+ + +
Editor’s Note: The above article is in Italian, but I have linked the image to a Google English translation. The original is in Spanish, at the same site, HERE. This article appeared today in search results on Google. The author of this article is from Zaragoza, Spain.
The title of the Article is very, very telling: “Can a Conclave be invalid? The cases which we would do better to forget“! — It is almost as if he knew the Conclave was going to be invalid a week before it was held, and that he understood that the claim of the Cardinals to have a dispensation would make it so.
Very curiously, just as in 2013, just before the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, when a canonist said a Renunciation could be invalid, we have this article from April 30, 2025, which explains how a Conclave can be invalid.
Here is a screen shot of the article in English translation, on How a Conclave can be invalid:
+ + +
So you can see, before an invalid act, no one has problems admitting that it could be invalid. But after an invalid act, they forget what they said, because, then, it has become in their minds a political question. This is how Freemasons think, not Catholics. And this is evidently what the author of the above article did, as of May 8, 2025, here.
Yet, this article is an excellent thing to quote to those who say, “Br. Bugnolo invented the criteria for an invalid conclave, no one agrees with him”. Because you can see that two of the three criteria for an invalid conclave are precisely the two on which I have based my canonical proofs. — And my sensitivity to breaking rules comes from my youth, when I played complex military simulation board games, and had to read 40pp of rules to know what I could and could not do. So I despise those who break the rules and still want to play. That’s an indecent kind of behavior in a game, but in the Church it is totally intolerable. That is why we Catholics have to reject the recent Conclave and work to elect a Catholic Pope, because this is the only way to proverbially “give the brats a good spanking”.
However, from this article’s “Rules” on how to deal with a possibly invalid Conclave, take notice on how they planned to control your thought about the upcoming Conclave, right from the get go:
+ + +
The above article was published on the same day the Cardinals claimed to have a dispensation from the rule of 120 Cardinal Electors, so that 13 more of them might vote. Is it a coincidence that this anonymous article was published the same day, with the rules for how to control the narrative?
Comment below, and let me know what you think was going on. — What, for example, is specifically wrong with section B?
+ + +
+ + + + + + +
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!
+ + +
Section B implies that any Catholic who might question the narrative by using their critical thinking skills, is being recklessly disobedient.
Language, law / legal emphasis, location of author, logic and lacunae suggest Opus Dei.
Weapons-grade hopium in disguise: neither act on what you learn nor dare imagine that you have rights.
While the article presents interesting arguments about the possible invalidity of the Conclave, several claims deserve more rigorous analysis before reaching such serious conclusions.
1. Was There Really Canonical Invalidity?
The argument that the dispensation allowing more than 120 electors invalidates the Conclave is not as clear-cut as presented. John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) establishes rules but also acknowledges the authority of the College of Cardinals to decide in exceptional circumstances (cf. UDG, 33). If the cardinals, in good conscience, deemed a dispensation necessary, who can claim this automatically voids the election?
Moreover, the Church has always operated with principles of equity and epikeia (prudent interpretation of the law in specific cases). Declaring that a minor flexibility in the number of electors invalidates the entire process seems like a legal rigidity that Tradition itself has not always followed.
2. Allegations of Manipulation Without Conclusive Evidence?
Comparisons to Benedict XVI’s resignation and theories about “Masonic pressures” are serious claims that require concrete proof.
If there are no signed documents under coercion, direct testimonies, or official statements proving fraud or violation of freedom, then we are dealing with suspicions, not certainties.
The Church, in its wisdom, has always preferred to presume the validity of acts until proven otherwise (in dubio pro validitate).
3. Section B Isn’t “Manipulation,” But Prudence
The recommendation not to publicly challenge the Conclave without irrefutable evidence is not a Modernist conspiracy but a principle of justice and Christian charity.
Is it not rash to accuse the cardinals of invalidity without solid proof? (cf. “You shall not bear false witness”).
The scandal caused by unfounded accusations may harm the Church more than an imperfect election.
4. What About Peaceful Acceptance?
Historically, even conclaves with minor irregularities have been accepted through the consensus of the faithful and the absence of formal objections.
If the majority of cardinals, bishops, and the faithful recognize the new Pope, is this not a sign of practical legitimacy? (cf. “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia”).
Is it not dangerous to fall into a sedevacantist mindset, where every irregularity (real or perceived) justifies rejecting the Pope?
Conclusion: Rigorism or Prudence?
I am not saying the criticisms are baseless, but before declaring a Conclave null, we must be certain beyond reasonable doubt. The Church is not a board game where a rule violation voids everything, but a divine institution with mechanisms to resolve tensions.
Would it not be more Catholic to work for reform from within, rather than proclaiming an invalidity that could further divide the faithful?
Sincerely,
A Catholic Concerned About Unity and Charity.
