GIVE HER “SPACE BALES” ON THE CODE OF CANON LAW BENEDICT XVI INDICATED AS A GREAT LATINIST WHO CANNOT COMMIT ERRORS

If the theories of certain conspiracy circles were true, we will be faced with a vile liar of such magnitude that after his death the coffin of Benedict XVI would deserve to be thrown into the Tiber instead of buried in the Vatican Grottoes next to most of his Supreme Predecessors.

- Church news -

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

.

I would never use this magazine than at the end of the current year 2022 is about to reach over twenty million visits totaled in 11 months ― and the month of December is still missing ― to give visibility to subjects who rant «… these numbers of ours make us tremble!», all in front of a few thousand people listening to a raving video on YouTube to have a laugh at the nonsense enunciated by some lunatic. If you did, as well as harming the seriousness of the work we have been carrying out since 2014 I would be disrespectful to my fellow theologians and editors, which I consider as precious as the pupils of my eyes.

.

As known for i social media subjects who have built their own go crazy “telematic ghetto” stating to groups of debauched - or worse demonstrating irrefutably, to them to say - that the act of renunciation of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI is invalid due to a lack of form and that therefore he would not have made a formal and valid act of renunciation, not having complied with the dictation of the Code of Canon Law which it reads:

.

«In the event that the Roman Pontiff renounces his office, it is required for validity that the renunciation be made freely and duly manifested, instead it is not required that someone accept it " [cf.. canon 332 §2].

.

The exotic characters in question they always avoid reading the entire text of this canon which fits integrally and inseparably into the canons 330-367 dedicated to «The Supreme Authority of the Church». Not only, they do worse: they only mention two words: "duly manifested". Then, to hit the army of functional illiterates and digital illiterates who believe in their nonsense like the peasants of the countryside believed in the amazing relics exhibited by the Boccaccio Friar Cipolla [cf.. WHO], they pronounce as a abracadabra the same two words in Latin to produce a mysterious effect: «duly manifested». They follow all their theories comparable to sci-fi comedy film Spaceballs in which they confuse the concepts of with crass ignorance gift e ministry legally and theologically, bringing up codes to be deciphered with which Benedict XVI would cryptically speak through … amphibology (!?). Our Florentine brother Simone Pifizzi would bring up the very Tuscan saga My friends: «The premature supercazzola with right unchapping». Supercazzola to which our Dominican theologian Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci has dedicated several articles to explaining that this term has been taken from the current philosophical language to define a statement totally devoid of rationality and logical sense [cf.. WHO].

.

The crass ignorance of the manipulators of ecclesiastical laws has always played on the concept of gift e ministry: «… and why Benedict XVI has renounced the ministry and not at gift?». Therefore, «… this renders his waiver invalid.". And so, an army of fragile functional and digital illiterates, slipping into the role of talking parrots they begin to rant about social media: «Benedict XVI has not renounced the gift», unless you know what they are, mean and behave gift e ministry. After which they turn into sowers of confusion and above all of hatred towards the "false anti-Christ church of the usurper anti-pope Bergoglio emissary of Satan". We try to explain everything as simply as possible: the gift And a “gift received” deriving from Sacramento, the ministry it is instead the exercise of this ministry linked to the gift, i.e. the Sacrament. Example: with the Sacrament of Holy Orders I received the “gift“, or rather i three gifts (three “want”) which consist of: teach, sanctify and lead/govern the People of God. These three gifts are then realized through the ministry, which is the exercise of the sacred priestly ministry. Now pay attention: for various reasons and reasons related to serious health problems or equally serious personal problems, I could ask to waive the exercise of the ministry. I could also ask to be dispensed from all the duties and obligations that the priestly ministry entails and that the Church could grant me up to the canonical dispensation from the obligations of celibacy allowing me to marry and have a family. But I could never ask to give up the gift, because it would be like asking to cancel the sacrament of Holy Orders, impossible, because the Sacrament is indelible and indelible. Not only, the Sacrament has given me a new character that has ontologically transformed me, which would continue to remain even if I were dispensed from all the duties and obligations deriving from the ministry.

.

