What Mr. NonVeniPacem picked up on was an aspect of the speech that I had forgotten. +Ganswein analogized Pope Benedict’s attempted “expansion of the Petrine ministry” into a “collegial, synodal office”, a “fundamental transformation” such that the Papacy would “never be the same again” to THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
Hey, remember that time when you quit your job just like any other resignation, and how that was so totally normal and non-extraordinary that your closest associates declared, with your approval, that it was, you know, like the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION? Like God creating His own Mother and holding her free of the stain of Original Sin by the merit of His own death on the Cross 50 years +/- later? You know, completely, totally normal and in no way different than any other resignation?
But remember folks, if you think it even POSSIBLE that there is any sort of problem here, you are INSANE with “hubristic arrogance”. And also an “arrogant a**hole” for pointing it out.
But what really leapt out at me after re-reading the FULL +Ganswein address was this little logical pickle:
If Pope Benedict’s “resignation” was just like every previous Papal resignation, and “Pope Emeritus” is just a way of saying “resigned Pope”, why is Pope Benedict XVI referred to by +Ganswein, with Pope Benedict’s approval, as having created a “new institution” as “history’s first Pope Emeritus?”
How can Pope Benedict be simultaneously just exactly like all other resigned Popes, but at the same time “history’s FIRST Pope Emeritus”, “entirely different” from all previous Popes that resigned, and that “to date there has never been a step taken like that of Benedict XVI”?
That is a stone-cold violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. Something can not BE and NOT BE at the same time. Pope Benedict cannot both be and not be the first “Pope Emeritus”. Something cannot be both “entirely different” and “entirely the same” as something else. So, something MUST be wrong with the base premise, because the logical truth table here is yielding first-degree corollaries in violation the Second of the Three Laws of Thought.
Logic, folks. It’s a constitutive quality of God Himself. That’s why the opening 14 verses of John’s Gospel are proclaimed at the end of every Mass in the Traditional Rite. “In the beginning was the LOGOS….”
I urge you to read the entire Ratzinger-approved +Ganswein speech below, and see for yourself how “thought leaders” are actively misleading you when they claim that there is no evidence that Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial “resignation” was anything other than completely normal and run-of-the-mill, just like all previous Papal resignations… and, apparently “normal” like the Immaculate Conception was “normal”.
Eminences, Excellencies, dear Brothers, Ladies and Gentlemen!
During one of the last conversations that the pope’s biographer, Peter Seewald of Munich, was able to have with Benedict XVI, as he was bidding him goodbye, he asked him: “Are you the end of the old or the beginning of the new?” The pope’s answer was brief and sure: “The one and the other,” he replied. The recorder was already turned off; that is why this final exchange is not found in any of the book-interviews with Peter Seewald, not even the famous Light of the World. It only appeared in an interview he granted to Corriere della Sera in the wake of Benedict XVI’s resignation, in which the biographer recalled those key words which are, in a certain way, a maxim of the book by Roberto Regoli, which we are presenting here today at the Gregorian.
Indeed, I must admit that perhaps it is impossible to sum up the pontificate of Benedict XVI in a more concise manner. And the one who says it, over the years, has had the privilege of experiencing this Pope up close as a “homo historicus,” the Western man par excellence who has embodied the wealth of Catholic tradition as no other; and — at the same time — has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent.
As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us — who are not in a competitive relationship between themselves, and yet both have an extraordinary presence! We may add that the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger had already marked decisively the long pontificate of St. John Paul II, whom he faithfully served for almost a quarter of a century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes).
But is it already time to assess the pontificate of Benedict XVI? Generally, in the history of the Church, popes can correctly be judged and classified only ex post. And as proof of this, Regoli himself mentions the case of Gregory VII, the great reforming pope of the Middle Ages, who at the end of his life died in exile in Salerno – a failure in the opinion of many of his contemporaries. And yet Gregory VII was the very one who, amid the controversies of his time, decisively shaped the face of the Church for the generations that followed. Much more daring, therefore, does Professor Regoli seem today in already attempting to take stock of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, while he is still alive.
