Category Archives: 2025 Conclave

2025 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History

Pd. Lucio Ferrari: The Dispensation claimed by the Cardinals in Conclave is a total fraud

1 Comment

In the last days of April, 2025, the entire College of Cardinals, gathered together in general meetings, in preparation for the Conclave of May of that year, perpetrated a total fraud upon the law and the whole body of the Faithful of the Catholic Church, by claiming to have a dispensation from the rule of Pope John Paul II, promulgated in his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis of 1996, for Papal Elections, which limited the maximum number of Cardinals voting in any session to 120.

This fraud which invalidated the Conclave was first denounced publicly on the pages of FromRome.info, in the article, “A Canonical Analysis why the Conclave had no valid result”, on June 25 of that year: a denunciation sent to every Priest, Bishop and Cardinal of the Church at Rome, who had a public email address, though the website ChiesaRomana.Info.

After 13 months, NO scholar, canonist or writer in the Church has refuted that analysis with legal arguments. And the reason for this is that scholars of jurisprudence understand well that the claim of such a dispensation is a complete dishonest lie and mendacity.

This can be shown from the handbook on ecclesiastical jurisprudence published by Padre Lucio Ferraris, in 1858 A. D., in his section on “Dispensatio”, where he lays out the fundamental principals of what a dispensation is on pp. 183 and 184 of that celebrated reference:

Which in  English would be, according to Br. Bugnolo:

(1. A dispensastion is a common relaxation of a law (juris) made with cognition of a cause by him who has the right (ius) to dispense.  It is in this common, with the Gloss in c. Requiritis 5. caus. 1. q. 7, at the words, “Ut plerisque”, and in the ch. “Ut constitueretur”, 5, dist. 50, at the words, “Detrahentium”; Abbas in the ch. “Fraternitatis”, on Schisms. Fagnan. in the ch. “Nimis”, 18, on the sons of Priests, n. 4. Angel. Tab. and Armill. at the word, “Dispensatio”.
(2. A dispensation can be considered under various measures.  First, a dispensation is something owed, or something permitted, or something prohibited.
(3. A dispensation …

Continuing in English …

… is something owed, where either utility, and/or necessity of the Church, and/or the prerogative of merits occurs, as is gathered from the cited ch. Ut Constitueretur 25, dist. 50, and ch. Exposuistis 23, on Prebends.  A permitted dispensation, which is also named an arbitrary (dispensation), is, where in the law (in iure) there is a prohibition, the moderation of which is left to the judgement of the superior, as is had in the ch. Si quis presbyter, dist. 50, and/or even, when something is permitted, so that the worse be avoided; c. 2, on spouses.  A dispensation is prohibited where it can scarcely be done without a manifest dissipation of the law (iuris).

How the Cardinals lied to the world

First, the Cardinals manifestly lied to the world, when they claimed to have a dispensation from Pope Francis, since they produced NO document or testimony of persons, as to the grant of a dispensation at any given time or place, nor in regard to any specific rule of the Papal Law on elections.

But they were manifestly dishonest, since in n. 4 of that law, the use of all dispensations is expressly declared illicit (legally prohibited)and such use is expressly declared null and void, with these words (English translation by Br. Bugnolo):

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.

See the Canonical Analysis above for details.

Thus, as can be seen from Padre Lucio Ferraris, just as there is no question of the existence of a dispensation when the law itself forbids it, so there is no question the Cardinals could use their fake dispensation during a Conclave, since the use of all dispensation is prohibited.

Thus, the Cardinals suffer the penalties of Excommunication and Suspension a divinis

And Pope John Paul II expressly invokes his Supreme Authority to declare this. Thus, no Cardinal, not even all the Cardinals, even if they had a written dispensation from Pope Francis, could use such a dispensation, so long as the law of John Paul II remains un-amended, as it does.

This means that the Cardinals by faking a valid conclave have entered into objective formal schism from Christ Jesus and are ipso facto excommunicated latae sententiae, by canon 1364, that is, without the need for anyone to declare it. They are also suspended a divinis from all ecclesiastical functions in virtue of the censure in canon 1331. That means that all their masses are illegal and a mortal for them to perform. It also means that it would be a moral sin for Catholics to attend religious services with these men or recognize any legal act by them as valid.

This crime and sin of the Cardinals, therefore, has made them in law and in the sight of God, nothing more than a criminal organized mafia. And the Faithful should conform themselves to God and consider the Cardinals just this, and nothing more.

2013 Conclave, 2025 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History

Council of Rome, 1060 (1059) A. D., Canon 1 condemns the theory of Universal Acceptance

2 Comments

And the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025

Catholic Doctrine

A monstrous lie and masonic falsehood has been promoted in recent decades under the name of the theory of universal acceptance, which is nothing other than a dogma of Hell and a concoction of the inferno. This diabolic lie holds that a man is to be regarded as the legitimate Roman Pontiff, if the whole Church accepts him as such, solely on the basis of the popular agreement of all parties.

This doctrine contradicts all known Catholic authors, who with authors like John of Saint Thomas, only advance the theory that when there has been a lawful and valid election of a Roman Pontiff, the universal acceptance of the Church follows as a consequence of the fact that the Church cannot be deceived.  But these authors do not say that this universal belief follows immediately or is a legal proof or motive to hold that a man is the true pope.

