Commentary and Criticism by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Back in 2023, when the Faithful of Rome gathered to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI, on account of the grave and extraordinary circumstance of the defection of the entire College of Cardinals, because of their wilful conspiracy in the illegal Conclave of 2013, against the reigning Pontiff who never validly renounced his petrine munus, the Genoese Canonist Guido Ferro Canale, who holds a Doctorate in Canon Law, objected to the proceedings before the fact, in an article I refuted, HERE.

Three weeks later, evidently still wincing from my corrections, he penned the above article, entitled, “More on the Assembles which elect the Pope”, in which he discusses the history of jurisprudence and disputations on the question of electing the Roman Pontiff, and which was published on the website of Radio Spada, which is considered a far-right pro-sedevacantist website here in Northern Italy. However, I am reliably informed that Guido Ferro Canale is a Canon Lawyer accredited at the Roman Rota, in Rome.

I never knew of his refutation, so I will comment on it, now, since unwittingly, Canonist Canale two years ago explained how the Faithful of Rome this year of 2025 can indeed elect the Roman Pontiff in the quasi-impossible hypothetical occurrence when all the Cardinals defect from their duty to elect a Roman Pontiff legitimately.

I must say, that I have never encountered any scholar or lawyer who in attempting to refute me conceded nearly every argument I would move again in two years time. But the amazing literary production of Canonist Canale deserves mention and praise, even though we do not agree on all points.

However, quoting what he wrote more than two years ago will serve to silence the fake scholars out there who are claiming that the Faithful of Rome cannot act in the present circumstances of the illegal election of a formal manifest heretic, the conditions of which go beyond the impossible hypothetical conceived of by Canale in February, 2023.

The Hypothetical Impossibility of no Cardinals to elect a Pope

By “hypothetical impossibility”, I mean the possible case in which there are no Cardinals alive or no Cardinals willing to elect a pope according to the current law or laws in force for this. Each of these causes of the hypothetical impossibility are causes which in the juridical order are considered equivalent. Thus, whether there actually be no living Cardinal electors, or whether they all decide to violate the rules or elect a heretic, in jurisprudence the same question arises: what is to be done? how is a valid Catholic to be elected, then?

Canonist Canale discusses this under n. 3 of his above article, where he writes:

3. Un corpo elettorale di riserva?

Ci si è chiesti, naturalmente, cosa accadrebbe se dovesse venir meno l’intero Collegio cardinalizio: il dubbio precede di diversi secoli i problemi attuali e, anche se a suo tempo è stato discusso come tranquillo problema di scuola, non vi è unanimità tra gli autori. Per quanto ho appena detto, è chiaro che si tratta di un caso quasi impossibile, perché anche i Cardinali dubbi eleggerebbero validamente (e avrebbero, quindi, il diritto e il dovere di procedere); vale tuttavia la pena di riferire che le opinioni che si contendono il campo sono tre, perché secondo alcuni, venuto meno il Collegio, l’elezione del Papa spetterebbe ai canonici lateranensi, secondo altri si devolverebbe ai Pastori di grado inferiore e quindi al Concilio imperfetto, mentre la terza opinione afferma che, siccome il caso non è mai stato disciplinato, limitatamente ad esso debbono considerarsi tuttora in vigore le norme precedenti, come dire l’elezione “a clero e popolo” (17).

Which I translate into English, thus:

3. Is there a back-up Electorate?

It has also been asked, naturally, what would happen if the entire College of Cardinals would fail: the doubt has already been considered during the last few centuries before any such case has arisen, and has been considered as an easy problem in the schools, though there is no unanimity among authors. Inasmuch as I have already said, it is clear that it deals with a quasi impossible case, since even doubtfully valid Cardinals are able to validly elect a Pope (along with having the right to convene and prosecute such an election); however, its worth the while to list the three best argued opinions in the field, because according to some, if the College should fail, then the election of the Roman Pontiff would pertain to the Canons of the Lateran Basilica; second, that the election would devolve to clerics of lesser dignity, and thus to an imperfect Council; while the third opinion affirms, since the case has never been considered in any written law, regarding such a special case, the preceding norms in force would have to be resorted to, that is, to an election “by clergy and people”.

Here in footnote 17, he remarks that there is no author he can cite for the third opinion. That is because it is the opinion I have sustained, and I will let pass that he should have cited me in my scholastic question (English version, Italian version), which he certain knew of. But, that he cites it is at least the recognition that my opinion on this question deserves consideration alongside the greatest of canonists of the past, which is certainly the greatest compliment any living canonist has ever paid me. Thank you Doctor!

Canale then explains that there is no written law in the history of ecclesiastical jurisprudence which can resolve the differences of opinion here. Nevertheless, he excludes the first opinion, since in no papal legislation or council has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff been conceded to the canons of the Cathedral of Rome, the Lateran Basilica. He also excludes the second opinion, because among experts in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, there is an unresolved debate whether the office of Roman Pontiff is inextricable or not from the Bishop of Rome. If it is not, then the second opinion would fail, if I understand Canale correctly, in his previous article.

Finally, he speaks directly of my opinion, the third one, thus:

Non resta, allora, che rifarsi alla terza opinione, l’unica che possa invocare in proprio favore un sicuro fondamento positivo: la legge anteriore, che si presume non abrogata quando la nuova non regoli un qualche caso.

