Rebuttal by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Traduction français
I have to declare my profound disgust and revulsion at the shamefully dishonest behavior of Andrea Cionci, who published a video in Italian 6 hours ago, defending Father Faré, by claiming that Pope Francis was never elected in a juridically valid manner and is thus is an anti-pope.
But Andrea Cionci knows well, that the Faithful of Rome on January 30, 2023 A. D. assembled in a public place after public announcements transmitted to the whole Roman Church, and by their right given them by the Apostle Saint Peter, elected a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, because the College of Cardinals, which has the ministerial duty of electing Popes, being notified of their duty, failed to act within the prescribed 20 days after the funeral of the Holy Father, on January 6, 2023, thus forfeiting the exclusivity of their right.
I know that outcome displeased him, because the faithful elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio pope. It should especially displease him, because if you count myself, then all those who voted, not only voted for Bergoglio, but were fans of his own and had read his book, The Ratzinger Code! If he does not like the outcome now, he should rue nothing but his own intransigence then, when he could have encouraged the Faithful to come in numbers and elect someone more to his own liking! (And yes, I say this in derisive mockery)
To omit this from his recent video to justify Father Faré’s own heretical denial of the right of the Roman Church to elect her own Bishop — a right which pertains to the whole Church but in normal circumstances, only, is restricted to a Conclave of Cardinals — is the villainous behavior of someone intending to deceive his audience and craft a false and mendacious argument.
Nor can Andrea Cionci pretend to be ignorant of what I say, because from June of 2020 to the present, he has written not all, but a great number of, his articles and books with my substantial counsel, even taking from me the theory that Pope Benedict XVI intended to separate himself from unworthy Cardinals by an apparently valid but actually canonically invalid renunciation. And he has both interviewed me and I him, as can be seen by clicking the tab “Andrea Cionci” at the end of this article.
His continued insistence that only the College of Cardinals has the exclusive right to elect a pope, even when they refuse to do so according to the norm of law, flies in the face of all concept of equity and right, precisely because the Cardinals only have this exclusivity of right by reason of a Papal Law (Universi Dominic gregis), on Conclaves of Cardinals, which presumes they will be willing to use it, but which in its very preface, says openly that a Conclave is not necessary for the valid election of a Roman Pontiff! (cf. UDG, Introduction, paragraph 9)
Moreover, he continues this charlatanry to seduce Priests to get themselves laicized and excommunicated as sacrifices upon the altar of his own egotistical and demonic pride which refuses reality, apostolic tradition and even the historical facts of papal history like that of the case of Leo VIII who came to power in Rome as an antipope, but was accepted as the true Pope, by the Roman Faithful, after the abdication of the true pope, who was at first his rival (more here).
I regret trusting the man with so much information about the Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI. I never harbored any doubt about him, until January 2023, when he arranged to meet me in private with Don Minutella with the express purpose of attempting to convince me that I should take no steps to urge the Faithful of Rome to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, which just days later showed itself in a positive refusal to approve of any action that would warn the Cardinals that they should act! From that moment to this day, I have understood that he was nothing more than an angel of light and has the most dishonest intentions, because any man who can “defend” a pope and then turn about-face and not want him to have a juridically valid successor is a total fraud, because in such wise he is really defending not having a pope, and really wants, that the Church have no more popes. A thing which can be seen in his increasingly absurd suggestions for a future papal election under conditions which no Cardinal would ever agree to: to wit, in violation of the Papal Law which only gives them the right to elect a pope within 20 days of the previous pope’s burial — not months or years later! (cf. UDG, Part II, Chapter I, n. 37)
It is indeed madness to insist, as Cionci does, on an impossibility according to positive law (elections years later) while at the same time refusing to admit the legitimacy of apostolic right admitted by that same positive law. You have to accept the entirety of the law and stop pretending to cherry pick it. The Church would cease to be canonically legitimate if the Cardinals, refusing to elect a pope, retained the exclusivity of their positive right to elect the pope, against the claims of the apostolic tradition which grants that right to all the Faithful of Rome as a whole, and to all who show up to such an election, when such a necessity comes to the fore! If they could do such a thing, then after 20 days, no one could elect a new pope, and the office of Saint Peter would cease to be handed down in the Catholic Church! Such an interpretation defies the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which anathematizes all who deny that it is the will of God that Peter have in perpetuity successors in the Apostolic See! (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter II, n. 5)
And since it is the will of God, that Peter have successors perpetually in the Apostolic See, then when the Cardinals refuse to elect a pope, when they are bound by Papal Law to do so during a specific time frame, in such wise that when they refuse to do so, any election they take in Conclave becomes invalid, then, it is the will of God that the Faithful of the Roman Church elect their own Pope Bishop. This is the right, honest, and sane reading of the law and of the tradition. And all, who would oppose this, oppose the Will, not of men, but of God.
Finally, I must remark, as one who holds a degree in Anthropology, that there is something indeed strange about persons who while Pope Benedict XVI lived, insisted that Pope Francis was the true Pope, but now that Pope Benedict XVI has gone to his recompense, insist that Pope Francis is not the true Pope. — There is also something bizarre, which would lead the mind the study with minute detail the events before the death of Pope Benedict XVI, but refuse to study in the same fashion how it can be that the Church have a true pope again after that death.
As for me, you are not going to ever convince me that these persons have a sincere fidelity to the Apostolic See or an honest manner of acting. They should be pitied, and prayed for, but not defended in the integrity of their argument, which is false, if they say that Pope Francis was never legitimately the pope, or when they claim something about the Papal Law for elections which it does not say, while denying what it does.
Finally, see, Father Faré’s Argument is a Straw Man, where I refute the core fallacy has has made, upon which he basis his entire declaration that Pope Francis has never been the legitimate pope.
Photo Credits: The featured image is a screenshot of Google’s image search for “Andrea Cionci”
Br. Bugnolo has already fully refuted Andrea Cionci’s objections to the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor by an assembly according to Apostolic Right, in May of 2023, here in Italian.
Editor’s Note: Cardinal Mueller’s critiques of Pope Francis’ destruction of the Church are always well stated and organized and have solid Catholic reasons. However, he never descends from the level of action from the level of intellectual discernment. But discernment is for action; and the more you know the truth, the more you are obliged to act. Thus, the more you realize who is destroying the Church and how, the more you are obliged to get these enemies out of the Church and removed from office.
