Presentation & Historical Background
The evidence that the Conclave of 2025 was invalid and improperly conducted is now part of an official criminal complaint at the Vatican, thanks to the efforts of the Italian Journalist Andrea Cionci, author of The Ratzinger Code, and a long time collaborator in investigations into the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI with Br. Alexis Bugnolo, editor and founder of FromRome.Info, whose Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI is one of the most complete listing of articles on this topic since 2018, mined extensively by Cionci himself.
Click the above image to read the LifeSite Article
UPDATE: John Henry Westen posted a video about the matter, the evening after the publication of the above article:
Back in March of 2024, making use of the new Vatican statutes which required a hearing of all criminal complaints, Cionci had filed a complete dossier on the invalidity of the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, calling for an investigation with the Vatican Criminal prosecutor, as reported by FromRome.Info, here, in April of that year, as soon as the news of this broke.
The complaint received its first hearing, when in the Spring of 2025, Cionci was summoned by the Vatican prosecutor to give testimony about the matter. Days later, Cionci’s blog at Il Libero was entirely erased from the web, without his consent and without warning or explanation, as FromRome.info reported here. FromRome preserves to this day many English translations of Cionci’s articles, which are found no where else on the web.
Andrea Cionci’s criminal complaint regarding the invalid abdication of Pope Benedict XVI received a second hearing on August 3rd of this year. At this second hearing, Cionci added the information presented by the Italian Magistrate Angelo Giorgianni about the invalidity of the Conclave of 2025, the major portion of which simply reiterated in a simplified manner the argument first moved by Br. Alexis Bugnolo in June of 2025, in his complete Canonical Analysis, which you can read here.
FromRome.info, therefore, wishes to laud Andrea Cionci once again for doing what little can be done through the Vatican judicial process, which, however, appears to have little or no authority to bring a resolution to the case. This is because the prosecutor and the judges at the Vatican have all been appointed by the very men who came to power through the illegal and invalid conclaves of 2013 and 2025.
Indeed, the erasure of Cionci’s blog, which could only have been achieved through collaboration at the highest levels of Italian Freemasonry, bodes ill about any substantive action.
However, the above news about Cionci’s second hearing does explain why in recent days, it has come to light that Cardinal Parolin himself is seeking to gather information on all the investigators named in Cionci’s briefs and to identify their location of residence and contact information.
Is this simply for the sake of information, or is Parolin preparing another Masonic trick on the few Catholics who want transparency and honesty and legality to prevail in the Church at the highest levels?
For the record, finally, Life Site News, which knows well that FromRome.info and its editor have played a crucial role in making known in the Italian Press and to the Italian public the canonical realities of the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI and the invalidity of the Conclaves of 2025 and 2013, has once again omitted any mention of our journal and the work of our editor, which is factually and arguably the most prominent and important in these controversies. Whereas, FromRome.Info has never failed to cite and take note, as well as make know to its readers, the work of John Henry Westen on many important issues.
To his credit, Andrea Cionci has called for, in recent days, a restoration of the Canonical Order in the Church, in which he denounces every group supporting lawlessness in the Church. He does not mention Hildebrand or FromRome.Info, because both have advocated a restoration of the canonical order from the start:
In addition, FromRome.info affirms that the statements made by Andrea Cionci in the Apologia published in the below video, just days ago, about our editor Br. Bugnolo, are true in regard to Brother being the only one who told him that the Renunciation was canonically invalid; but not in regard to his assertion that Br. Bugnolo had “gone completely off the rails”, after the death of Pope Benedict XVI, For if he studies the Bull of Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, now available in Italian translation HERE, he will find that the teaching of that Roman Pontiff completely confirms the opinions and actions of Br. Bugnolo about Papal Elections, after the death of Pope Benedict XVI: an opinion which the Canonist Canale, accredited as a lawyer at the Roman Rota, cited as one of the leading ones in the history of ecclesiastical jurisprudence on the matter. For, in this controversy, the “rails” of the matter must certainly be Papal Law and the tradition of ecclesiastical jurisprudence. And Br. Bugnolo, concerning himself not with the controversy for controversy sake, but to solve the real canonical problem, which touches upon the essence of the Faithful’s communion with Christ, our King, through a legitimate Vicar-Pope, has acted in a way, in which, those who have not contemplated this urgency as he has, do not yet understand.
+ + +
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!
+ + +
Excellent post Brother. I will link to it in Life Site News comments.
Important documents revealed.
https://youtu.be/GIk4zJkjZKw
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux is simply restating the Bulll of Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, which governed the election of Innocent II and did not permit the election of the antipope Anacleto II (Pietro Pierleone).
However, Cionci struggles to explain the position of Saint Bernard, because he, Cionci, avoids citing the law for papal election in force back then, that of Nicholas II.
Without reading Nicholas II’s bull, the dispute between Innocent and Anacletus is not easily explained, which is obvious, since it is the law and not even the opinion of a Saint, which determines the truth of the matter, though, it must be said, that Saint Bernard was upholding the Bull of Nicholas II.