Which in English, I translate thus:

Nothing else remains, then, but to have recourse to the third opinion, the only one of which invokes in its own favor a secure positive foundation: the previous law, which one presumes is not abrogated when the new one does not regulate a specific case.

Thank you Doctor. It’s not every day, that a Franciscan Brother, who holds no degree in Canon Law, is honored with such respect by a Doctor of Canon Law.

After conceding that, the Jurist militates many of his own opinions, without any basis in positive law, even though he just praised the third opinion for having this quality. He holds that laity can pariticipate, but he argues they have only the right to veto. Second, he claims that clergy must be present, and cites as a precedent an election of an antipope by Louis of Bavaria in 1328 — not a good choice for a precedent, in my mind. And finally he claims that by “clergy” one must consider only those of the Diocese of Rome, without considering the fact that in the time of Saint Peter the Apostle there existed only two dioceses in Latium, Rome and Nepi. The suburbican did not yet exist, nor would they be called specifically suburbican until more than a 1000 years later.

What Canale does, which of course I find most objectionable, is that he specifically denies “apostolic right” as a category of right, in footnote 18, where he writes:

[18] Non si tratta comunque, beninteso, di un preteso ius apostolicum, categoria già di per sé inutile perché tutto ciò che gli Apostoli hanno disposto rientra o nel diritto divino oppure in quello umano: appunto perché siamo nel campo della semplice legge umana, la disciplina che si può supporre ancora in vigore per questo solo caso è quella immediatamente anteriore alla riserva dell’elezione ai Cardinali.

Which in English I translate as:

[18] This does not, however, if well understood, deal with the pretext of “apostolic right” (ius apostolicum), a category which is already per se useless, since everything which the Apostles did re-entered into either divine right or in human right: and indeed we are discussing simply human law, the discipline which one can suppose is still in force only for this case, is that which was immediately the prior one, which reserved the election to the Cardinals.

Here, Canale is, I believe, referring either to the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, which was the first written papal law on the election of the Roman Pontiff which restricted the election to the Cardinals, or to the decision of the Apostle Saint Peter to grant this right to the Church at Rome. — Since Pope John Paul II in his own law, Universi Dominici Gregis, explicitly abrogates all previous papal laws, I think the stronger argument is that “the previous discipline” is that of Apostolic right, which no Pope can abrogate in principle, not that of Nicholas II, though, the difference is a small one, since in n. 3 of that Bull, Pope Nicholas II himself speaks of extraordinary circumstances and implicitly uses the same argument as Canale of recourse to a higher font of right, a thing which Cardinals Saint Peter Damnian and Hubert along with the Archdeacon Saint Hildebrand of Saona, did in the election of 1058, in Tuscany, at Sienna, when they elected Gerard, the Bishop of Florence, as Nicholas II, in the presence of a small number of clergy and laity of Rome.

Criticism

I do not think there is any need to refute Canale’s final denial, since it is patent to any reader that there is a substantial defect in subsuming ius apostolicum under Divine right, since in this case the historical circumstances have everything to do with the precise determinations of right in this extraordinary and nearly impossible case.

First, because by specifying the previous law as Apostolic Right, one founds the argument on the historical inspired decision of the Apostle Saint Peter, confirmed by the Apostle Saint Paul, to grant the election to the entire Roman Church, a Church which in the year of the Prince of the Apostle’s death included nearly all of Latium, excepting the Diocese of Nepi (which has never been part of a suburbican diocese). — Thus, clearly the right to vote pertains to all the members of that Church, not only the clergy, because there are no written restrictions of such a kind in the historical record. Also, the right to vote does not only pertain to the clergy of the Diocese of Rome but to at least all the suburbicans, which were part of Rome at the death of the Apostle, if not to all the rest of Lazio. Furthermore, it pertains to all the Catholic Clergy of Rome, not only to those of the Roman rite, but to all the rites simply because there was no such distinction of jurisdictions in the days of the Apostle.

Conclusion

Thus, the “Save Rome” Project is fully justified and its principles of right have, unwittingly, been approved of by one of the more famous Italian experts in canon law, two years ago, before he even conceived that an invalid election of a formal manifest heretic might make the impossible hypothetical even more impossible. For on account of the heretical nature of the election, there is even greater necessity to fill the office, as Pope Paul IV refers to in his own Constitution, “Cum ex apostolatus officio“, where he says Catholics have the right to fill the offices held by any heretics, immediately (cf. § 5). Since, even if all the clergy of Lazio adhere to the heretic Prevost, by that very fault, they forfeit even the deference owed through the ages to their preeminent position in the election of the Roman Pontiff. — Though in fact, by receiving the thousands of letters I have already sent out, and making no objections to my arguments and proposal of an election by Apostolic Right, if the Clergy of the Church at Rome remain silent after September 24, they will have tacitly conceded that the election can be called and a Catholic elected. And that is, in jurisprudence, tantamount to voting and to being present. And that is precisely why I wrote the clergy, so that they could exonerate themselves in the most facile manner possible.

Note: What I call an election by “apostolic right”, Canale calls an election by “positive right”, but we both refer to the same thing, an election by the clergy and faithful of Rome: thus in the title of this present article I have used the term more familiar to the readers of FromRome.Info.

