UPDATED NOV. 25, 2024

A refutation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction français (of original version)

Padre Giorgio Maria Faré, a Carmelite Priest of the province of Italy, well known for his writings on Vatican II, the Mass and the Liturgy, recent garnered international recognition when he pronounced during Mass, at one of the conferences organized by Andrea Cionci, his personal declaration why he holds that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not and has never been the Pope.

Like many authors on this subject he rehashes, though with a very high academic sense of preparation, the main arguments published by many authors and the news covered by FromRome.Info, though he never cites FromRome.Info.

But his entire argument is a straw man, because it is based on a shell game. In logical form, Father argues thus (though the words of the illation are my own summary of his text):

Minor of the Argument: Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration was not an abdication
Major of the Argument: There cannot be a valid election of a Roman Pontiff while his predecessor still lives and has not abdicated.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pope Francis has never been the legitimate pope.

Can you see the game he is playing?

Yes, it is the inclusion of “never” in the Conclusion; a term which no where appears in his argument.

The truth is, as has always been sustained here at FromRome.Info, that the Roman Pontiff can be elected in only one way, juridically, and in two ways in practice.

Juridically, no one has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, except those to whom that right was given by Saint Peter the Apostle. And that is the whole and entire Church of Rome (present today in the Dioceses of Rome and the Suburbican Dioceses around it).

When we say “juridically” we are speaking of the font of right which makes a thing legitimate.

But in practice, there are two way of electing the Pope: legally and by inherent right.

I say legally in reference to an election performed according to the positive Papal Law: Universi Dominic gregis, which establishes the norms for a Conclave of Cardinals to elect the pope and in that conclave restricts voting exclusively to the Cardinals alone who are not excommunicated and are of eligible age.

But by inherent right, to an election undertaken according to the tradition of the Roman Church in the exercise of Her right to elect Her owns Bishop, a right given by Saint Peter, when there was no Conclave or Cardinals.

To understand this one must recall that on April 13, 1059 A. D., Pope Nicholas II created a new modality for the election of the Roman Pontiff, restricting the right to vote from all the Clergy and Laity of the Roman Church to the prerogative only of the Cardinals. He did this in the Bull, “In Nomine Domini“, the English translation of which I published 4 years ago. From that moment until this day, the inherent right and the legal or canonical right have been distinct.

Now for anyone who knows nothing about the jurisprudence, as nearly all who have entered this controversy are, it is not surprising that they are entirely ignorant that in jurisprudence there is universally recognized a hierarchy of right, and — here I summarize and simplify — the lowest of which is the right which arises through customary abuse; the next, by positive law promulgated by legitimate authority; the highest is by some unchanging source of right which is beyond the powers of all who are presently living: such as constitutional, natural or divine right.

In the case of the Church, that highest font of right is Divine Right, and Apostolic Right is intimately associated with that, since Christ commissioned the Apostles personally and Saint Peter immediately.

And thus in the Roman Church, the Apostolic Tradition of the Clergy and Laity together electing their own bishop, is of the highest order of right. No papal law, thus, can ever entrust the vote to anyone outside of this Church, or deny entirely that at least one member of the Roman Church be an elector.

Now in the interpretation of law, every law remains in force until one of three things happens: either it is abolished by a legitimate authority (derogation), or it is replaced wholly by another law promulgated by a legitimate authority (obrogation), or it regards circumstances which no longer can be observed.

In the third case, we have the Papal Law on Papal Elections, Universi Domini Gregis, of Pope John Paul II, because the law clearly presumes that the Cardinals want to and will enter into Conclave to elect a pope within 20 days of the death of the previous pope. And there is no term whatsoever, in that law, which allows them to postpone the election, except in cases of force majeure, that is externally — against their own will — applied pressure (e. g. as during a military occupation of the Vatican, or their imprisonment to the last man by a hostile power).

Thus, when interpreting the scope of that Papal Law it is obvious to anyone who understands the principles of right, that it cannot bind in the case where no Cardinal wants to elect a pope or there are no Cardinals who are of the age capable or there are not Cardinals alive.

For in all such cases, if you were mad enough to insist that the law still was in force, you would arrive at the conclusion that the Apostolic Succession could end in the Roman See with the express consent and intention of Pope John Paul II, the author of that law!!!

And that would not only be absurd but quite dishonest, not to mention calumnious.

Thus, there can be no other reasonable sentence than that in such cases the Papal Law does not bind in such cases. And thus, it is, that in its introduction it says, in paragraph 9, that the Conclave — about which the law regards — is not necessary for a valid election of the Roman Pontiff. A thing which not need to be said IF it was the intention of the lawgiver, Pope John Paul II, that his law be observed in extraordinary circumstances beyond those envisioned by the law itself.

Which means that the lawgiver himself did not intend the prescriptions of his law to then apply (since the condition of Cardinals wanting to elect the pope is essential and substantial presumption of the entire intent of the law, not merely a minor detail); and thus that the law’s right interpretation is, in such circumstances outside of its framer’s intent and presumption, to have recourse to the higher juridical font of right upon which basis John Paul II invoked the law; and that higher juridical font of right is the Apostolic Right of the Roman Church to elect Her own Bishop in general assembly. Moreover since this is part of Apostolic Tradition, not even a pope can be held to presume to have the intention to alienate this right in extraordinary legal circumstances by adherence to a specific law which does not make provision regarding such circumstances!

