Editor’s Note: I do not subscribe to or read 1 Peter 5 nowadays, so the above article escaped my attention, until I stumbled upon it today.   Any long time reader of FromRome.Info will know immediately the problem with the article: IT IS A TOTAL LIE.

And Dr. Mazza who has a Ph. D. in history cannot be excused from reckless negligence unless one were to accuse him of malicious deception, in his article published on May, 5, 2025, entitled, “The non-Canonical Conclave which worked.”

POPE NICHOLAS II’S BULL — IN NOMINE DOMINI — GOVERNED THE ELECTION OF 1130

I say this, because he should know, that the election of the pope in 1130 A. D., was governed by the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini. — He also knows of FromRome.Info, and if you search for that Bull you will find that the Latin text is published here at FromRome.Info.

That being the case, then, you cannot plead ignorance of what Law governed the Papal Election of Pope Innocent II.

Thus, to say that Pope Innocent II was elected “uncanonically” is a total lie on your part, Dr. Mazza. Because even the facts you cite do not support your thesis, that the Cardinals who elected Innocent II did not follow the law.

As can be seen from the text of the Bull, paragraph 1:

§1. On which account, having been instructed by Our predecessors, and by the authority of the other Holy Fathers, We decree, and establish, that with the passing of the Pontiff of this Catholic Roman Church, first of all, the Cardinal Bishops, treating most diligently together concerning the election, summon immediately the Cardinal Clerics of Christ; and in this manner let the rest of the Clergy, and the People approach to consent to the new election taking the greatest care beforehand, lest the deadly disease of venality insinuate itself by an occasion, and for that reason let the most religious men be the chief leaders in promoting the election of the Pontiff, but the rest be their followers.

As can be seen, the Bull does NOT say, that first the Cardinal Bishops must summon all the other Cardinals. Rather, it says, first the Cardinal Bishops, should treat most diligently together concerning the election.

Thus, since that is what the Cardinal Bishops did, upon the death of Pope Honorious, they did not violate the law. To claim that what they did was “machinations”, is outrageous. —  Dr. Mazza fails to mention that just a few days before, the supporters of the future antipope had stormed the Benedictine Monastery of San Gregorio al Caelio with military forces, only to find Pope Honorius still alive.

The Cardinals who elected Innocent II had a real, sound and proven reason, therefore, to not publicly announce the death of the pope, but to proceed immediately to the election. They were Cardinal Bishops. The presence of military forces of one side, rather than another, would have made the election invalid, by reason of violent extortion, a principle recognized in Church law for centuries. Thus the only way to have a free election was to proceed to the election before announcing the death of the Pope.

Such decisions and actions are not at all forbidden by the Bull of Nicholas II.

Therefore, to say the election of Innocent II was uncanonical, but later accepted by the whole Church, is simply false. It also implies a blasphemy against Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who convinced the Catholic Monarchs of western Europe to accept Pope Innocent, making it appear that the Saint approved of some illegality.

The Heroic Faith of Innocent II

Innocent II, being a man of God, trusted in the Lord Jesus, that God would come to his aid because his election was 100% juridically valid. And that faith was put to great test, as an example for all subsequent generations.  For, shortly after his election the supporters of the Anti-Pope, Anacletus II, who was Jewish by descent, drove him from the City, and those who had elected him, abandoned him! — So he fled to France and the greatest Saint of that age, Saint Bernard took up his cause and rallied the Kings of Europe to his cause. He returned to Rome, three years later, supported by Lothair III, the Germany Emperor and his armies. You can read this in any history of that age.

So, I must conclude by saying, “Shame on you, Dr. Mazza. Shame!”

This article of Dr. Mazza shows, that even those with Doctorates can pen articles which contain lies and falsehoods, or which misrepresent the historical facts. That is why I always urge the readers of FromRome.Info to go back to the actual documents and to read what they say. And when a translation of a Church document, which was written in Latin, is good enough, I do not hesitate to quote it. That is the honest approach to Church issues, regarding documents, and especially regarding laws.

Finally, the article of Dr. Mazza implies that the rules for electing a Pope were, prior to 1130 A. D., governed by Canons.. That is incorrect. The governing rule for the election in that year was a Papal Law, not a canon. Also, the election was not a Conclave, since the institution of the conclave does not originate until the end of the 13th century.

The Infallible Rule by which a true Pope is to be determined

As I have often said, the only criterion by which we can determine if a man is a true Pope of Rome or not, is whether he was the first man to be elected in a juridically valid manner.  This rule is based on a revealed divine principle of right: from the very lips of the Living God, and Supreme Lawgiver: Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven; whatsoever you loose upon earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. And its second principle of right is part of the Deposit of the Faith, because it is a decision of Saint Peter the Apostle to leave the election of his successors to the free decision of the Church at Rome, that is, to the Catholic Clergy, Religious and Laity of the Church at Rome. — There are other subsequent principles of right, which emanate from decisions of Popes and of Synods at Rome during the course of the centuries, such as 1) what constitutes the territorial dimensions of the Church at Rome, 2) suburbican Sees, 3) rules about incardination, 4) pastoral mandates, 5) what constitutes ecclesiastical residence, 6) who can vote, 7) how the election is to proceed in normal circumstances, 8) the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, which declares invalid the election of heretics. — Thus only an election which abides by all these rules is accepted by Christ in Heaven. And consequently any election which does not, is NOT accepted by Jesus Christ, and thus should be rejected and NOT tolerated by all Catholics. Indeed, with the zeal of St. Hildebrand we should reprove and correct anyone who says otherwise.

That is why in this year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Twenty Five, the Conclave of May had no juridically valid result, because Prevost was elected by 133 Cardinal Electors, when the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, in n. 33, forbids more than 120, and in n. 76 declares invalid, the election of anyone otherwise. I have demonstrated that here. I have refuted contrary opinions here. I have shown, further, that if the Cardinals insist on their invalid act, that they have forfeited their right and competence, HERE, and that thus, we are in a situation juridically equivalent to the same in which all Cardinals had died — an extraordinary legal circumstance not envisioned in any Papal Law or canon currently in force — and that thus, in accord with the infallible teaching contained in the Bull of Nicholas II, n. 3, the right of election returns to the Clergy, Religious and Laity of the Church of Rome, in extraordinary circumstances. And the first man they elect, will be the true Pope in the sight of God Almighty and receive God’s Help and the intercession of Angels and Saints, in Heaven, and on earth, just as God and the Angels and Saints did on behalf of Pope Innocent II.

OTHER ERRORS AT 1 PETER 5

1 Peter 5 has had many articles containing gross errors, as I have documented in the last 12 years, but in addition to the above article by Dr. Mazza, there is this article by T. S. Flanders, which contains many false hoods, not the least of which is implying that Pope Vigilius’ election was irregular, even though Pope Boniface II, in accord with the decision of the Roman Synod of 531 A. D., had designated Vigilius as his successor. Thus, to imply that his election was coerced by the presence of the Byzantine Army is simply false. Moreover, the entire Clergy and Faithful of the Church at Rome accepted him. If there are no historical sources which say whether he was elected or acclaimed by popular consent, that proves nothing, for you cannot argue ex silentio, when all the certain facts are in favor of validity.

+ + +

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!

+ + +