This is the updated and condensed version of Part 2
In this second part, Br. Bugnolo explains to lawyers, both civil and ecclesiastical, the many reasons why the Conclave of 2025 ended without any canonically valid result, and thus why Cardinal Prevost is not Leo XIV, and why the Apostolic See remains in sede vacante, until the error is corrected.
Br. Bugnolo challenges ALL Canon Lawyers in the Church, and ALL Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church to refute the argument for nullity advanced in this video.
Please share this video with all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Canon Lawyers, Laymen and Women and Religious, because we all deserve to have a valid election of the Roman Pontiff.
If you find anyone attempting to refute the above argument, please post a link to their video or link to the text of their pleadings in the Comments below! Thank you.
Clicking the download arrow above, you can download a copy and share on all social media channels!
You will find Part I, here.
You can find Part II in Italian here.
You can find Part II (v. 2) in English on YouTube here:
ADDENDUM:
Cardinals have no authority to obtain dispensations from Papal Laws by their own interpretations of the actions of a dead Roman Pontiff
Finally, one thing becomes more clear from the argumentation of Mike Lofton, namely, that the Cardinals are implicitly claiming the right to interpret the actions of Pope Francis so as to obtain a dispensation from the norm of n. 33 in the Papal Law on Conclaves.
But though Canon 85 admits that every superior can grant a dispensation, but only superiors, no where in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, is there any allowance for a subject to claim a dispensation from a superior merely by interpreting the actions of his superior, especially because canon 86 declares that dispensations cannot be issued against those parts of a law which are essentially constitutive to the legislative dispositions, which the rule on 120 Cardinals appears to be in n. 33 of UDG.
Wherefore, canon 16 § 1, restricts the power of interpreting the law to the legislator of the law, or to the one to whom it has been granted. But in n. 5 of the Papal Law on Conclaves, no authority to interpret papal actions is granted: rather only the right to interpret doubtful or controverted passages of UDG, an authority which the Cardinals never even claimed to use in their press release of April 30, 2025.
Moreover, the claim by the Cardinals to have a dispensation runs directly contrary to the Papal Law, UDG, n. 4, which reads:
4. Sede Apostolica vacante, leges a Romanis Pontificibus latas non licet ullo modo corrigi vel immutari, neque quidquam detrahi iis sive addi vel dispensari circa partes earum, maxime eas, quae ad ordinandum negotium electionis Summi Pontificis pertinent. Si quid contra hoc praescriptum fieri vel attentari contigerit, id suprema Nostra auctoritate nullum et irritum declaramus.
In English,
With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit to correct and/or change the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, nor to detract anything from them or add to them and/or be dispensed from any parts of them, most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus.
All this should be obvious to everyone, even if they have no training in law. Because if a subject can after the death of his superior make a claim that some action of the superior was equivalent to granting a dispensation, all hell would break out in the legal system that adopted such a principle. In fact, the very notion runs counter to canon 335, which forbids to all persons, the authority to change the laws of the Church during a sede vacante. The universality of that negative provision in 335 extends to all claimed privileges, dispensations and legal acts whose existence is alleged, without any written documentation.
+ + + + + + +
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 hope the right people will hear your talk with spiritual eyes wide open This is a lot more important than most Catholics realize, and should be studied in case it becomes necessary to defend the Faith in our lifetime with Truth rather than the media narrative.
It’s suspicious to me that all of a sudden everything Catholic from the Vatican is dominating the world wide media. Hat does this really mean ?
Objections, from a priest in Italy: n. 5 of UDG requires only a majority vote not a unanimous vote. So I was wrong in that.
But in Looking at the Latin of n. 5, I see that the power to interpret has an exception, which reads in Latin:
excepto ipso electionis actu
It does not say,
excepto ipso electionis modo
For that would mean except the manner of the election.
What it says is “Except the act of election” which refers to the voting, since “actus” in Latin means “the doing” or “the acting”. So since their declaration touches upon how the election is done, since part of how it is done is to count votes as per n. 68, it is outside their authority to give an interpretation on expanding that count beyond 120 the number of votes which can be counted.
Do you think the pope could have increased the number of cardinals, quietly admitting the threat of anticipated cardinal attrition by them all receiving death-vaxx’s?
Of course.
Is there language in the document that allows for considerations of extraordinary action, vs the ordinary? Such as an example of this?
Cite the passage you are referring to.
Does what you are saying square with Dorothea Ludwig-Wang’s commentary?
:-
https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/no-133-cardinals-cannot-participate?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks for this!
” Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. ”
She deals with ” Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution ” while completely ignoring ” or should the conditions laid down here not be observed ” rendering her embarrassingly shallow analysis here moot.
Brother, am i right about this? (or am i just following my bias down a rabbit hole?🤓) It not often that i find myself shooting fish in a barrel, ergo i ask…
(aside from this one point, though, it is a very well thought out article)
While I do not quote that censure in specific, It obviously applies to a violation of n. 68, because it regards the entire chapter V in which n. 68 appears.
The Latin of the censure you cite is this:
76. Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.
Here the Latin word is very wide, “Aliter”, that is in any other way. So by allowing more than 120 votes, they did it in another way, because they counted more votes that 120. The final censure which I quote simply nullifies their excuse to allow more than 120.
My conscience was nagging me in my decision not to send my Bishop a letter. I sent him a hand written letter yesterday. At least he can not say that he has not been made aware.
Many thanks for this clear, precise, and easily understandable explanation. It seems to me that you are the sole Catholic editor & commentator who has the courage & knowledge to be able to publish such a robust critique of the conclave’s shenanigans and declare the “election” of Leo XIV invalid.
But maybe we should not be surprised that all these cardinal-hirelings/wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing are trying to convince us that a valid papal election took place – they are professional liars and, frankly, criminals, as:-
1] They LIED to us about the “renunciation” of Benedict XVI;
2] They LIED to us about the “election” of Francis;
3] They LIED to us about the covid-19 Scamdemic.
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
[St Athanasius]
“The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamps that light the path.”
[St John Chrysostom]
Would you please address the difference between an invalid election and an illicit one? I don’t know enough about the law to understand the juridical effect on the election and the distinction between an election that is illicit because of 133 cardinal electors vs an election that is invalid.
Invalid in regard to an election means that legally no one was elected and the one who claims to be elected lacks the legal basis to claim the office. Illicit is a term referring to morals, for example, in the law of Pope John Paul II bribery is allowed, but in Catholic Morals, it is illicit to bribe a man to do evil. So there could be acts of illicit bribery in an election which is valid or not valid.
Thank you. The link posted above discusses the 133/120 elector situation. The author asserts that the election was illicit but not invalid. I am not sure what she meant by that distinction.
Well, she has a Masters in Theology, from what institution I do not know. But I think she is trying to say that it is morally scandalous, but not legally problematic, though I point out in my note, on my article about her essay, why I disagree with that because she has cited the wrong juridical principle an wants that privileges take precedence to general laws, which is contrary to Ecclesiastical Law anyhow.
I have several questions as a practicing catholic here in the U.S..
1. Now that Leo the 14th has been installed, can’t he just change the law?
2. Does cannon law have laws that could remove Pope Leo even though he has already gone through the official ceremonies to be Pope?
3. Some would say bug deal. So there were 113 Cardinals voting and not 120. Does it make a difference? Wouldn’t have Leo been elected anyway?
1. Leo XIV has not been installed, since he was never validly elected. So he has as much authority to change the law as you do.
2. No.
3. There were 133 voting, and as I explain in this video at length, it violates a formal precept of the Constitution, which obviously John Paul II never gave them authority to do, and as is expressly denied in canon 335.