The Congregation of Cardinals wishes to make public the following two matters of a procedural nature, on which it has reflected and debated in recent days:

1)    Regarding the Cardinal electors, the Congregation has revealed that His Holiness Francis, by creating a number of Cardinals higher than the 120 stipulated by no. 33 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis of Saint John Paul II, of 22 February 1996, in the exercise of his supreme power, has dispensed with this legislative provision, whereby the Cardinals exceeding the set limit have acquired, in accordance with No. 36 of the same Apostolic Constitution, the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, from the moment of their creation and publication;

+ + +

Legal Problems with the Claim of April 30

1. Founded upon the revelation of a fact not publicly known

The legal problems in this Press Release are immediately obvious. First, the Cardinals claim to be revealing something which was not publicly known. This is outstanding, since the last time was 1130 A. D., that the Cardinals have made a claim, before a Papal Election, that the prior, now deceased Pope, had made some decision which would have effected in some way the manner of the election. — When the thing to be revealed is documented, there is no problem, but a secret which is not documented can never have force of right or law — this is an ancient principle of Roman jurisprudence.

And it is even more astounding, that the Cardinals say that only now they are revealing to the world, that this decision was made, even though they refer to an event on Dec. 8, 2024, nearly 6 months before!

If you want to understand how radically problematic this is, just call up any Estate Attorney, who deals with inheritances, and ask him what would be the legal value, if the heirs of someone who has passed away, claim before the reading of the will, that they had secret knowledge of how the deceased wanted his will to read, which they are only now revealing.

2. A Patent Conflict of Interest underlies the claim

The second problem is also obvious: the claim by the Cardinals is colored by self-interest, since the claim allows 13 more of them to vote during the Conclave than the rule of the Papal Law,

3. The claim runs counter to a formal precept or prescription of written law

Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II (Text Here), specifically regulates the number of Cardinals who can vote in a Conclave, in paragraph n. 33, which reads in the Latin:

Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerus centum viginti ne excedat.

Or, in English, “Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed one-hundred and twenty.”

As is clear to anyone, this verbal statement is a command. In law it is called a precept, or prescription. A precept refers to a rule which is laid down before some action is to be undertaken; a prescription is a rule written beforehand in a binding text.

The Papal Law on Conclaves is a Constitution, because it explains completely how a Pope is to be elected, in the normal course of things. It was promulgated by the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II, and as such represents the binding obligatory norm, which no one can obviate or ignore.

So to claim that you have a dispensation to not follow part of it, is really a momentous claim, not any small thing.

4. The Claim is not supported by any written document

Thus, when examining the claim, it becomes obvious that there is something very wrong: first of all, that their claim has no evidence of being true. That is, they are not making the claim, because they have a paper or document from Pope Francis formally granting this dispensation from the rule of no more than 120 Cardinal electors participating in the Conclave at any one time.

5. The Claim cites no specific verbal statement by Pope Francis

What is even more amazing, is that the Cardinals are making a claim without even citing any specific moment, in time or space, when they all heard from Pope Francis’ lips some same utterance in which he granted such a dispensation, or words equivalent.  This is totally extraordinary. Such a claim would not even meet the most basic requirements for evidence to be admitted to any court of law in the world!

6. The Claim involves an interpretation of another legal act by persons without any authority to interpret such an act, as Canon 16 and UDG 1 declare

No authority to Interpret

And to add offense to injury, the Cardinals are claiming that a specific act of Pope Francis was equivalent to granting the dispensation which they claim to have.  This is really outstanding, to speak in the most gentle terminology! Because if the legal act has such a meaning, the Cardinals could well cite the law that declares this. But no such law exists. And that they cite no such law or document which declares that the naming of more Cardinals than 120 by that very fact dispenses from the rule, they have conceded that there is no such document or law.

And this is very serious: because in Canon Law, canon 16 §1, the Cardinals do NOT have the authority to interpret Papal acts, unless this has been granted to them by some Pope or Canon of the Code of Canon Law. Here is the Latin of that canon:

Canon 16 §1. Leges authentice interpretatur legislator et is cui potestas authentice interpretandi fuerit ab eodem commissa.

Or in English,

Canon 16 §1. The legislator and the one to whom the authority to authentically interpret them has been given by the same, authentically interpret the laws.