+ + +

Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Back in March of this year, Ed Condon wrote an article (Click Above) about the rule of 120 Cardinal Electors in the Papal Law for the Election of the Roman Pontiff in a Conclave, Universi Dominici Gregis. I did not mention this article simply because I do not follow Condon or The Pillar per se. But as the readers of FromRome.info know, I attempt to Chronicle here at FromRome.Info all the important issues about the Catholic Church and the Vatican, so I bring it to your attention now for serious reasons.

And if you have been a long time reader of FromRome.Info, you know how many times I have pointed out The Pillar and Ed Condon for getting it wrong. It seems to be their habit. — For past reports about Condon and The Pillar, see HERE.

But now I have been informed by a very influential Catholic Layman, that a group of journalists are looking for Canon Lawyers to debunk claims that more than 120 Cardinal Electors voting at the same time in a Conclave, cause a Conclave to have no juridically valid result. — I need not say who they are attempting to refute, as that is obvious.

But one of the Scholars who is aware of this work of journalists recently asked me to comment on Ed Condon’s article, because the latter holds a doctorate in Canon Law. — Asked in a comment, about this, I replied already, but I think the reply deserves its own article, since in coming weeks we are apt to see the same erroneous arguments proposed to “refute” the Catholic position, cited as authoritative, along with a fair amount of ad hominem attacks at any who would question Condon’s approach.

Condon’s argument, in my judgement, is an inauthentic reading of the law. And since the number of ways of reading the law badly are infinite, but the right way, one, I do not think it is worthwhile addressing his errors in the Save Rome Project, but I will here at FromRome.Info.  — I think this reply will be useful to all Catholics, to share on social media, whenever and wherever they hear the claim that “Ed Condon has refuted Br. Alexis Bugnolo about the rule of 120”.

A CRITIQUE OF CONDON’S ARGUMENT THAT 120+ HAS NO JURIDICAL EFFECT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OUTCOME OF A CONCLAVE

Question: Br. Bugnolo, what do you think about Ed Condon’s Article from March of this Year?

Answer: When n. 33 of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, says, “Let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed 120”, I do not have to think, I only have to read to know the answer.

But, as the Cardinals on April 30, 2025, claimed to have received a dispensation to allow 133 Cardinal Electors to participate in the Conclave, they also disagree with Condon’s claim that 120+ cardinal electors is not at all problematic. — Readers can read my refutation of the Cardinals’ self-serving claim, which involves different reasoning and a patent canonical error, here.

As for Ed Condon, who does not cite the canons upon which he bases his claims, what can I say, because he seems to be arguing from a bad memory of the canons, when he implies that the creation of a Cardinal concedes by them the right to vote in a Conclave, in the very act of being created a cardinal?

The Code of Canon Law does not say that, since in Canon 351 §2, it only speaks of the moment in which a man, being created a Cardinal, enjoys the right and privileges of being a member of the College.

But the actual right to vote in a Conclave is acquired by a confluence of the prescriptions of papal law on conclaves and historical conditions, namely, being under 80 years of age on the day before the Death or resignation of the Pope, and being present in a Conclave, whereupon n. 36 of UDG concedes the right to vote to those who qualify but always under the restriction of n. 33, as n. 36 itself says.

Since the argument turns about UDG n. 33 and n. 36, I will now cite them in Latin and give their English translation:

33. Ius eligendi Romanum Pontificem ad Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales exclusive pertinet, iis exceptis qui ante diem mortis Summi Pontificis vel ante diem quo Sedes Apostolica vacavit octogesimum aetatis annum iam confecerunt. Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerus centum viginti ne excedat. Prorsus ergo excluditur quodlibet electionis activae ius cuiuspiam alterius ecclesiasticae dignitatis aut laicae potestatis cuiusvis gradus et ordinis interventus.

36. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalis, dummodo creatus renuntiatusque in Consistorio sit, hac ipsa de causa ius eligendi Pontificis possidet secundum huius Constitutionis praescriptum in n. 33, etiamsi nondum ipsi pileus est impositus neque anulus creditus neque ius iurandum is pronuntiavit. Non tamen hoc iure fruuntur Cardinales canonice depositi aut qui, consentiente Romano Pontifice, dignitati cardinalitiae renuntiaverunt. Praeterea non licet Cardinalium Collegio, Sede vacante, eos restituere.

My own English translation:

33. The right of electing (ius eligendi) the Roman Pontiff pertains exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, except those who have already completed the 80th year of age before the day of the of the death of the Supreme Pontiff and/or before the day on which he vacates the Apostolic See.  Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal Electors not exceed 120.  Therefore, there is thoroughly excluded whatever right of active voice (electionis activae) of whatsoever other ecclesiastical dignity or the intervention of lay authority of whatever grade and order.

36. A Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, so long as he be created and announced in Consistory, possesses from this very cause the right of electing the Pontiff according to (secundum) the prescription (praesecriptum) of this Constitution in n. 33, even if (etiamsi) there has not yet been imposed upon him the red biretta or ring or (even if) he has (not yet) promised the oath.  However, the Cardinals canonically deposed do not enjoy this right nor those, who with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, have renounced the dignity of the Cardinalate.  Moreover, it is not licit that they be restored (to this dignity), during a Sedevacante by the College of Cardinals.