The amount of critical material which he reviewed and analyzed to this end is massive and impressive. Indeed, Benedict XVI is and remains extraordinarily present also through his writings: both those produced as pope — the three volumes on Jesus of Nazareth and 16 (!) volumes of Teachings he gave us during his papacy — and as Professor Ratzinger or Cardinal Ratzinger, whose works could fill a small library.
And so, Regoli’s work is not lacking in footnotes, which are as numerous as the memories they awaken in me. For I was present when Benedict XVI, at the end of his mandate, removed the Fisherman’s ring, as is customary after the death of a pope, even though in this case he was still alive! I was present when, on the other hand, he decided not to give up the name he had chosen, as Pope Celestine V had done when, on December 13, 1294, a few months after the start of his ministry, be again became Pietro dal Morrone.
Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed during his exceptional pontificate (Ausnahmepontifikat), regarding which the sober Cardinal Sodano, reacting simply and directly immediately after the surprising resignation, deeply moved and almost stunned, exclaimed that the news hit the cardinals who were gathered “like a bolt from out of the blue.”
Equally brilliant and illuminating is the thorough and well documented exposition by Don Regoli of the different phases of the pontificate. Especially its beginning in the April 2005 conclave, from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, emerged elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called “Salt of the Earth Party,” around Cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called “St. Gallen Group” around Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O’Connor; a group that recently the same Cardinal Danneels of Brussels so amusedly called “a kind of Mafia-Club.” The election was certainly also the result of a clash, whose key Ratzinger himself, as dean of the College of Cardinals, had furnished in the historic homily of April 18, 2005 in St. Peter’s; precisely, where to a “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires” he contrasted another measure: “the Son of God, the true man” as “the measure of true humanism.” Today we read this part of Regoli’s intelligent analysis almost like a breathtaking detective novel of not so long ago; whereas the “dictatorship of relativism” has for a long time sweepingly expressed itself through the many channels of the new means of communication which, in 2005, barely could be imagined.
The name that the new pope took immediately after his election therefore already represented a plan. Joseph Ratzinger did not become Pope John Paul III, as perhaps many would have wished. Instead, he went back to Benedict XV — the unheeded and unlucky great pope of peace of the terrible years of the First World War — and to St. Benedict of Norcia, patriarch of monasticism and patron of Europe. I could appear as a star witness to testify that, over the previous years, Cardinal Ratzinger never pushed to rise to the highest office of the Catholic Church.
Instead, he was already dreaming of a condition that would have allowed him to write several last books in peace and tranquility. Everyone knows that things went differently. During the election, then, in the Sistine Chapel, I was a witness that he saw the election as a “true shock” and was “upset,” and that he felt “dizzy” as soon as he realized that “the axe” of the election would fall on him. I am not revealing any secrets here, because it was Benedict XVI himself who confessed all of this publicly on the occasion of the first audience granted to pilgrims who had come from Germany. And so it isn’t surprising that it was Benedict XVI who immediately after his election invited the faithful to pray for him, as this book again reminds us.
Regoli maps out the various years of ministry in a fascinating and moving way, recalling the skill and confidence with which Benedict XVI exercised his mandate. And what emerged from the time when, just a few months after his election, he invited for a private conversation both his old, fierce antagonist Hans Küng as well as Oriana Fallaci, the agnostic and combative grande dame of Jewish origin, from the Italian secular mass media; or when he appointed Werner Arber, the Swiss Evangelical and Nobel Prize winner, as the first non-Catholic President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Regoli does not cover up the accusation of an insufficient knowledge of men that was often leveled against the brilliant theologian in the shoes of the Fisherman; a man capable of truly brilliantly evaluating texts and difficult books, and who nevertheless, in 2010, frankly confided to Peter Seewald how difficult he found decisions about people because “no one can read another man’s heart.” How true it is!
