UPDATE and corrections to this post HERE.
Turns out, it was not only Benedict’s mangling of the munus and ministerium in his official Declaratio, intentionally or not, but he also plainly stated that his peculiar form of (partial) resignation was so full of weirdness, that he was renouncing “in such a way” that “the See of Saint Peter COULD be vacant.”
This is not a
subjunctve subjective theory. This is objective, observable truth.
THIS IS WHAT THE MAN SAID.
There is audio-visual evidence, y’all.
Barnhardt link HERE.
Full Barnhardt post below:
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.”
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:
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.
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.
6 thoughts on “Still don’t know why Benedict used Latin in his Declaratio? Barnhardt knows…”
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.
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?
Beautiful. Another piece in the puzzle that is Pope Benedict.
Viva Il Papa! Viva Benedetto!
Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception. May the Immaculate Heart Triumph!
I hate to bust this bubble, but this whole ‘vacet’ thing is a total boondoggle.
“…commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet…”
does not mean what is being claimed here.
The use of the present subjunctive ‘vacet’ does NOT imply doubtfulness in this context. We have here what is called a ‘result clause’ or ‘consequence clause’. It is normal and correct style in Latin to use the subjunctive in a subordinate clause when that clause expresses the result that WILL follow if/when the action of the main verb in the primary clause is realized. To put it another way, the action in the subordinate clause depends on the action of the main clause being effected first, but once the main action IS effected, the consequence is no longer in doubt. It is simply an idiomatic/customary way of doing things in Latin. Latin in general uses the subjunctive way more often than English does; whereas English subjunctive always implies doubt, Latin subjunctive does not; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. These result clauses are most often introduced by the conjunction ‘ut’, as we see in this case.
Not my opinion. As usual, I cite the authority: Robert Henle, S.J., Latin Grammar, Nos. 550 and 638.
You will not find this specific distinction made in Gildersleeve and Lodge, or probably also some other grammars; it’s implied in another more generic distinction. The grammarians don’t always use the same terminology, or split the hairs in the same way. They do, however, agree on what is correct in the actual usages, by whatever term they choose to name the usages.
This of course does not vitiate the substantial-error argument. As a matter of fact, it strengthens it. You see, the whole argument is that Benedict DEFINITELY intended to resign, but was in serious error as to what he was doing. If he only kinda-sorta intended to resign, all that does is confuse the issue. Besides, he actually DID step down (at least to external appearances), so all that kinda-sorta thing is a moot point now. The actual (pseudo?) resignation has in fact taken place, which makes it impossible to prove that he was ambivalent or ambiguous in his intention.
Ann updated the original post with other opinions such as this.