Another thing instead the Papacy, which is neither the eighth sacrament nor the highest degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders divided internally into three degrees: diaconate, presbytery, episcopate. The office of the Successor of Peter is not conferred through a sacramental way but through a purely juridical way. It is no coincidence that the Roman Pontiff does not receive a sacramental consecration, he comes “enthroned”, or as they say today “the Petrine ministry begins”. If at the time of his election the one elected was not vested with the episcopal character, in this case he must be consecrated bishop:

.

"The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power over the Church by legitimate election, accepted by him, together with the episcopal consecration" [cf.. Canon 332 – § 1].

.

The transmission of the Petrine succession it is therefore solely juridical and therefore confers on the juridical level, not sacramental, the ministry of the fullness of the supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church. The Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter and only the Successor of Peter can be Bishop of Rome. Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff makes an act of renunciation, in this case he will renounce the ministry legally received, but it will continue to remain in him gift episcopal received through the sacramental way. The renunciation of the Petrine office, that is to say ministry, entails the loss of pontifical jurisdiction which was conferred by juridical means and which can be renounced by juridical means. Also for this reason it would be very problematic to define a renouncing pope as "Bishop emeritus of Rome", not being able to apply to the Petrine seat, precisely because of its particularity, the principles of the emeritus of diocesan bishops, because as mentioned above: the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter and only the Successor of Peter can be Bishop of Rome. But this would be a further discourse that cannot be dealt with here now.

.

Let us further clarify how certain subjects make enormous confusion by asserting in an absurd and obtuse way that Benedict XVI would have renounced the office of Roman Pontiff (ministry) but not to be Roman Pontiff (gift). Among the various documents cited inappropriately to support their absurd theses is Lumen Gentiles. Also in this case it is good to clarify: within this document of the Second Vatican Council [cf.. Chapter III] yes a distinction is made between gift and exercise of power, but referred to the exercise of the episcopal ministry based on the dual transmission of power, which is sacramental with regard to sacred orders and episcopal consecration supported on gift, of a juridical nature as regards instead the canonical mission conferred on the episcopal, namely the ministry understood as power. It is on this distinction between power order e power jurisdiction which was established by the Holy Pontiff Paul VI the figure of bishop emeritus who came to 75 years he renounced the government of the diocese entrusted to him, thus losing the power jurisdiction, but always keeping the gift episcopal ministry transmitted to him sacramentally through the conferral of the fullness of the apostolic priesthood. All as proof of how certain characters manipulate Church documents and extract what is not written in them. The novelty introduced by Benedict XVI consists in the title and in the status of "pope emeritus" created by him in a happy or unhappy way, with results that only history can evaluate, assuming this title in the same way as it is assumed by diocesan bishops who renounce the ministry legally acquired but maintaining the gift acquired sacramentally. As already explained above, if Benedict XVI had assumed the title of "Bishop emeritus of Rome" it would have been not a little problematic on a juridical and theological level.

.

Having clarified all, I hope at least some people, among the various functional and digital illiterates who in a superficial and totally uncritical way have followed certain charlatans, can understand how and to what extent these dangerous manipulators and counterfeiters are dragging them into the world of the irrational for purposes that are anything but clean, because we are faced with people who lie knowing they are lying, not before subjects affected by simple unavoidable or invincible ignorance. We are faced with dangerous subjects who have imprisoned themselves in lies that they must support and keep standing in every way, even denying the most logical and obvious reality of the facts.

.

Before commenting with scientific rigour certain canons used and abused for what they do not contain within them, it is necessary to clarify that ecclesiastical laws are human laws based on Revelation, obviously it is. But they are and remain human laws created by men to give a juridical and administrative order to the Church understood as company. Canon Law is not a dogma of faith and is not the foundation of the deposit of the Catholic faith. Therefore insisting that Benedict XVI did not make a valid act because his resignation would not have been "duly manifested" (duly manifested), it is objective and blatant idiocy. It would be enough to read the canon well 332 which recites:

.