And for clarity sake, when I speak of the “right to vote”, I am speaking of the faculty to vote in a Conclave, during a conclave. I am not speaking of the juridical causes of having that faculty, which are multiple: nomination as a Cardinal  and meeting the requirements of UDG n. 33. And I believe this is the same sense of “right to elect” (ius eligendi), which the the papal law speaks of in UDG nn. 33 and 36.

It is significant that UDG n. 36 does NOT speak of ALL cardinals, but of a cardinal, and thus is descriptive rather than prescriptive, a thing evident by its grammatical structure wherein its affirmation is followed by ‘etiamsi”, to clarify that this right to vote is not determined by the lesser rituals of receiving the ring or biretta, in a ceremony, but has its causes in juridical acts. So n. 36 is obviously directed at defending the right of one of these 120 if it were to be challenged on the basis of an elector who was not present at such a ceremony (e.g. the pope dies after publishing the nomination, and announcing it in consistory, but the nominated Cardinal because of sickness or problems of travel from countries were the govt. did not grant permission, was not present for the ceremony).

And indeed UDG n. 36 says that the right to vote is conceded by UDG, “secundum” to the prescription of UDG n. 33, subordinating thus its description to the prescription of n. 33, which limits their number to 120. Moreover, since Cardinals who are older than 80 years of age when they are nominated are clearly not intended to be granted the right to vote according to the terms of UDG n. 36, it is clear that the context of n. 36 presumes all the conditions already established by UDG in paragraphs prior to n. 36, and thus is not speaking of all cardinals, but the 120 electors mentioned in n. 33. — Nor can it be claimed that “praescriptum” in UDG n. 36, refers only to the first sentence of UDG n. 33, since Latin would require a different term or a combination of terms to signify that, such as “according to the prescription about this matter in UDG n. 33) (secundum … praescriptum de hac re in n 33). Indeed, in English we are a loss to express the generic sense of the Latin word “praescriptum”, since we must preface “prescription” with a definitive article, “the”, which the Latin language does not have. So in English it appears to refer to a particular single thing, but the Latin refers to a generic whole thing, that is the entire prescriptive norm: which regards age of Cardinals, number of Cardinals, and legal status of their dignity as a Cardinal, all of which govern what is said, thus, in this phrase of UDG. n. 36.

Also the custom of jurisprudence holds that every term in a law is restricted by definitions or restrictions which precede it in the same law. Thus you cannot argue from UDG 36 to a violation of UDG 33.

And indeed, if you could, the Cardinals in UDG n. 5 have the right to interpret UDG 36, but they did NOT use that right, thus conceding that such an argument of interpretation cannot be made. Even the rules of Latin show this to be the case since everything which is “secundum” is said to follow that which it is according to.

So Condon’s argument is simply based on ignorance and sloppy reading of the law, because UDG n. 33 does not restrict the Pope’s power to create cardinals, only how many can vote at any one time in a Conclave.

And indeed, the historical record of creating more Cardinals, which he attempts to use to justify more than 120 voting, does not serve him in his argument, since a pope creates Cardinals for many reasons, and not only to vote for his successor, since not having knowledge of the future, he cannot know in the act of creating a man a cardinal, if that man will ever vote in a Conclave: thus he makes provision for the Conclave, whereupon prudence, which is the virtue which governs provision, inclines him to make more than the number needed or prescribed. If a Pope intended something more, he would have to also derogate UDG 4 and grant a dispensation from UDG n. 33, or derogate n. 33, and such a derogation would have had to be published in the Acta Apostolica Sedes. Thus, Condon seems to be confounding one of the juridical causes of the right to vote (jus in causa), with the faculty to exercise that right in a Conclave (ius reale).

As for Condon trying to use a historical circumstance to create a basis for his interpretation, what can I say, other than that in UDG n.1, the papal law removes from the jurisdiction of the College of Cardinals the right to interpret anything regarding the juridical acts of the deceased Roman Pontiff, but Ed thinks that he can, even though he is not superior to the Cardinals.

Condon seems also have forgotten how to read Latin. Because he wants by his argument that the restriction in n. 33 be read descriptively and not prescriptively, such as if it read, “It is convenient that there be no more than 120”, or “It is good that the number of Cardinal Electors be no more than 120”. But John Paul II used prescriptive language, which is legally binding and makes more than 120 cardinals something which is juridically CONTRARY to the prescription, when he used the hortatory subjunctive with an exclusive term “Let the MAXIMUM .. NOT … EXCEED “, thus placing the violation of n. 33 under the censure of the penultimate paragraph of UDG for all things contrary to the Constitution by persons of whatsoever dignity.

As for Condon’s conclusion that “no one has the power” to exclude a Cardinal from the Conclave, what can I say, but that he forgot that n. 33 was written by the Vicar of Christ, to whom Our Lord said, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven …”

Finally, one observation: it appears that Condon is failing to recognize that the Papal Law, UDG, is not operative except during a sedevacante. So when it speaks of anything in the prior pontificate, it does so to explain what it means by its own prescriptions. Thus, when it says that the 120 Cardinal electors have the right to vote from when then are nominated Cardinals, not when they receive the biretta or ring, it is explaining the reckoning it is using during a sedevacante to determine who those 120 are. Not being operative before the sedevacante, it is inaccurate to claim that Cardinals during the life of the Roman Pontiff are granted the right to vote by that law. This is also the problem of the Cardinals’ declaration of April 30. And in fact. n. 36 when read in this context seems to be indicating the criterion by which if there are more than 120 cardinals, it can be determined who of them is among the 120 by the precedence of their nominations.

