by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In my recent interview in Italian, I remarked that there were three violations of the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II in the recent conclave. I also remarked that none of these violations would nullify the validity of the election.
However, upon closer inspection of the Papal Law, I want to withdraw what I said, and speak more precisely, and say, that one of these violations does in fact invalidate the recent election.
First, let me quote the Polish Pope’s official promulgatory clause in his Papal Law on Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis, from the Vatican’s English translation (click image here below to enlarge)
As can be seen from the second paragraph, which says,
As determined above, … I declare completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.
The Latin here is even stronger, as it says that any act is declared “irritus”, that is, to be regarded as never done. Thus any illicit interpretation is to be regarded as never promulgated, ineffective.
Yet, in the recent Conclave of May 2025, the Cardinals allowed 133 Cardinal Electors to vote at the same time, a thing which is expressly forbidden by the Papal Law, in n. 33 (click image here below to enlarge):
The language is strictly binding:
The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty.
The Latin here says, “ne excedeat”, which is a negative hortatory subjunctive command, which according to the Apostolic See is always to be understood as a negative equipollent precept of comment (cf. Papal Bulls on the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi). A better translation in English would be, “Let the maximum … not exceed …” therefore.
Yet, the Cardinals violated this directly, claiming to use their authority to interpret ambiguous sections, granted then in n. 5 of the Papal Law. But there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this rule limiting the electorate to 120. And as I said in my Italian interview with EmmoNews on YouTube, instead of violating the law, they could have chosen lots and have had 13 Cardinal Electors abstain from voting during each round of balloting.
Thus, their interpretation of an unambiguous rule is itself NULL and VOID by the promulgatory censure cited above. It is also null and voided by Canon 335, which forbids any change in the laws of the Church during a sede vacante for by attempting to nullify a formal command, they are in effect attempting to change the law.
That they did not have only 120 vote at any one time, causes the election to be doubtful, on account of the Promulgatory Clause by Pope John Paul II which causes any action contrary to the rules of the law to be NULL AND VOID.
That means 13 votes AT LEAST in each balloting were NULL and VOID and could NOT be counted.
But according to the Papal Law, in n. 68 (click image here below to expand):
Where it reads:
If the number of ballots does not correspond to the number of electors, the ballots must be all burned and a second vote taken at once; …
Now, the plain context of this rule has to do with the maximum number of 120 cardinals. So when 133 voted, it was juridically impossible that the number of votes counted not exceed the number of 120 cardinal electors permitted to vote in a conclave. In fact, 133 votes were counted in each ballot, 13 of which could not legally be counted.
In addition, if the 13 votes which were null and voided were mixed in, it would have become impossible to validly count the ballots. Rendering the count null and void.
This means, in every balloting session, to follow the Papal Law, the Scrutiners had to burn the votes before counting them, and thus no vote during that session was valid. But this was done in every of the 4 Ballots, at the end of which it was declared that Cardinal Prevost was elected.
That means that all the votes were juridically null and void!
And that means Cardinal Prevost was NOT elected validly, even if he is not a manifest heretic, whose election would be invalidated by the Bull of Paul IV, “Cum ex apostolatus officio”!
Once again, as in the case of the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, it is to Pope John Paul II and his wisdom as a legislator, that we can say with 100% certainty that the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025 are null and void, and in each no one was elected the Roman Pontiff.
Addendum:
The rationale given by the Cardinals for their “interpretation” shows that it is not reasonably motivated and unauthentic in its justification. Because it takes the claim of “active and passive voice” for the Cardinals in the Conclave and re-reads it as if it applies to all Cardinal electors in the world. That is simply dishonest. Then it quotes Pope Francis’ unpublished “intentions” as interpreting the law, which is simply false, again, since a law is interpreted by the Pope who promulgated it, and this law was not promulgated by Pope Francis, but by Pope John Paul II. So there is no objective controversy or doubt about either passage. Therefore their claim to use their authority in n. 5, to interpret the fake conflict they claim exists, is fraudulent and declared irritus by John Paul II, and thus violates the election process in n. 68, over which they have no authority to interpret as stated in n. 5, thus rendering every vote in which 133 cardinals participated null and void, without the need for any authority in the Church to declare it.
For Part II, see here.
+ + +
En Español:
+ + + + + + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +
This fund was started by Ordo Militaris Catholicus, an international relief organization founded by Br. Bugnolo and AJ Baalman. Click the image for more information.