«The Bishop of the Church of Rome, in which the office granted by the Lord individually to Peter remains, first of the Apostles, and which must be passed on to his successors, he is head of the College of Bishops, Vicar of Christ and Shepherd here on earth of the universal Church; he therefore, under his office, has supreme ordinary power, milk, immediate and universal on the Church, power that he can always exercise freely".

.

It should be read next the Canon 333 §3 which is the logical-juridical continuation of the previous one and which reads:

.

"There is no appeal or recourse against the sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff".

.

This canon makes it clear that the Roman Pontiff is not subject to human law because he is above any human law, this for a simple fact: because he is the supreme legislator [cf.. Canon 331]. Logical-juridical prerequisite, this, which precedes the Canon 332 manipulated and then transformed into a workhorse by certain lunatics, which is then followed, with the same logical-legal criterion, the aforementioned canon 333. A legal system in its entirety follows a logical and coherent order based on principles of logic and non-contradiction, only petty minds can extrapolate and manipulate a fragment to make the canonical laws say something that contradicts their own backbone.

.

The confused minds that carry out such theories sowing confusion and bewilderment in the simple and the frail, they are mistaking the Roman Pontiff for the President of a democratic republic or for the Sovereign of a constitutional monarchy, who, in addition to being custodians and guarantors of the Law, are the first to be subjected to it. However, this is not exactly the case for the Roman Pontiff, who with the use of an improper political term we could define the greatest absolute monarch in the world, because the authority and power he received through the ministry it comes to him from God and by God alone it can be judged, since there is no human authority superior to him in the world that can do so. The Roman Pontiff cannot even be judged by the canonical laws themselves because he is above them, he being the supreme legislator, nor does the Code of Canon Law provide for and regulate the exercise of that institution which in the juridical systems governed by the Common law is defined as impeachment, while our Italian legal system provides in art. 90 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, the indictment of the Head of State for high treason or attack on the Constitution. A head of state, who is guarantor and guardian of the laws, and to which he is subjected first before all, he cannot repeal or modify them on his own initiative, because it is up to Parliament to do it, the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his powers can instead do so:

.

«[…] he has the right to determine, according to the needs of the Church, the way, both personal and collegiate, to exercise this office" [cf.. Canon 333 §2].

.

Sand the Roman Pontiff wanted tomorrow morning could get up and replace di motu proprio all the royalties he wants with others, without having to account to anyone or being in any way required to provide explanations, least of all justifications. No Head of State could ever tell a court to suspend the trial of an accused and order the immediate closure of the trial, the Roman Pontiff yes, he could do it with any ecclesiastical court, without even having to explain to anyone. Then this doesn't do it, it's another matter, however it could do it in a completely legitimate and above all indisputable and unquestionable way. It would suffice only to add that he could even reject a proposal made by a unanimous ecumenical council, because the council itself, maximum expression of the authority and collegiality of the Bishops of the Church, he has no authority superior to that of the Roman Pontiff. Nevertheless we must see the sowing of confusion by tragic and ridiculous subjects who insist on confusing the simple by questioning its valid act of renunciation, because according to them, Benedict XVI would not have recited a perfect little formula, or because he made some Latin grammar mistakes in his declaration. Well let it be known that in itself it would be enough for the renunciation to be made at least in front of two witnesses, in writing or orally, according to the provisions of the Canon 189, § 1. As regards that of Benedict XVI, the resignation was publicly made in the Consistory of Cardinals convened by him on 11 February 2013. We really want to continue playing and trying to pass off the stratospheric nonsense about the formula as credible, or worse on the fact that "even if he had made a free act of renunciation it would not be valid in any case"? It is truly humiliating and degrading to have to explain such obvious things to those who do not want to understand a priori, but for the salvation of souls, intellectual humiliation is welcome, which in itself entails replying to the nonsense of emeritus idiots who, as such, would not deserve a reply from any educated person with a legal and theological culture.

.

Sui social media they go crazy however these subjects who sticking to the little word of "free renunciation" split from their pluri-quoted Canon 332, they state with disturbing lightness that «Benedict XVI was not free» but that «he was forced to give up» (!?) Let's clarify: in order to declare and demonstrate such a thing, the authors of such a demented assertion would need to have the power to read the most intimate and profound conscience of the renouncing Pontiff. And here we pass from canon law to dogmatic theology. Only God can scrutinize and read the deepest and most intimate spheres of human conscience:

.