As for Ed Condon’s approach, in its global entirety: I hold that if you read ecclesiastical laws or canons in such a way, with the purpose to argue that they do not mean what they say, that you have not only taken a position which is inimical to the law, and highly probable to lead to an inauthentic interpretation, but that your manner of argumentation will make you appear to be a consiglieri of some sort of organized criminal organization.

As for the Conclave of May 2025: Let’s not even mention the gross claim of the Cardinals to have a dispensation, though they have no document to prove it and only made the claim 6 months later, when it served them to claim it.

For more on this, see https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/

Note to Canon Lawyers or Journalists who read this article: If you have any questions about these matters leave a comment below or at the About Page, here at FromRome.Info, and I will give you a reply if your question regards Canon Law or the Papal Law or this problem of 120+ Cardinals.

NOTE TO READERS: If you have any questions about Condon’s argument, which regard topics I have not covered, ask me below, so I can make my reply more complete, since, in the above, I have only responded to the erroneous principles by which he advances his opinion.

As to those who say, “Why should I accept that Condon who has a doctorate in Canon Law is wrong, and Br. Bugnolo, who holds no degree in Canon Law is right?” — I respond: if you cannot infer that from the above, either you do not have eyes to see what all with eyes can see, or you do not permit yourself to think anything which is not in harmony with the ruling elites, or simply you are of that species of mankind which cares so little for truth, that the use of human language is superfluous. — And thus, you have wasted your time reading the above article.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On today’s Feast of all the Martyrs of the Church at Rome, all 180 thousand of them, I wish to publicly state that it has been 20 days, as of today, since I challenged every priest and layman and religious in the Diocese of Rome, who has a doctorate in ecclesiastical jurisprudence to attempt to refute my claim that the Conclave of May 7-8, 2025, had no valid juridical result, and that Cardinal Prevost is not Pope Leo XIV.

And as of today, not a single priest or canonist in all the City has dared so much as to contradict my argument in any point, even though I have sent out about 2100 letters, explaining it, after my initial offer of a debate. My challenge is known even at the Vicariate of Rome, where the Cardinal Vicar’s office is found, since I have the IP of the Vicariate in the logs of those who have visited ChiesaRomana.Info, where I have posted my argument in Italian.

I make this publicly known, because silence means consent. If after 90 days, no one publishes a refutation, then canonically the presumption is that the Conclave is not only invalid on account of the discrepancy of the behavior of the Cardinals with the norm of the Papal Law on Conclaves, but that the Church at Rome has tacitly accepted that it is invalid.

This canonical fact will be just as important as what happened in the winter of 2019-2020, when I similarly challenged every canonist in the city to refute my argument that Pope Benedict XVI was till the pope, and none did; because the day will come, when this silence will be cited by a Roman Pontiff as the sensus fidelium proof that these things were true, and that the contrary was indefensible.

And I post this testimony of my own, today, to show that those who hate the truth, who think their silence means victory, might know that the contrary is the truth in the sight of God and of His Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

On account of the Violation of the Prescriptions of the Papal Laws of Pope John Paul II and Paul IV

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

VERSIONE ITALIANA

This is an article for Catholics who want to think about and know the laws of the Church and the legal problems in the Conclave of 2025. Set aside at least 30 minutes to read this article.

However, if you want to read a short, direct exposition, instead of a long article, simply read the Open Letter to a Cardinal, here.

PART I: On the Violations of the Prescriptions of the Papal Law of John Paul II

AN INTRODUCTION

As I wrote back in 2020, at the conclusion of my article where I reposted the accusations by Bishop Donald Sandborn about pedophilia among the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X,

Finally, who is and who is not the pope is not a matter of opinion. It is determined by the norm of Canon Law and by the judgement of the Church in cases of doubt. Though we can in controversial cases make personal judgements and be required to do so, we must nevertheless recognize that the terms of Canon Law or Papal Law are determinative and objective and lead to conclusions which are not opinions but obligatory for all.

And if in the many years of discussing problems in the so-called Conclave of 2013, I have noticed any difficulty for Catholics even to hear out the argument, it is this: that since most Catholics know nothing of the laws of the Church, they are not willing to risk to enter into a discussion that they do not understand.

I cannot blame them for that, since there is not a small amount of intellectual humility and reasonable caution about the matter, if when speaking about the election of the Pope they encounter a fellow Catholic say, “Do you know that the Conclave rules were broken and that X is not the true Pope?” For they classify such a claim as equivalent to saying, “Let me explain to you why all the Catholics you know and respect, including clergy and religious, are being deceived or fooled.”

Admittedly, for someone who has never ventured to question if the Dominant Narrative they have been fed is true or not, such a suggestion is lunacy, or at least so seemingly improbable that it does not merit the time to consider it.