So if the Cardinals’ claim implies an interpretation, which it obviously does, since they claim the act of naming Cardinals has a juridical effect, which no papal law says it has, they have to quote some Papal Law which granted them this authority to interpret the papal act in this manner.  Thus their implicit claim to interpret has no foundation either in the law or in the grant of the authority to interpret. This is simply outrageous.

Faulty reading of the Law

I have mentioned before, elsewhere, but it is worth the while to repeat it here, that the Claim of the Cardinals contains an incoherent and false argument, since they say that UDG n. 36 gives all of them the right to vote in Conclave, even though UDG n. 36 expressly makes its declaration bound by the strictures in UDG. n. 33, which limits the number of Electors during the Conclave to 120. — Moreover, they seem not even to be able to read, because UDG n. 33 does not place restrictions on how many Cardinals a pope can nominate, it only places a restriction on how many can vote at any single time during a Conclave! Thus, their pretense that there is some sort of connection between the act of being named a cardinal and the right to vote is totally vacuous and inane, a reading which is based on an interpretive presumption, which they have no right to make since they are not legislators.

Matter about which they claim to interpret, excluded by UDG n. 1

In addition, I wish to add here, from the observation of the commentator below — thank you Giuseppina! — that UDG n. 1 forbids the Cardinals all authority and right to make ex post facto declarations about the actions of the deceased Roman Pontiff,

1. Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium nullam potestatem aut iurisdictionem habet in ea quae pertinebant ad Summum Pontificem dum vivebat vel muneribus officii sui fungebatur; ea omnia exclusive uni Pontifici futuro debent reservari. Quapropter invalidum et irritum esse decernimus quidquid potestatis aut iurisdictionis – ad Romanum Pontificem dum vivit pertinentes, vel ad perfunctionem officii ipsius – coetus ipse Cardinalium duxerit exercendum nisi quatenus in hac Nostra Constitutione expresse permittatur.

Which in English would be:

1. With the Apostolic See vacant, the College of Cardinals has no authority or jurisdiction in those things which pertained to the Supreme Pontiff while he lived and/or while he exercised the munera of his Office; all these things ought to be reserved exclusively to the next future Pontiff.  On which account, We judge as invalid and irritus whatever of authority or jurisdiction — pertaining to the Roman Pontiff while he lived and/or to the performance of his office — the congregation of the Cardinals itself would decide to do except to the extent that it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.

Thus, it should be clear that the Cardinals never had any authority to interpret the act of being nominated Cardinals as having the right to vote in the Conclave, since over that act by the deceased Roman Pontiff they never had any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever, not even to interpret it has having such a inherent or consequential effect.

7. The Claim of the Cardinals is explicitly nullified by UDG n. 4

On top of all these legal problems, the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, in paragraph n. 4, explicitly says that no laws can be dispensed from during a sede vacante, and that if anyone claims to have such a dispensation, no matter how they claim it, their claim is null and void:

1. 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.

Which in English, would be:

1. 4. With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit that the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, be in any way corrected and/or changed, nor that anything whatsoever be taken away from or added to them and/or dispensed from concerning their parts. 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.

Here, “null” means it is to be treated as of no value, and “irritus”, as having never been done or granted. And since this prescription in UDG n. 4, does NOT say, “During a sede vacante no one can dispense, or receive a dispensation”, but rather “With the sede vacante, it is not licit in any manner that any laws be dispensed from”, not only is the claim that Pope Francis dispensed, while he was alive, of no value to escape the nullification by this precept, but even if he had, such a dispensation could not be used regarding any part of any papal law, such as UDG n. 33, where the maximum number of cardinal electors is set at 120. — In other words, dispensations by their very nature are impotent to change the observance of papal laws, after the death of a pope!

Objection: Pope Francis is the supreme legislator, so he can grant a dispensation, even though Pope John Paul II forbade it, because one pope cannot constrain another

Response: It is true that a living pope can alter the laws of his predecessors, since while alive he is the supreme legislator. But after he is dead, his decisions and wills no longer have the force of the authority as supreme legislator, because he no longer holds the office of Roman Pontiff.  The only way a pope can make his decisions and wills live on with authority is if he promulgate them in a law.

This is why when Pope John Paul II published his law on Conclaves and put the stricture of 120 Electors maximum in paragraph n. 33, and then forbade any dispensations from this rule in his general censure in paragraph n. 4, Pope Francis being dead cannot undo it. And Pope Francis in granting a dispensation while he was alive, would have granted a dispensation which could not be used, UNLESS he also granted the faculty to the same Cardinals of not being bound ALSO to UDG. n. 4.