In fact, as all Catholics know, and as all honest men admit, during the Great Western Schism, caused by those greedy and sinful Cardinals who rejected the valid and legitimate election of Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari (Italy), as Pope Urban VI, on April 6, 1378 A. D., and during the next 35 years, no true pope and no antipope was accepted by all.  These Cardinals separated themselves and elected the antipope and heretic Count Robert of Geneva (a widower), as Clement VII on September 20, 1378. This latter fled to Naples and then to France, where at Avignon he established his own papacy. 

For the next 39 years, all of western Christendom was divided, with some holding with Pope Urban VI, the Italian, and others deceived by the lies of these errant Cardinals, holding with Clement VII and his successors, sitting at Avignon (France).

Today, there is universal acceptance that all the popes who sat in Rome during these years were the true Popes. But the Vatican has never declared this: it is only the universal teaching of all theologians in communion with the Apostolic see during the last 500 years.

So it is sheer madness and deceit that some authors hold, today, that the Catholic authors of the past who spoke of universal acceptance, used it as a determination of which pope is the true pope, immediately upon his election or even during his lifetime.

The Council of Rome, 1060 A. D.

The teaching of Pope Nicholas II with the Council of Rome, in the second year of his pontificate, rebuts this diabolic modern perversion, in its first canon.*

This council was held in the year following the publication of In Nomine Domine, which altered the manner of the election, in normal circumstances, of the Pope, and assigned the choice of the candidate to the Cardinal Bishops alone. Before that, it was upto the whole body of the Faithful who attended the election, to suggest and chose the candidate, as St. Peter had arranged before his death, according to the norms of civil law, in the Eternal City of Rome, for all publicly elected candidates.

So let us quote Canon I of the Council of Rome, held in 1060, from Tomassetti’s, Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilegiorum, tome I, p. 660, first column, published in 1857 A. D., which reads thus:

Which in English, according to Br. Bugnolo, would be:

First, indeed, with God as (our) inspector, it has been established, that the election of the Roman Pontiff is in the power of the Cardinal Bishops: thus, that, if anyone is enthroned upon the Apostolic See without their prior agreement and canonical election, and then, the consent of the following orders of religious, clerics and lay people, he is not to be held to be pope and/or the apostolic (successor of Saint Peter), but (rather) as an apostate.

This canon, which recapitulates the new rule for elections mentioned in the Bull, In Nomine Domini, does so with a logical character, by listing all the necessary requirements for a pope’s claim as pope: that he be canonically elected, by the officially designated electors, and enthroned. But if he is not, then he is an antipope and apostate, since he has usurped the office and pretends to be what he is not, contrary to the will of Christ, who confirms papal laws in Heaven, which deal with the elections of His Vicars on earth.

Not, that here, “canonically elected”, is taken in the general sense of “lawfully elected”, since the rule for papal elections at the time of the Council of Rome in 1060, was the Bull of Nicholas II published in the previous year, and not a canon decreed in a council or established in any Code of Canon Law.

But as this canon of the Council of 1060 A. D., is an ecclesiastical decree, it has to be read in harmony with Nicholas II’s, Bull, “In Nomine Domine”, which does affirm the same things — without stating “canonically elected” — for elections which are held according to the norms of law.  Because after an election which is not held regularly, or under force or simony or other such dishonesty, Nicholas II in the Council held at Rome in 1059, taught that all the Faithful regain the right to elect a true pope, and this anywhere, even outside the city, and even with only a few voting.e

In addition, the words of this Canon, “canonically elected”, serve as the official interpretation of n. 3 of In Nomine Domini, which, since it uses other words, could be undermined by anyone claiming that they refer to elections which are corrupted by simony or endangered by physical violence, and not pure lawlessness, as happened in recent conclaves.

So the theory that if a man be universally accepted, EVEN IF HIS ELECTION IS ILLEGAL, he is the true pope, is thus shown to be contrary to Catholic doctrine and heretical.

Thus, again, Br. Bugnolo has been proved right against the claims of Salza and Siscoe (click to read past articles refuting these two serial liars) and many other authors, who possessed by the spirit of mendacity, would excuse their heretical and schismatic adhesion to the recent two antipopes, so as to excuse any duty to adhere to Popes Benedict XVI and Hildebrand.

Because clearly there is no legal defect in either of their elections, but there is in the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025, since in the former, Pope Benedict XVI had never abdicated his office, only retired from ministry, after the example of Pope Benedict VIII a thousand years before, as Pope Benedict XVI expressly stated (cf. Andrea Cionci’s, The Ratzinger Code available in English, French and Italian); and in the latter, in May of 2025, 133 cardinals voted at the same time, violating the law of John Paul II, in no less than 4 paragraphs (see more here).

On which account, it can be said rightly that the teaching of Canon 1 of the Council of Rome in 1060, nullifies the election of Pope Francis in 2013 and of Pope Leo XIV in 2025. — A good argument to use with all your friends! For, of course, to anyone with an honest mind, if they but read n. 76 of Pope John Paul II’s, Apostolic Constitution, Universi dominici gregis, for papal elections, he will see that it establishes the same rule: if the laws are not followed, the one elected is not the pope.

—————————–

* Mansi, writing a century after Tommasetti, reckons that there was only one Roman Council, and that it took place in the year 1059, and thus lists the canons of this 1060 council as issued on the second day of the same council, in which the bull, In Nomine Domini, was promulgated: cf. Mansi, Concil. XIX, p. 897, and especially, Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Tome CXLIII,  p. 1351, VIII.