And this is how most Catholics were fooled into taking the deadly and dangerous “Covid” “vaccines”, which were experimental shots containing more than 53 agents to kill you. Since everyone on TV, Radio and the Internet was saying the same thing, they believed there was a Pandemic and that only the Covid “Vaccine” could save you, even though if they ever doubted it was not hard to find someone questioning it IF they had already begun to ask questions and think for themselves.

Alas, there are still many who believe the Covid Narrative, and claim there was a pandemic, and nothing was wrong about it. And that includes about 95% of the Clergy.

So I can understand well how many Catholics still have not realized that just because someone is kind, friendly, helpful, or a priest or religious or bishop, that that does NOT guarantee that they are worthy of being trusted in all matters. But I can understand how simple Catholics simply believe everything priests tell them, even though I know that if you have some intelligence, the last 65 years should have been enough time to realize that not every priest is honest, virtuous, or trustworthy.

So confronting the suggestion of a fellow Catholic to look into the Conclave of May 2025, because they claim there were grave legal problems in it, or that it did not validly elect Cardinal Prevost as Leo XIV, is for such Catholics perhaps impossible to consider.

But  for Catholics who have begun to use the faculties of their own intellect, which God gave them, and who want to know the truth, because they love the truth, what follows here is my detailed legal explanation of why the Conclave broke so many rules that it had no legally valid outcome, and that therefore, Cardinal Prevost was never validly elected the Pope.

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like Cardinal Prevost or not, or whether he is an America, Peruvian, Italian American etc., Augustinian etc.. What follows merely regards the rules on how a man is supposed to be elected pope and what the Popes say is the result of such an election when it does not follow the rules.

Second, these legal problems have nothing to do with alleged conspiracies or plots which took place during the Conclave, the violation of secrets, hearsay or suspicions. The entire exposition which follows is based merely on facts and how they are not consonant with the laws of the Church regarding a valid election.

Now if you want a short, direct exposition, instead of a long article, simply read the Open Letter to a Cardinal, here.

And finally, if you do not admit that the truth can be known, but that only opinions can be had of it, you can still read the article which follows, though your profit from doing so won’t be as great. Think about the arguments, and if you can find any error in the exposition I offer, leave a comment below, because unlike all other Catholic sites you may read, I appreciate those who find errors or propose coherent counter arguments, though I am confident that the legal problems in the Conclave are so clear as to make any direct attack on the argumentation I present impossible.

The Press Release of April 30: the claim to have a dispensation

The first legal problem results from the Press Release authorized by the Cardinals present in General Congregation for the Conclave, on April 30, 2025, which text was published by Vatican News, HERE, an by the Vatican Website, HERE.  That release spoke of two things, (1) the claim of the Cardinals to have received a dispensation from Pope Francis, and (2) matters regarding the presence of specific Cardinals at the Conclave.

Here is that text of that Claim:

+ + +

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As readers of FromRome.Info know, one of my pass-times is poking the self-declared ex-CIA Agent, Steve O’Reilley, who pontificates at “Roma Locuta est”, blog, a name he appears to have chosen for deep psychological reasons. The Latin phrase means “Rome has spoken”, which is a frequent maxim used in doctrinal or disciplinary tracts to cite the supreme authority of the Apostolic See. But taken crudely, it means “Shut up”, when used by persons who perhaps should not have even studied theology only a little bit, because the most dangerous thing in the world is only to know a little of something.

And as my readers know, Steve always get’s it wrong. I myself cannot figure out whether he is simply stupid or intentionally malicious, though I side on the Latter, since he is only consistent in being wrong, even when he must break the laws of logic to do it, or misquote the laws of the Church to engineer it.

I hate falsehood, so even though Stevie’s blog is read by no one, I give him the respect of refuting his more egegious lies for the benefit of my readers, because what Stevie launches today, usually ends up being repeated by the “fake opposition” media, who will say anything so long as you shut up and accept whatever Globalist agenda or leader is imposed on the world, today.

His latest screed is an attack on Dr. Mazza, attempting to slur him as a sedevacantist, which he is having a hard time doing, despite his lies, and instead has settled for coining a new slur-word, “Semivacantist”:

I will not wade through all the bovine like argumentation in this article, but am only going to refute the lies Stevie launches against the Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, “Cum ex apostolatus officio”.

And I will not attempt to refute the charge that the Bull is an infallible act of the magisterium, because anyone who reads it, can clearly see it is a disciplinary document. But that it is a disciplinary document from nearly 475 years ago, does not mean it is no longer in force, as I have explained in my two essays on this bull from back in 2015, here, and here.

You can read the key part of the Bull which applies to the invalidity of the election of Cardinal Riggitano-Prevost, here, where you can also find links to the Latin and other translations in English, Italian and Spanish.

Stevie’s Citation does not exist in the 1917 Code of Canon Law

I will open by saying that if nothing else, Stevie is sneaky when he launches a lie. And in this case it is prove true, where he writes, the following (click to enlarge):

+++

As you can see he quotes a secondary source, rather than the Code of Canon Law of 1917, in which the source he cites claims that there is a prescription in canon 5 § 2, that abolishes the Papal Bull.