Now as Pope he could have granted this. It would have been a legal act of derogation: that is a change in the law which would have value during the next Conclave. But a derogation would have to have been written, signed by Pope Francis in the presence of two witnesses an published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, which is the official Gazette for legal acts by the Pope.

But the Cardinals do not claim or cite any such derogation from UDG n. 4. Thus their problematic claim to have a dispensation from UDG. n. 33, is worthless and of no juridical value.

Legal Consequences from the use of the claimed dispensation during the Conclave of May 2025

The legal consequences are severe, therefore, because of the legal error of the Cardinals, if we are to use the most polite language for their outrageous, unfounded, unlawful claim, renders the election NULL, IRRITUS and INVALID, conferring no right upon Cardinal Prevost.

EXPLANATION:

For when the Conclave began in its secret sessions of voting, UDG n. 68 required them to determine if the number of ballots cast is equal to the number of Cardinal electors present:

… Quodsi schedularum numerus non respondet numero electorum, omnes comburendae sunt, et iterum, id est altera vice, ad suffragia ferenda procedatur; si vero schedularum numerus numero electorum respondet, subsequitur publicatio scrutinii, quae hoc modo fit.

Which in English reads:

…  Wherefore, if the number of ballots does not correspond with the number of electors, all are to be burnt and again, that is another time, the balloting is to be taken; if, however, the number of ballots corresponds to the number of electors, there follows the publication of the vote-tallies, which is done in this manner.

And since UDG n. 33 sets the maximum number of Cardinals who ca be present at 120, if more than 120 ballots are cast, UDG. n. 68 requires that the ballots be burnt and NOT counted. And thus in every session of voting when there was more than 120 Cardinal Electors present, no count was lawful, and thus no one could ever have been elected.

And from this conclusion there is no escaping, because the Cardinals cannot claim that 133 Cardinal Electors can vote, since n. 68 says nothing about the limit, for two reasons: first of all, n. 68 is a section of the law over which UDG 5 forbids them to use any interpretations; and second, they cannot pretend to use a dispensation to change the meaning of n. 68, when as it has been shown, that without a derogation from UDG n. 4, they cannot excuse themselves from the limit on the number of Cardinal electors in n. 33.

OR in other words, you cannot claim you have a piece of cake in your hand, which does not exist, and then claim you ate it, on top of that. That would just compound lie upon lie, for no false claim can be used to make another claim. Logic does not work that way. And Law does not work that way.

Thus, by counting the votes in the wrong way, when they should not have been counted, the tallies taken were IRRITUS, that is, taken against the norm of the prescription to be followed, and thus of no legal value, as if they had never been taken or counted.

And that we are certain that they were irritus, is had from the promulgatory censure in the penultimate paragraph of UDG, where it declares anything done by persons of whatsoever dignity “against this contitution”, is “irritus”. Because to allow more than 120 to vote is to act contrary to the precept in UDG n. 33 and to count more than 120 during the election is contrary to n. 68 read in the context of n. 33.

But even moreso, since UDG n. 76, in addition declares NULL and INVALID any Papal Election in which in the very act of voting any alteration is made:

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.

Which in English is:

76. Wherefore, if the election will have been celebrated in another manner, than this Constitution has established, or with the conditions prescribed equally here not observed, the election for this very reason is null and invalid without any declaration, and for that reason grants no right upon the one elected.

This prescription addresses two parts of the Papal Law on Conclaves: first the entire constitution, “if the election … than this Constitution has established” — such as allowing 133 Cardinals to vote– and secondly the chapter in which UDG n. 76 is contained in, which includes n. 68: “or with the conditions prescribed equally here not observed” — such as counting 133 votes in each balloting session, though only 120 are allowed to vote. — And, the choice of the adverb, here, is very important: aliter, which in Latin means, “in another manner”, that is, in any other manner than. This adverb does not admit of degrees of difference, that is, it does not mean, “in any other significant manner”, or “in any other important manner”. It means simply “in any other manner”. So the conclusion is inescapable.

Thus, there is no escaping that the Conclave of May 2025 had no valid result and that Cardinal Prevost is not the Pope. And we do not have to petition anyone to declare this to make it so, it is so by the very fact of the discrepancy of what the Cardinals did with the prescriptions of the law.

+ + +

I have responded in detail to the argument of Ed Condon, at The Pillar, regarding the rule of 120 (here) in a comment to a previous article.