I have to laugh, because you must have written that comment before reading anything else at FromRome. Take a look around and see that unlike yourself, I do not impose rules on my thought before an investigation, I approach the material forensically. And I thank you for stopping by and commenting on my observations about my article. You are totally wrong, however. — There are two grave juridical problems with the Conclave that lead to the inescapable conclusion that Prevost is not the pope, because whether he be the pope or not is not a presumption of fact, as you would have everyone approach it — out of a sense of religious reverence for superiors — but a conclusion of law, when the facts of how the election was conducted are compared with the papal laws on these matters.
You evidently know nothing of jurisprudence if you think that you can employ reflex principles rather than following the actual formal significance of the words in the papal laws. Your position is also based on a claim, to use right to interpret in UDG n. 5, which cannot be applied to a Papal act on Dec. 8, 2024, as UDG 1 and UDG 5 show. So you have not even read UDG.
I get the sense that your approach to reality is ideological rather than objective, since you want to throw up obstacles to see what anyone can see if they just read the law in Latin. — You remind me of priests who have a STL in Moral Theology, forgetting that the approach to jurisprudence is an entirely different topic to which you do not apply reflex principles which are proper in moral or spiritual questions. The law has an objective meaning, and it is much more objective than in a board game. You seem to think the Church’s laws are a suggestion, not obligatory, nor certain in their meaning. Your approach in my opinion is Gnostic, not Catholic.
But your manner of arguing really is like shooting yourself in the foot, because by attacking the objective obligatory signification of the norms of law, you have tacitly conceded that the Cardinals did violate the law and invalidate the election.
But since you did leave a comment, let me publicly ask you:
Are you trained in civil or ecclesiastical jurisprudence? Are you a member of Opus Dei? Are you a priest?
Can one apply “silence is consent” to Catholicus’ response?
Yes, silence in the face of a legal error of so great an issue would be immoral, even if you were not certain the legal error would make the conclave invalid.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. As a simple layperson, my intention was not to impose a juridical view but to express concern for the unity of the Church based on well-established Catholic principles. Allow me to clarify a few points with humility:
On Canon Law and Prudence
You claim that my approach ignores the ‘objectivity of the law,’ but the Code of Canon Law (CDC 17 and 21) states that norms must be interpreted according to their text, context, and purpose. Eminent canonists like Wernz-Vidal and Cappello acknowledge that the Church applies epikeia (equity) when a literal application would harm the common good. If the College of Cardinals, in good conscience, deemed a dispensation necessary, would it not be rash to declare the conclave invalid without proof of malicious intent?
On the Presumption of Validity
You argue that papal election is a ‘conclusion of law, not a presumption,’ yet the same CDC (1240 §1) and ecclesiastical tradition (in dubio pro validitate) favor presuming the validity of acts until proven otherwise. Even in historical conclaves with irregularities (such as in 1958), the Church opted for prudence to avoid schism.
On ‘Gnosticism’ and Ideology
Accusing me of being ‘Gnostic’ for invoking charity and unity is unfair. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa II-II, q. 60) teaches that justice must be balanced with mercy. If my comment seemed ‘moralistic,’ it is because, as a layperson, I believe faith demands love for truth and communion.
To Prevent Misunderstandings
I do not deny that irregularities may exist, but without conclusive evidence (documents, credible testimonies), declaring the conclave null seems more like a personal judgment than an objective ruling. As St. Augustine said: ‘In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.’
Finally, I appreciate your investigative work, but I urge you to consider that the Church is not merely a legal system but a living body guided by the Holy Spirit.
What can I say in response to your comment? since you still believe there must be rules to govern thought and presumptions prior to an investigation to see if what happened was conformable to the law. It is clear that like Decarte you will never get back to reality, since you do not seek truth, you only want to avoid conflict.
As I said, read articles here at FromRome which already show what the Law says. If you hold that the Law has no objective meaning but means whatever those in power say it means, then you are living in a Marxist organization, not the Catholic Church.
Indeed, it is blasphemous and dishonest in the extreme that you should assert such a position is the Catholic position, because what you describe is a cult, not the Church of the Living God. Indeed, to imply that the observance of the law could be harmful to the entire Church, reminds me of who lawyers who defend members of the Mafia. But the principle you cite about presumption of validity has absolutely no application when you can read the law and know the facts of the case. It is a good rule for the ignorant, and cannot licitly be used once you know the facts of the case are discrepant with the norms of the law.
UDG 4 fobids all dispensations of papal laws during a sedevacante, but the Cardinals claimed to have a dispensation. The prima facie presumption then is that the Conclave is invalid, since UDG 76 says that any election in which anything is done contrary to the norms of the entire Constitution makes the election invalid.
But I know you do not care about reality, since you could have read that since the last time you commented. Your behavior, therefore, is the best interpreter of your words: you do have rules that govern what you see and what you do not see.
Section B does not consider the possibility of an invalid election and the circumstance of a man acting as pope and being called the pope, who, in fact, is not the successor to St. Peter.