“Babes in Arms” Meets “Universi Dominici Gregis” – Hijinks Ensue

A lot of you are interested in Latin and the documents written in that venerable language, still (I think) the official language of the Holy See.

However, I saw document today that demonstrates that, all this time, we’ve been duped.

It seems that the conclave that elected Benedict XVI was invalid because… reasons … and bad things that happened… and other things.

What to do in such a dire situation is indeed vexing.

What any diligent member of the faithful would do: hold your own conclave and elect a new Pope to set in order those… you know… reasons … and bad things that happened… and other things.

We have proof that it took place because the chaps (I assume no women were involved except perhaps to sew the costumes) cobbled up a really convincing document which PROVES that the new Pope is named

HILDEBRAND.

Wanna see it? It is at the new official website of the new official “Holy See”. They call the document a “Rogitum”, which in a broader context is not inaccurate. In stricter sense, the “Rogitum” is the official document sealed in a tube placed in the coffin of a dead Pope giving some details of his pontificate. In a broad sense, in ecclesial Latin, “rogitum” (from rogo “to ask”) can be a formal request or written act presented for approval. It is mainly used for petitions, as in “Instrumentum hoc ex rogito fidelium conscriptum est.”. In the Apostolic Constitution (apparently violated because of reasons and things so that Benedict XVI wasn’t really elected… or was it Francis?… whatever… reasons… bad things…) Universi Domini gregis, the document drawn up confirming the election of a new Pope is called the “instrumentum de acceptione“.  It is not called a “rogitum”.

Okay, let’s see the “Rogitum” they cobbled up for the election of Hildebrand.  Click for larger.

Impressive, right?

What really impresses me about this is how authentic and how legitimate it looks because of the use of the “long-s” (aka swash), that s which in old documents both written and printed looks sort of like an f. In hand writing it will sometimes extend both below and above the other letters.

Here… I’ll show you close up (with my additions).

Firstly, I was unaware that there was an extra e in “SanctissimEae”. Ooops. And there’s an extra i in “SpiIritus”!  And I am unsure as to why “sancti” isn’t uppercase.  But, hey!  It sure looks official.

Next, there is the problem not just in the title but throughout. The long-s is initial and medial, but not final. That is, it can be used at the beginning of a word, within a word, but not at the end. Also, in the case of two ss standing side by side, with some rare exceptions only the first is “swashed”. Hence, using English words for examples, “possess” would be “poſſeſs” or “poſseſs” for “possess”, but never “poſſeſſ”). So… that “SanctiSSimeae” is pretty screwed up.

In any event, I think the conclave should get their money back.

BTW… these folks – I imagine them to be almost close to double digits in number – have worked on conclaves before at some hotel near Rome, if memory serves.  But I don’t remember that habuimus Papam at the time.  Rather… habuiimuſ Papam.

What does thiſ remiind meae of?