Editor’s Note: Mike’s argument is that Br. Bugnolo is scrupulous and ignorant. But Mike is also sneaky because he did not quote my more detailed exposition, but only cherry picked my first video on JPII’s law.  Then, since it is obvious that he cannot read Latin, since he quotes only English texts, he launches into interpreting canon law though he has just said Bugnolo is doing that without any expertise and therefore should not be listened to.

His basic argument is nothing more than calling Bugnolo ignorant, and appealing to the opinion of the Cardinals, without analyzing it.

I suggest grabbing a bag of popcorn before turning the above video on. All my readers can probably refute Lofton in 30 seconds, especially since he promised a refutation but only gave an ad hominem.

And yes I have challenged him to a debate on this, but I do not think he is up to it, since,  he quotes Cardinal Journet against a papal law which he never saw or read or lived to know about, not to mention Journet had no degree in Canon Law, so I do not understand why he quotes him, since his argument is that since Bugnolo has no degree in canon law you should not listen to him.

All of which, makes me think that perhaps Mike does not understand how to refute an argument. But I will give him the chance, if he wants to. However, there can be no editing of the video, and we both have the right to publish it in full or not publish it, but cede the right to one another to not ever contest the publication.

Back in the debate about Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration, we have seen the argument, based on accusing the speaker of ignorance, and omitting any and all explanation which would demonstrate from authoritative texts that the speaker’s argument is invalid. Here at FromRome.info I never employ such an approach because Aristotle says, that when you open with insults, it means you have no reasons to support your position.

I have been called an idiot in the Italian Bishops’ Conference official weekly newspaper, L’Avvenire, for finding 40+ errors in the Latin of the Declaratio. But two years later Archbishop Ganswein admitted there were errors. So I have some confidence that history will out the truth, even if those who were in error or in denial, like the entire College of Cardinals back then, might never admit it in public in their lifetimes.

Mike’s argument, if we can extract the strongest parts of it, is an appeal to power, in the tyrannical sense of the term, because he says the Cardinals say so, therefore, we must accept that as no one has the right to question it. Thus he seems to hold that if all the Cardinals were in agreement to violate the Papal Law on Conclaves, the Church would have to accept it! — And this actually shows that my own arguments are valid, because if you have stoop to such a low argument, as Mike has done, you are prepared to make a Mockery of the entire Catholic Religion and the Church, to boast on YouTube that someone is wrong. And that is very counter productive, if your channel is called, ‘Reason and Theology’;  you would do better renaming your channel, “Machiavelli’s appeal to Power”.

I have left some comments on YouTube on Mike’s video. If you find them cogent, please like them.

I wish to thank Lofton for having the manliness to admit the argument exists and for at least throwing me the crumb of identifying me as a Franciscan. I will repay the compliment by recognizing that Lofton is a layman who has a personality which probably mixes very well at cocktail parties.

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 this 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 20, 2025.

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.

+ + +