think there has been this much excitement among Latinists since that time the raccoon got stuck in Reggie Foster’s copier!

    Oh, and for the record:

    DA MIHI SAL.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4491
    • Reputation: +2102/-649
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The worst part about these Resignationists is that even when Bennie dies, they still will not see the forest for the trees.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +248/-354
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
    « Reply #42 on: December 09, 2018, 02:07:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • And Ratzinger has embraced nearly as many heresies as Bergoglio.

    This.

    Also, the "Muh Fatima" cultists ignore the fact that Ratzo was involved in the "3rd Secret" lie "released" by Wojtyla in year 2000 and its cover-up thereafter...

    What do they do with all of that cognitive dissonance?
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

    Offline Prayerful

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 430
    • Reputation: +153/-24
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sounds like an attempt at an "easy out" of the Bergoglio problem.  Unfortunately, as Kasper recently pointed out, there's no difference in theology between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, and so the problem only deepens by reverting to Ratzinger.  Either they're both heretics, or neither one is.

    https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/10/19/kasper-sees-no-substantial-difference-between-benedict-and-francis/
    Ratzinger is a Modernist who in Jesus of Nazareth questions the historicity of the Jews calling His blood on them in Matthew's Gospel, and says not to convert them, yet Bergoglio the active protector of sodomite Conciliar priests, versus someone who instituted procedures to defrock or laicise them, has to be worse. Frankly whatever gets rid of daily blasphemer Francis-Bergoglio is fine by me, short of the lawlessness he trades in (so there is not another dodgy resignation and Bergoglio has spoken occasionally of resigning, even it was probably insincere), is fine by me, and likely most devout Catholics.

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • The "Veri Catholici" Twitter account is Br. Alexis Bugnolo, author of the "From Rome" blog, whose own translation of Benedict's Declaratio I have posted in this thread. Br. Bugnolo, Ann Barnhardt, the "non veni pacem" blogger, and "Islam_Is Islam" agree on Benedict maintaining the Papacy, but are in disagreement on this one part of the translation of his Declaratio; and also the premise of "substantial error" is disputed. Infighting amongst the "Resignationists"? ;)

    Quote from: Veri Catholici
    Here we must publicly decry the ignorance of all who say the present subjunctive of vaco, vacare in Latin can be translated with could. It just ain't so! There is no conditional mood in Latin!
    https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1071799388002021376

    **********

    "Islam_Is Islam" continues to agree with the "could be" translation and offered more commentary on the "non veni pacem" blog.

    Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
    Along with the “could be” from the precise English translation, perhaps another data point that Miss Barnhardt might explicate in the near future will be Fr. Schweigl’s credible statement regarding a “difficult yet triumphal decision” of a future pope. She and others may even re-think the premise of a “serious error” having occurred since Pope Benedict’s purposeful decision was likely made in light of having read both the description of as well as Our Lady’s interpretation of the Third Secret. The decision which he announced in the Declaratio has kept both the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Papal Office safe from the diabolical rot that surrounds him.

    More and more are becoming aware of the facts surrounding Fr. Schweigl’s statement. In 1952 at Pope Pius XII’s request, Fr. visited Sr. Lucia and asked her a total of 31 questions. He wrote an article that was published in a journal from the Russicum College in Rome in 1956 entitled, “Fatima and the Conversion of Russia”. In this article on page 15 he states, “The Third Secret [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic”. That could definitely describe Benedict’s decision.

    Quote from: docmx001
    Source please

    Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
    docmx001: This information from Fr. Schweigl, SJ comes from Guido Del Rose in a talk entitled “Fatima and the ‘Last Times’ Apostasy”, Cassette Tape #4 of 11 tapes, ca. 2004. Mr. Del Rose was the Custodian of the U.S. National Pilgrim Virgin Statue of the Blue Army for many years. Having a great devotion to Our Lady from his youth, he also traveled to Europe on various occasions to Conferences, Lectures, other discussion meetings where Fatima experts spoke and reported on the Fatima Message. Fr. Schweigl’s statement can also be found in Vol. 3 of Frere Michel’s excellent trilogy The Whole Truth About Fatima on page 252 Footnote #39. Is this the source you are requesting?
    https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/12/08/still-dont-know-why-benedict-used-latin-in-his-declaratio-barnhardt-knows/

    **********

    Over at "Fr. Z's Blog", Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (perhaps he's the priest who Barnhardt said got nasty with her?) wrote:

    I have notes from people asking about something that my friend Ann Barnhardt wrote about the Latin text of the address Benedict XVI gave when he announced that he was going to abdicate.  Ann contended that the Latin, as written and pronounced, indicated that Benedict did not truly resign.  She took a subjunctive vacet to to be potential and to mean that the See of Peter “might/could” be vacant, not that it “will/shall” be vacant.  What she didn’t know to account for was a pesky ut indicated the result of the action of resigning and, hence, the subjunctive was needed, vacet. In English, it has to sound future.  Blah blah.  She got out too far over her Latin skiis with this one but, to her credit, she posted an update HERE.
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/12/of-getting-latin-wrong-corrections-and-of-priests-and-their-latin-or-lack-thereof/

    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16