Regoli rightly calls 2010 a “black year” for the pope, precisely in relation to the tragic and fatal accident that befell Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini belonging to the small “papal family.” I can certainly confirm it. In comparison with this misfortune the media sensationalism of those years — from the case of traditionalist bishop, Williamson, to a series of increasingly malicious attacks against the pope — while having a certain effect, did not strike the pope’s heart as much as the death of Manuela, who was torn so suddenly from our midst. Benedict was not an “actor pope,” and even less an insensitive “automaton pope”; even on the throne of Peter he was and he remained a man; or, as Conrad Ferdinand Meyer would say, he was not a “clever book,” he was “a man with his contradictions.” That is how I myself have daily been able to come to know and appreciate him. And so he has remained until today.
Regoli observes, however, that after the last encyclical, Caritas in veritate of December 4, 2009, a dynamic, innovative papacy with a strong drive from a liturgical, ecumenical and canonical perspective, suddenly appeared to have “slowed down,” been blocked, and bogged down. Although it is true that the headwinds increased in the years that followed, I cannot confirm this judgment. Benedict’s travels to the UK (2010), to Germany and to Erfurt, the city of Luther (2011), or to the heated Middle East — to concerned Christians in Lebanon (2012) — have all been ecumenical milestones in recent years. His decisive handling to solve the issue of abuse was and remains a decisive indication on how to proceed. And when, before him, has there ever been a pope who — along with his onerous task — has also written books on Jesus of Nazareth, which perhaps will also be regarded as his most important legacy?
It isn’t necessary here that I dwell on how he, who was so struck by the sudden death of Manuela Camagni, later also suffered the betrayal of Paolo Gabriele, who was also a member of the same “papal family.” And yet it is good for me to say at long last, with all clarity, that Benedict, in the end, did not step down because of a poor and misguided chamber assistant, or because of the “tidbits” coming from his apartment which, in the so-called “Vatileaks affair,” circulated like fool’s gold in Rome but were traded in the rest of the world like authentic gold bullion. No traitor or “raven” [the Italian press’s nickname for the Vatileaks source] or any journalist would have been able to push him to that decision. That scandal was too small for such a thing, and so much greater was the well-considered step of millennial historical significance that Benedict XVI made.
The exposition of these events by Regoli also merits consideration because he does not advance the claim that he sounds and fully explains this last, mysterious step; not further enriching the swarm of legends with more assumptions that have little or nothing to do with reality. And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God:
“Decuit, potuit, fecit.”
That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it.
The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.”
Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.
It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.
In his overview of the pontificate, Regoli clearly lays this all out as never before. Perhaps the most moving part of the reading for me was the place where, in a long quote, he recalls the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI on February 27, 2013 when, under an unforgettable clear and brisk sky, the pope, who shortly thereafter would resign, summarized his pontificate as follows:
“It has been a portion of the Church’s journey which has had its moments of joy and light, but also moments which were not easy; I have felt like Saint Peter with the Apostles in the boat on the Sea of Galilee: The Lord has given us so many days of sun and of light winds, days when the catch was abundant; there were also moments when the waters were rough and the winds against us, as throughout the Church’s history, and the Lord seemed to be sleeping. But I have always known that the Lord is in that boat, and I have always known that the barque of the Church is not mine, it is not ours, but his. Nor does the Lord let it sink; it is he who guides it, surely also through the men whom he has chosen, because he so wished. This has been, and is, a certainty which nothing can obscure.”
I must admit that, rereading these words can still bring tears to my eyes, all the more so because I saw in person and up close how unconditional, for himself and for his ministry, was Pope Benedict’s adherence to St Benedict’s words, for whom “nothing is to be placed before the love of Christ,” nihil amori Christi praeponere, as stated in rule handed down to us by Pope Gregory the Great. I was a witness to this, but I still remain fascinated by the accuracy of that final analysis in St. Peter’s Square which sounded so poetic but was nothing less than prophetic. In fact, they are words to which today, too, Pope Francis would immediately and certainly subscribe. Not to the popes but to Christ, to the Lord Himself and to no one else belongs the barque of Peter, whipped by the waves of the stormy sea, when time and again we fear that the Lord is asleep and that our needs are not important to him, while just one word is enough for him to stop every storm; when instead, more than the high waves and the howling wind, it is our disbelief, our little faith and our impatience that make us continually fall into panic.
Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household
20 May 2016
It’s going to take a little getting used to no longer saying in my prayers, “For SuperNerd, SuperMommy, Tiny Princess….”
We don’t pray for people who have absolutely everything, who are looking upon God, face to face, without any veil or separation.
Don’t be afraid to ask Tiny Princess to pray for you! She knows who you are, and knows that you prayed for her during her time here below. Her little apostolate is now up and running at full strength!
And now a few especially moving and wise words from SuperNerd, who is the father of a saint, today:
“Sometimes I’ve thought of children who die before they are able to offend God as the lucky ones: they go straight to heaven. But on second thought they must regard us as the lucky ones. While they were never able to offend God they were also incapable of doing what we can do every moment of every day: willingly and selflessly give our thoughts and actions to the service of God. I imagine that Tiny Princess is praying for me, her mom, and her siblings with the hope that we’ll not only make it to heaven with her but that she’ll be able to tell the other innocents around her in heaven: “See those radiant souls waaaaaay up there, closer to God? That’s my family!!!” And so I renew my vows to renounce satan, his works, and his pomps and to serve God as thoroughly and completely as I can.“
Thou hast turned for me my mourning into joy: Thou hast cut my sackcloth, and hast compassed me with gladness:To the end that my glory may sing to Thee, and I may not regret: O Lord my God, I will give praise to Thee for ever.
Psalm 29: 12-13
Please pray for SuperNerd and SuperMommy and the SuperSiblings as they will miss Tiny Princess very much. She was a vector of grace and love in her short time within the Church Militant, but is now a saint in the Church Triumphant – and we know this for an absolute certainty. Tiny Princess has no need of our prayers. We are in need of hers. I have already asked her to pray for me, and for all of you.
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 German classicist. 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 who the curators were. Now I do. He 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 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!
“Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.”
But remember folks, there is no evidence, and to even question Bergoglio’s legitimacy is “insanity”.
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 she, 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.
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
Now, let’s look at both the text AND the video of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial abdication announcement:
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.
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, COULDPAY 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.
Celibacy is to not be married, which must now be explained to be between one human male and one human female.
Chastity is to not sin with regards to sex, both inside and outside of marriage.
Continence is to not engage in the marital embrace.
Sodomite priests often snarkily claim that they are not breaking their vows of celibacy because they are not married, and that sodomy is therefore licit for them. They often say this to their victims when they are grooming them. “The only vow I took was to not marry a woman. No problem! Eeew!”
“Chaste sodomy” is an ontological impossibility, as is “homosexual marriage” (pseudogamy).
The only way for a celibate to be chaste is to not engage in any genital activity whatsoever. Period. No spouse, no sex.
Married couples are called to chastity by only engaging in licit sex with each other which is open to the transmission of life. Sexually active married couples should be and are expected to be chaste.
Continence is to not engage in the marital embrace. Married couples can together choose to be continent, either for a phase or season, or perpetually.
All of the Apostles except St. John were almost certainly married, but upon being ordained priests and bishops by Our Lord immediately entered into perfect perpetual continence with their wives. Thus only St. John was celibate, but all of the Apostles were chaste and continent.
All married priests were understood to be perfectly and perpetually continent. It went without saying, because it was obvious that a man who offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was espoused to Christ and His Church. It is a testament to how far gone a culture is that clerical continence is not instantly understood and naturally assumed with married priests and deacons, and even elicits rage when mentioned.
These terms, especially “celibacy“, are misused today almost as a rule across the board. Words have meaning and are not interchangeable. We should use these words correctly ourselves, and charitably correct others when they misuse them.
Happy feast of St. Ambrose. See you tomorrow for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Bring your thinking cap. We are going to delve into Pope Benedict’s wildly invalid Latin in his spoken and written resignation. Too many have asked me to post on that. And yes, it is… wildly, massively nutty.