+ + +
I also recommend you put the link to this post on your whatsapp profile. This way people can willingly choose to click on your updated profile and read it.
Thank you for your diligence, Br. Alexis. Let us all pray for God’s will be done, in light of this revelation.
A fellow Catholic phoned me yesterday to say, “isn’t it wonderful news about the new pope?” I had to lay out my arguments for why this is not the case and yet he remained utterly unconvinced and still thinks that, somehow, because the TLM might be retained in some places, that this is fabulous.
Alas, a lot of people who go to the Latin mass are total hypocrites and have no belief in a God of truth or justice.
It is dangerous to one’s faith to communicate with Catholics who willfully refuse to see. I tried to share the Sutri Initiative, but it fell upon deaf and hostile ears. These people want comfort, but at the expense of Truth.
Once again, as in the case of the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, it is to Pope John Paul II and his wisdom as a legislator, that we can say with 100% certainty that the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025 are null and void, and in each no one was elected the Roman Pontiff.
” A papal conclave was held on 12 and 13 March 2013 to elect a new pope to succeed Benedict XVI, who had resigned on 28 February 2013. Of the 117 eligible cardinal electors, all but two attended. ” ~ wikipedia
(let me know if wiki is in error, brother. otherwise no need to publish)…
The Wiki is in error, because according to the Papal Law, a Conclave cannot be held if the Pope has not renounced his petrine munus.
Sorry, brother, i should have been more specific…
The number of cardinal electors was less than 120 in 2013, therefore, JPii’s law renders only the recent conclave invalid — not both. (i was only questioning wiki’s accounting of the number of electors)…
I think that the Worldwide entrenched Diocesean higher-ups. ie Bishops and Cardinals are not going to allow the stripping of their power over shutting down the TLM worldwide. They wouldn’t be in their position s were they truly Roman Catholic.
Would it be alright if I use some of the language from this article directly in my letter to my bishop? I have a draft that is handwritten but want to add some precise language. Trying to decide whether or not to send it handwritten or to type it. One is more personal but the other allows me to add links. Thank you for saying we were made for this time. I am going to tell the bishop that he, too, was made for this time and that this is his opportunity to suffer for the sake of the Gospel and of the Church. We cannot underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to make effective our humble and imperfect efforts.
Yes, you may. I always give to my readers permission to use my videos and text, if they cite the source, but in your letter to your Bishop, I also give permission NOT to cite the source of the words, when you cite them.
Thank you, Brother. You helped give me the strength and wisdom to avoid the C19 shot and to help my husband stand up to his employer. I am grateful for your sacrifice and for the clarity of your teaching.
The cardinal electors have created a terrible schism. How can anyone receive Holy Communion at a mass that recognizes Leo XIV as pope and the leadership of a bishop who submits to him? I an sit with Jesus near the tabernacle, but I cannot receive communion. The 2020 lockdown was the first time I had ever had to go without Holy Communion. It was so painful. Now I am without it again albeit for different reasons. I know the Lord will sustain me, but I truly miss receiving Him.
I think you can still receive communion, because Christ does not hold us responsible for the sins of others, and He knows that we are physical beings who cannot travel like angels at the speed of thought to be always at the best of masses.
As I said elsewhere, priests who name Leo do not do so because he is not the pope or a heretic. But if a priest did name him because he is a heretic or not the pope, it would be a sin for him, but not a black mass. And if you knew this about the priest and attended his mass you too would be sinning.
I myself continue to go to daily Mass, where Leo is named, but not because Leo is named, but rather to receive Christ in the Eucharist.
As for the Saints, what did they do? In the Great Schism, when St. Vincent Ferrer was wrongly informed and thus named the antipope thinking he was naming the true Pope, such was his reputation for holiness that when he came to Italy, the laity and clergy, who normally would not let such a priest, say mass in their towns, allowed him. I do not have any other event by which I would give advice, but this. And this seems to indicate that whatever error a priest might in good faith be under, when he says Mass, we do not communicate in that error if we receive the Sacraments from him, provided he is a Catholic Priest and the error is not his fault, but rather he is a victim of it, such a Big Lies are apt to do.
The Catholic church doesn’t care about what’s written in documents. It’s the interpretation of the church that counts, just like the bible xD
It may seem that way, but it is not so.
The problem with both the first and second videos on the conclave is that they ignore the clear stipulation in Universi Dominici Gregis that if there is a dispute, the Cardinals are responsible for resolving the dispute….