Now, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope by Apostolic Right in a public assembly on January 30, 2023, is a thing known to all in this controversy in Italy, since the enemies of Christ have ridiculed the event for neigh 18 months. So certainly Father Faré also knows of it, since he expressly denies recognizing any other means of papal election but that which takes place in a Conclave, a thing he need not say otherwise.

And that Assembly acted in a perfectly legitimate and juridically valid manner as can be discerned from the evidence of its four causes: where it was held, why it was held, who was allowed to vote and the kind of candidate to be elected, as is explained at great length in the article, The Chronology of the Triumph of the Lamb, published on Feb. 11, 2023, which totally refutes the position of Andrea Cionci, Don Minutella, and all others, who hold that Pope Benedict XVI, presently, has no validly elected successor in the Apostolic See. A document which they also dare not to quote, because it has convinced so many of their former admirers that they are wrong in claiming there is no Pope, at present.

Thus, the argument of Father Faré is a straw man, which presumes that “never” precisely because his position on the interpretation of law is based on total ignorance or stubborn madness. He will not accept any other manner of papal election even though he alludes to knowing of it, in his text above. Nor does he accept the historical fact that the Faithful of Rome, on January 30, 2023, did their duty and exercised their God given right to elect Pope Benedict XVI’s successor in the face of the full and entire defection of the College of Cardinals to do their legal gravely binding duty.

And if Father Faré, who is not a member of the Roman Church, and who has no authority to judge the validity of papal elections, has read FromRome.info, which I gather he has, he then knows about the Apostolic Right of the Roman Church, because since 2019 I have reviewed this legal interpretation in several articles (such as here, here here and here), all published before the election of Pope Francis by Apostolic Right on January 30, 2023.

Let us pray for Father Giorgio that he withdraws from his obstinate rejection of Apostolic Right and his sui generis interpretation of law. For his position is that of legal positivism, a thing condemned by Pope Benedict XVI himself here. And his madness leads in fact to the end of the papacy forever. Because the Papal Law gives no right to elect the Pope months or years after the death of a legitimate pope.

He is attempting to reconcile in his own mind the personal heresy of a man with his claim to the pontifical office. He has, too lately, proposed the solution in his own mind, that it is possible that he be a heretic because he was never the Pope: a position held first by Bishop Henry Rene Gracida in 2013 and many others including myself before the death of Pope Benedict XVI. But a position which cannot be sustained anymore. He also falsely assumes that it is the teaching of the Church that the person of the Roman Pontiff cannot be a manifest, formal or pertinacious heretic. Whereas the true doctrine is that he cannot be a public heretic. (He seems not to understand the difference among the 5 species of heresy). But how can this be?

Father is a graduate of the Pontifical Gregorian University, which is notorious for imparting to its students a total lack of knowledge of Latin and Canon Law. Don Minutella is also a graduate of this university. What can I say? but that both of them are victims of Jesuit intellectual formation: for it is now far better and more prudent to simply join in the Sutri Initiative than declare the Pope not a pope or a heretic by your own authority, because in the latter case you end up defrocked and or excommunicated, but in the former case you might just help heal the Church. And should we not prefer healing the Church to committing professional suicide?

It is the Sutri Initiative which is the best medicine for the whole Church, for Pope Francis, for the Bishops, for all priests and laymen and women. If the clergy has not the courage to sit down and frankly ask the real hard questions and demand answers, then they are morally failing their Lord and God in a most fundamental aspect of what it means ‘to be part of the Church’ and ‘to be the Church of the living, incarnate God.’

Indeed, until the Sutri Initiative obtains what it requests (viz. a clarification of the status of the claim of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be the pope), more and more clergy, religious and laity are likely to fall into the error which has entrapped Father Faré, simply because the invalidity of the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI is far more obvious and clear and well understood than is the way back to Catholic unity through an election by Apostolic Right. And I say “more … understood” in regard to the number of expositors only, since of all the conversationalists in this debate, I alone have spoken of the latter and been one of the antagonists in its execution; and not in regard to the juridical principles which any legal expert (who is not a juridical positivist) can confirm, if you just ask.

I encourage everyone to share this article with Father Faré so that he can study the matter with the same academic precision he employed to arrive at the confession that the Declaration did not suffice for an abdication.

I also ask you to join me in prayer that the madness of both sides — those who say Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated but refuse the election by Apostolic Right of Bergoglio, and those who say Benedict XVI did validly abdicate — comes to an end through the grace of the Holy Ghost, Who is the Source of true Unity and Reconciliation, and that they accept this grace for the honor and glory of God, the love of Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls: to meet in a Provincial Council at Rome and in the mutual acceptance of the whole truth, reprehend Pope Francis for his errors, declare his antipapacy invalid and all it contains, and put the Church back on the right track, which is canonical regularity and doctrinal fidelity to Jesus Christ. And if they refuse this grace, let us pray, that at least the next true Pope commands them to do this!