The problem is, that Canon 5 in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, does not have a § 2! Here is Canon 5, from the original Latin (IntraTex version):

Can. 5. Vigentes in praesens contra horum statuta canonum consuetudines sive universales sive particulares, si quidem ipsis canonibus expresse reprobentur, tanquam iuris corruptelae corrigantur, licet sint immemorabiles, neve sinantur in posterum reviviscere; aliae, quae quidem centenariae sint et immemorabiles, tolerari poterunt, si Ordinarii pro locorum ac personarum adiunctis existiment eas prudenter submoveri non posse; ceterae suppressae habeantur nisi expresse Codex aliud caveat.

Here is my English translation:

Canon 5. Existing customs, whether universal or particular, against the statutes of these Canons, if indeed they are reproved of by these Canons expressly, are to be corrected as corruption of law, even though they be immemorial, and let them not be allowed to revive hereafter; others, which indeed are centenary and immemorial, can be tolerated, if Ordinaries for the sake of those things adjoined to places and persons prudently judge that they cannot be removed; all others are to be held suppressed unless the Code expressly warns otherwise.

But since the Papal Bull of Paul IV is not a custom, but a papal law, it obviously not only has nothing to do with Canon 5, but is not suppressed (abrogated) by it.

But Stevie’s claim is just as False as his citation

So Stevie, who often quotes original sources, has chosen to quote a source which is wrong. That is what I call sneaky.

I think the canon he wants you to think he is citing, in the Code of 1917, is canon 6 § 5, which reads in the Latin:

5.deg. Quod ad poenas attinet, quarum in Codice nulla fit mentio, spirituales sint vel temporales, medicinales vel, ut vocant, vindicativae, latae vel ferendae sententiae, eae tanquam abrogatae habeantur;

Which in English, according to my translation is:

§ 5, What pertains to the punishments, of which nothing is mentioned in the Code, (whether) they be spiritual and/or temporal, medicinal and/or, as they say, vindictive, latae sententiae and/or with declared judgements, let them be held as abrogated.

But even here the argument would be fallacious, because in n. 6 of the Papal Bull no punishment is imposed, rather, the Pope merely declares the juridical validity of an otherwise valid legal act, null and void.

In Canon law, a punishment (poena) is a sanction imposed for a crime, and since being otherwise validly elected is not a crime, this abrogation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, Heresy as a crime is defined in both the 1917 and 1983 codes as an act contrary to an existing law, but clearly if there were such an existing law, Pope Paul IV would have cited it.

Moreover, it would be inauthentic to interpret the Bull as regarding the crime of heresy, because when Pope Paul IV declares invalid the election of anyone found to have favored heresy or spoken in a manner contrary to the Catholic Faith, given that the revealed and approved of truths of the Catholic Faith are quasi innumerable, and laws are finite in number, the context demonstrates he is not speaking of “crimes” in the juridical sense of the Church’s positive law (written law).

Indeed, it is clear from the entire context of the Papal Bull of Paul IV, in n. 6, that he is speaking of the sin of heresy, not the crime, for otherwise, the individual who won the election could be denounced for the crime and thus removed from office by secular authority, as some Greek or German Emperors did with antipopes, and Paul IV could simply have authorized that manner of procedure.

This is the brilliance and importance of what Pope Paul IV legislated in n. 6, as it grants to the Church, even to the present days, the legal right to defend Herself from all possibility of a heretic pope, even if his heresy has not yet been defined as such in any Council or tribunal, because since the Church must be protected from all deviations from Divine Revelation, it is absolutely necessary that no Pope be someone who rejects any part of that. And it is not hard, because in Baptism we all received this grace. Only those who have spoken against one or more revealed truths have lost it.

I know how much that runs against the CIA narrative, since it has been their objective since 1953 to introduce heresy to the Church so as to destroy Her from within. Thus, attacking the Bull of Paul IV is absolute necessity for these servants of Satan.

You quote Bellarmine? Come on …!

As regards Stevie’s claim that St. Robert Bellarmine allegedly spoke against a Papal Law, I totally doubt it, because he would have been prosecuted in a tribunal for it. But even if he has opined against it at the theoretical level, he was never a Pope, and has no authority to do away with a papal law by a mere opinion. Indeed claiming a Saint would do such a thing is totally Masonic and CIA like form of projecting your own perversion of mind on others. — As for the implicit claim that this Papal Bull cannot promulgate such a law, since such a law would cause chaos in the Church. Well, it has been 466 years and no Chaos has broken out in the Church on account of this law. Indeed, it’s clear that the law itself prevents heretical chaos breaking out, if Catholics unite to enforce it by insisting on the election of a Catholic.

Ratio iuris divinae et ecclesiasticae perpetuae

And if we look at the Papal Bull from the point of view of the Divine Right of the Church to be protected from heretics, and to have a Catholic as a Pope, since this right cannot be abolished since it is inherent in the Deposit of the Faith, what Paul IV is simply doing is legislating on the basis of this right, to clarify when precisely it most clearly exists and is in perpetual force. Thus, Catholics should presumptively doubt that the Church would ever abolish such a right, nay, it would be highly improbable that any law attempting to abolish such a right would meet the criterion for a just law, according to the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, as an ordinance of right reason for the benefit of the community.

Again, this perpetual right of Divine and Ecclesiastical ordinance is an intimate guarantor of the infallible dogma of Papal Infallibility, and is concordant with it, since it balances, as it were, the claim that the Pope cannot err, with the right of the faithful not to have a heretic as pope, since by this law, no heretic could ever become the pope in an election governed by any papal law, in anything other than appearances, even if all the Cardinals and Bishops of the world, but a handful, follow such a heretic and want such a heretic.

