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]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
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.
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.
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.