“Conscience is the most secret nucleus and shrine of man, There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths " [cf.. Vatican Council II, Cost. past. The joy and hope, 16: AAS 58 (1966) 1037].

.

Also in this case the answer is soon given, because one of these subjects does not hesitate to affirm that it was Our Lady who revealed to him what was contained in Benedict XVI's conscience, who allegedly entrusted him with the mission of fighting against "the false church and the false usurping pope" (!?).

.

However, it is known how much idiocy takes pleasure in itself: «… since Benedict XVI cannot declare that he was forced to renounce, then he transmits messages in cryptic code after having self-exiled in an impeded location».

.

As mentioned earlier: you don't even imagine how humiliating it is for a presbyter and a theologian having to write on certain topics to respond to such nonsense. But I repeat: before the souls entrusted to us pushed by others into grave error, the good shepherd in the care of souls also accepts intellectual humiliation, which of all could also be one of the worst. So if we go to read the royalties 412-415 in which cases and situations are set out which determine the impeded episcopal see, anyone should understand instantly that they cannot appeal in the case of Benedict XVI, barring total distortion and grotesque manipulations of what is enclosed within these canons. In fact, I remember that the law is interpreted, it is not manipulated. The manipulation and distortion of texts has nothing to do with interpretation, even with the so-called extensive one. We recall incidentally that the Law can be interpreted or applied in a restrictive or extensive way.

.

Another point to insist on is that «in declaration of resignation there are formal errors which make it invalid in any case regardless of whether Benedict XVI has also made a free act of resignation". And with this assertion one declares and publicly repeats - as an obscure character has been doing for some time - that the form is superior to the substantial intention. Thus mere form is elevated above will and deliberate consent. A blatant idiocy! Any person who had a single glimmer of reason should instantly understand that we are dealing with expressions that range between madness and magic, where what only matters is not the substantial will, but the correct formal pronunciation of a “magic formula”. Because certain subjects come to this: to the magic of formulas.

.

Let's move on to the last point: the Latin errors. These subjects affirm that to render the waiver irrefutably invalid would be «the presence of numerous errors of Latin syntax, why the declaration it must be “duly manifested”» (duly manifested) pursuant to the pluri-cited Canon 332. After affirming this, they continue by saying that «Benedict XVI has always been a fine and great Latinist and that as such and as such he could not make these mistakes, some even crass. If, however, he did so, it was to deliberately render the renunciation invalid and withdraw to an impeded location". We reflect: if Benedict XVI had done such a thing we would be facing the most cowardly and lying Supreme Pontiff in the entire history of the Papacy.

.

Latin is an insidious language, in many respects more than ancient Greek. First of all, it is a dead language that hasn't been spoken for centuries. Then we should bear in mind that there are various Latins: the Latin of Marcus Tullius Cicero or Titus Lucretius Carus, that of Seneca or Catullus is not the one in which Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo, wrote and expressed himself between the fourth and fifth centuries, nor the one in which Sant'Anselmo d'Aosta wrote and expressed himself between the 11th and 12th centuries. Still another one in which St. Thomas Aquinas expressed and wrote in the thirteenth century, in turn completely different from that of the sixteenth century, a Latin now relegated to specific circles of educated people, having developed and spread at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, between the School of Frederick II of Swabia in Palermo and Dante Alighieri in Florence the so-called vernacular language, which had not a little bastardized Latin itself for the following centuries, bringing together neologisms that had nothing to do with the ancient classical Latin. The Latin of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was now a lot of Latin “bastardized”. Finally, the one used in science, juridical and ecclesiastical between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, more than a Latin he was a Latin. It is no coincidence that the precise term "ecclesiastical Latin" exists.

.