Brian, like you frequently do, you put a spin on n. 5 of UDG which is entirely foreign to the actual meaning of the text, which clearly stipulates not a power to end disputes, but the authority to decide doubtful passages. There is no doubt that the law requires no more than 120 Cardinal Electors. So I have not interpreted it, I just repeated and accept it. Good try at gaslighting me, but you should know that would never work…
Interpretation of the law occurs when you read X and say Y. I read X and say X.
In your reply to Eileen Lombardi above (and to Paul Dale in another comment thread recently), did you forget that you once taught the TRUTH on this? Are you going to delete those videos now? Your salvation is at stake! And yes, I care.
Can I attend Mass offered in communion with Bergoglio?
https://www.fromrome.info/2021/02/20/can-i-attend-a-mass-offered-in-communion-with-bergoglio/
Whether it be pleasing or offensive to Christ,
to attend mass in communion with Bergoglio?
https://www.fromrome.info/2022/11/23/do-not-crucify-him-again/
Charmaine, if you want to tell me what is the meaning of what I said, go ahead. But what I discussed in the Case of Bergoglio, when Pope Benedict XVI was alive is a entirely different case, because since there was a true Pope at the time, Bergoglio’s claim to be pope was in contrast with the truth. He was a true Antipope, on top of being a formal manifest heretic. Catholics had a choice.
Now, there is no one in the world who is a true pope, but there is only Leo XIV whose election I have shown is invalid for two reasons. Catholics have no other place to go to Mass, except schismatics who reject the Papacy.
Because the cases differ theologically, morally and juridically, the advice is different. But if you can’t or won’t see that, why do you even comment here?
In the present case, nearly no priest knows the election is invalid, nor that Prevost is a formal manifest heretic.
This is entirely unlike the case when Pope Francis, who uttered heresies on a weekly basis and was notorious for this, claimed the papacy when Pope Benedict XVI had not renounced validly.
Or do you want Catholics to always follow the most rigorous opinion so that they end up in Hell without the grace of the sacraments? Or do you actually believe that you communicate in the sin of heresy or schism when the priest is not a heretic and he is not knowingly in Schism?
The Church has already condemned as heresy the assertion that the Sacraments confected by priests who publicly sinned and repented are still no longer valid or are still sinful to receive: that heresy is called Donatism. How much more then is receiving the Sacraments from priests who were never heretics or public sinners, but are only misinformed and who do not intend to consent to heresy, still a good thing?
But I do not blame you, because you probably have never studied theology or moral theology from the Doctors of the Church.
So as regards the links you shared, the first one says the same thing as what I say here, in that part where I speak of a priest with Alzeihmers, and again at 14:25, I say the same thing in regard to a priest who is ignorant. And since there is no true pope and nearly all assume the election was valid, there is no scandal for those who believe what I said about the invalidity of the election, to attend. And I specifically say at about 19 minutes that my entire discourse has to do with a papal schism, when there are two popes.
But there are not two popes right now.
But if you believe me on one thing, but not on the other, then I advise you to not to believe me on anything, because advice in such a grave matter is like medical advice, regarding medications, if you take some of it and reject other you will harm yourself.
But what amazes me most, is that you are angry I told Catholics to receive the Sacraments, but show no desire to see that the Catholics of Rome have a true pope. I hope you reflect on this grave disorder in your own mind.
If we are to spread the wors about this it will help if this page is translated into as many languages as possible. I will see about translating into Spanish
Dear Brother B.
I have finished writing to my archbishop. Thank you for all of your clear guidance and support. God’s will be done. I have spoken with a priest and plan to share my letter with another. My step after that may be to re-work the letter and send it to each of the cardinals in the US. We cannot fear men. If they rebuke us for expressing the truth and call us enemies, it will be because they do not love; their talk of a synodal church will prove to be purely political. I would lie to say I do not have fear and trembling. Please pray for me as I pray for you and the Church of Rome.
Thank you for your wonderful example of fidelity to Christ. The letter is perfect. In other versions, cite your right in canon 212 to bring these concerns to the knowledge of the Sacred Hierarchy.
interesting video this morning by Don Munitella ,he showed a picture of prevost not having the papal tiara on the button of the faschia ,sorry if i write the wrong propriate name in latin or latin ,there s no tiara sign at the buttom of what a pope must wear like a picture of Benededict xvI. NO A SMAL DETAIL HE SHOWED US,LOOK AT IT