Cionci cites precedence, but precendence is not an essential quality, since an illegal election can take place first, as Nicholas II says in n. 3 of his bull. What made the election of Innocent II valid and legitimate was that the majority of the Cardinal Bishops, 5, elected Innocent II. Now, according to In Nomine Domini, the selection of the candidate by the Cardinal Bishops, in normal circumstances, is the requirement. Then, the other lower grades of clergy and laity give their assent. But of these lower grades it is not necessary that the majority assent.
And this is what happened in the winter of 1130.
Now a days, the rule for elections is that of Pope John Paul II, who abolished all previous laws. Thus, there is no longer necessary that anyone assent to the election of the Pope by the Cardinals, some of whom are styled today as Cardinal Bishops, some as Cardinal Priests, and some as Cardinal Deacons, though sacramentally all have been consecrated Cardinals. However, what is necessary is that they follow the rules laid down by John Paul II. If they don’t then the election is invalid, and the man elected is an antipope if he accepts his illegal election. And as soon as he accepts his illegal election he commits the crime of schism from Christ and the Church, and is excommunicate by canon 1364, and by canon 1361 cannot exercise any office or celebrate any Sacrament in the Church ever again. Those cardinals who recognize him as pope would then also enter into schism and be afflicted by the same punishment.
What should then happen is that the Cardinals who did not vote for the antiopope should publicly denounce him. If they do not they sin gravely. But if they refuse to name him in the Canon of the Mass, they are not excommunicated simply for failing to denounce him.
However, in the present case of the Conclave of 2025, no Cardinal denounced the antipope elected by 133 of them, against the rule of paragraph 33, which says only 120 max can vote at any time. They all have recognized the antipope, so they are all excommunicated and lose all right to elect any future pope.
Moreover, the law of John Paul II, does not say what is to be done in such a case, since it presumes that there will be at least 1 honest Cardinal elector. Presumably such an honest elector after denouncing the antipope should convoke the others to a new Conclave, which can be held anywhere in the world. And the man they elect would be the true pope.
Since there are no faithful Cardinals, then, the only solution is to follow canon 17, and look to see what the Popes lay down to be done in such a case. Now Popes have either promulgated laws or taught doctrines about papal elections. Since John Paul II abolished all previous laws on this matter, the only thing that remains in force is Papal teaching on such things.
And the only Bull which teaches about this is Nicholas II’s bull, because in that he says, in such cases of an illegal election, that those who remain faithful in the Roman Church, whether they be Bishops, Clergy, Religious or Laity, obtain the right to elect the true pope. He does not say, I grant them this right. He says they obtain this right. The verb, obtains, means to have something by way of running into it, encountering it, coming upon it. In juridical matters, it means a right which arises by reason of necessity or recourse to a higher law which remains operative for the special case.
The election of Hildebrand is such a case, since there are no more Cardinal electors who are not excommunicated, and since there is an absolute necessity of having a true pope, the law of John Paul II being no longer operative, since there are no un excommunicated Cardinal electors.
That is why last year, at Rome, through the website, ChiesaRomana.Info, more than 30,000 letterrs were sent to all the clergy and religious of the Diocese of Rome and the 7 suburbian dioceses, denouncing the illegal Conclave, informing them of their rights according to Pope Nicholas’s Bull, and convoking them to an assembly to elect the true Pope.
In ecclesiastical law, if you have the right to vote and attend in person or delegate someone to vote, you can vote. If you omit both, your right to vote is forfeit and your not voting does not make the election in valid. There are no quorum’s, that is to say, no required number of voters. In fact, Pope Nicholas II was elected by 1 voter, Saint Hildebrand, who had the written permission from several Catholics of Rome, a number which included probably 2 Cardinal Bishops and many clergy, religious and laity, though the Chronicle of the Monastery of Monte Casino, does not say.
So by November 23, all the clergy and religious and thousands of laity being informed, those who voted had the right to vote and elected the true Pope. All that was required for validity is that they were Catholics resident or incardinated in the Dioceses of Rome and the Suburbicans, and that they be present or delegate someone who was present. By the Bull of Nicholas II, there only had to be a few of them, which in Latin means either two or three.
This is why Nicholas II says in the beginning that his Bull is intended to defend the Church from all future woes. Since obviously there will always be at least two or three Catholics at Rome who reject an illegal election.
And that is why Hildebrand is the true Pope, no matter how many crazed, heretical, schismatic grifters say the opposite. They will go down to hell with their pride, or eventually repent. But just as you do not follow a falling star, so you should not follow their reckless course to hell.
Stand with Hildebrand. Hold up your head high. You are the ones in juridical communion with Christ, and they are members of the Church of the antichrist.
Excellent!
” …since it presumes that there will be at least 1 honest Cardinal elector. ”
Brother, in your opinion, do you think that all the Cardinals saw themselves as being dishonest? If not, then what was the matter with them? (what rationale do they give for what they did?) It would be nice to know what exactly their mindsets were.
Honesty does not consist in thinking that one is honest. Honesty consists is being ashamed of being dishonest. Once that shame is lost, the conscience loses all orientation and perspective on how to be honest and how to avoid dishonesty. These men all have blackened consciences seared by long years in great vices, otherwise they could not sleep one night knowing the horror they have perpetrated on the whole Church.