Some remember that the language used to hold lectures in ecclesiastical universities until the early 1970s was Latin. Let me smile and narrate that former student, who then became renowned theologians of the Roman School and full professors in those same ecclesiastical universities, last in order of series Brunero Gherardini and Antonio Livi, they told me in an amused way many tasty anecdotes, explaining what it was, more than Latin, of macaronic Latin. Or as Antonio Livi told me, that he was a lover of Latin: «I might as well have used Italian, or any other modern national languages, stopping with the antics of that pseudo-Latin that made grammatical nonsense come out of the mouths of the teachers and causing the students to understand even less than what they could have understood». I remember that Antonio Livi was dean of philosophy at the Pontifical Lateran University, after having previously contributed to the establishment of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross.

.

It's one thing to read, understand and translate this dead language, one thing to write it or worse to speak it. Stating that the young Joseph Ratzinger who perished at the council «spoke in Latin, him like the other participants» is a colossal hoax, a pure urban legend put into circulation by whom, not knowing the history of the Church, it finds nothing better to do than invent stories and facts after the fact than in the recent past, ancient and remote have never existed. I was a pupil of two masters who were both perished at the council, one of whom died on the threshold of the 100 years a few weeks ago. During the various phases of the council, one of his tasks was also to summarize in English, Spanish and French ― the three languages ​​he knew best in addition to his native German ― the various reports written in the official language of the Church: Latin. Because in the early 1960s many bishops were unable to understand and translate Latin, especially those coming from the so-called Third World countries and from the various mission lands of the Latin American continent.

.

Benedict XVI has never been and is not a "refined Latin scholar" but only as good a connoisseur of Latin as many of us are, and it is for this reason more than understandable that he made mistakes in drafting his declaration of renunciation. Any good connoisseur of Latin would have made them. I will try to clarify better with a personal example: I once translated a one-page letter of mine from Italian into Latin. After that I sent it to not one or even two, but to five Latinist experts, two of whom are involved in the translation of the official Latin texts at the Holy See. All five told me that the text was almost right, making me various grammar corrections. Well, each made me different corrections, all strictly correct, but one unlike the other. Because this is Latin: a dead language where, in addition to grammar, both interpretation and the construction of the structure of the text play a lot, which may be correct for one Latinist but incorrect for another, although both are right.

.

The declaration of resignation of Benedict XVI it is a very intimate and personal text that the person concerned has written by himself after long reflection and prayer, dealing with one's conscience, with his own soul and also with the future history of the Church to which he would have handed it over for the centuries to come as an entirely extraordinary event. He did not submit the text of his declaration to those good and expert Latin scholars available to the Holy See precisely because of the delicate and intimate nature of that very personal act which is such and which remains and must remain so. Act in which Benedict XVI made several grammatical errors, erring in the lexical form as any good connoisseur would have done that Latin is able to read it, translate it and use it privately, but composing in Latin is something that only the most expert Latinists can do, sometimes making some mistakes too. Benedict XVI is by no means "a fine and great Latinist", as can those scholars who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of this difficult dead language. And it is precisely the best Latin scholars who affirm that making mistakes in a Latin editorial office is easy for all those who know Latin well, without detracting from their knowledge of Latin. Therefore, with all due respect to the follies and urban legends spread by certain plotters, I repeat that writing and composing in Latin is difficult even for expert Latinists, while speaking it correctly borders on the impossible. Unless you want to confuse Latin with the Latin of the clerics of the early twentieth century or with the Latin juridical brocardi, that we remember are brief maxims derived from the laws and for this reason also indicated as general principles.

.

I leave it to all reasonable people to evaluate if errors in Latin grammar could invalidate - in the name of the «duly manifested» extrapolated from a canon 332 and quoted in an obsessive-compulsive way - a free and very personal act of renunciation like the one expressed by Benedict XVI before the College of Cardinals, who subsequently reiterated in all the speeches given publicly before the convening of the new conclave how thoughtful and free his decision was.

.

If the theories of certain conspiracy circles were true, we would be faced with a vile liar of such magnitude that after his death the coffin of Benedict XVI would deserve to be thrown into the Tiber instead of buried in the Vatican Grottoes next to most of his Supreme Predecessors.

 

From the island of Patmos, 30 November 2022

.

.

.

THE LATEST BOOK BY ARIEL S. LEVI of GUALDO – TO ACCESS THE BOOKSHOP CLICK ON THE COVER

.

 

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.