Catholics of the past understood these things, and were able to act upon them spontaneously and immediately, because they were not plugged into the Matrix of Masonic lies and technology, which make it appear that if we remain at our keyboards or cellphones, we absolve ourselves of all responsibility for any real action in the real world.

For the record, Catholics at Rome are urging the election of a Catholic Pope, and you can read about that here.

How Apostolic Right and Papal Right differ tremendously

As for why an election by Apostolic Right is not bound by this papal law, this is because as soon as any election is governed by papal law, it is no longer by Apostolic Right; not to mention that this law explicitly refers to Cardinals, and thus regards an election in Conclave, and could not be extended to any other institutional electorate without Papal intervention.

Moreover, since the Apostle Saint Peter has more grace before Christ Jesus, the High Priest, than any Pope, while a pope can promulgate a law regarding a papal election, as soon as any pope does this, the election is not guaranteed the entirety of the favor which Christ bestows on St. Peter, as we see in the case of Pope Vigilius, who was an adherent of Monothelitism, before his election, but was converted on the spot, because he was elected by Apostolic Right, not by papal law.

For this reason, Pope Paul IV, cognizant that popes are not the equals of the Apostle, declares a perpetual right of the Church to refuse a heretic if elected under the rules of papal right.

This is why it is precisely those who know a man is a heretic but refuse to support the election of a Catholic who are guilty most of all if he be elected by Apostolic Right, since they force not only the electorate but Christ Himself to deal with a man who is disgusting to the Divine Majesty.

We saw this in January of 2023, when Stevie slurred what Catholics were to do at Rome as a “conclave”, and all the so-called “defenders” of Pope Benedict XVI, except the electorate the readers of FromRome.Info, immediately began using the same CIA-coined slur, showing both their adhesion to the Deep State and their radical hatred of the office of Saint Peter.

To this day they are all possessed with the most horrible hatred that the juridical order of the Church was restored, on that day, while every day proving they never had any good will, since none of them singly, nor any of them in concert with another, has ever done anything to see that Pope Benedict XVI have a valid successor. Indeed, their followers are the most bitter trolls and enemies, on all social media platforms, of the upcoming election of a Catholic pope.

For this reason, I refute Stevie’s lies now, lest this fake rabble start repeating them to justify their proven habitual hypocrisy. They will, because an abyss invokes another abyss. And true Catholics never even start down such a path of perfidy.

UPDATED NOV. 25, 2024

A refutation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction français (of original version)

Padre Giorgio Maria Faré, a Carmelite Priest of the province of Italy, well known for his writings on Vatican II, the Mass and the Liturgy, recent garnered international recognition when he pronounced during Mass, at one of the conferences organized by Andrea Cionci, his personal declaration why he holds that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not and has never been the Pope.

Like many authors on this subject he rehashes, though with a very high academic sense of preparation, the main arguments published by many authors and the news covered by FromRome.Info, though he never cites FromRome.Info.

But his entire argument is a straw man, because it is based on a shell game. In logical form, Father argues thus (though the words of the illation are my own summary of his text):

Minor of the Argument: Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration was not an abdication
Major of the Argument: There cannot be a valid election of a Roman Pontiff while his predecessor still lives and has not abdicated.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pope Francis has never been the legitimate pope.

Can you see the game he is playing?

Yes, it is the inclusion of “never” in the Conclusion; a term which no where appears in his argument.

The truth is, as has always been sustained here at FromRome.Info, that the Roman Pontiff can be elected in only one way, juridically, and in two ways in practice.

Juridically, no one has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, except those to whom that right was given by Saint Peter the Apostle. And that is the whole and entire Church of Rome (present today in the Dioceses of Rome and the Suburbican Dioceses around it).

When we say “juridically” we are speaking of the font of right which makes a thing legitimate.

But in practice, there are two way of electing the Pope: legally and by inherent right.

I say legally in reference to an election performed according to the positive Papal Law: Universi Dominic gregis, which establishes the norms for a Conclave of Cardinals to elect the pope and in that conclave restricts voting exclusively to the Cardinals alone who are not excommunicated and are of eligible age.

But by inherent right, to an election undertaken according to the tradition of the Roman Church in the exercise of Her right to elect Her owns Bishop, a right given by Saint Peter, when there was no Conclave or Cardinals.

To understand this one must recall that on April 13, 1059 A. D., Pope Nicholas II created a new modality for the election of the Roman Pontiff, restricting the right to vote from all the Clergy and Laity of the Roman Church to the prerogative only of the Cardinals. He did this in the Bull, “In Nomine Domini“, the English translation of which I published 4 years ago. From that moment until this day, the inherent right and the legal or canonical right have been distinct.

Now for anyone who knows nothing about the jurisprudence, as nearly all who have entered this controversy are, it is not surprising that they are entirely ignorant that in jurisprudence there is universally recognized a hierarchy of right, and — here I summarize and simplify — the lowest of which is the right which arises through customary abuse; the next, by positive law promulgated by legitimate authority; the highest is by some unchanging source of right which is beyond the powers of all who are presently living: such as constitutional, natural or divine right.

In the case of the Church, that highest font of right is Divine Right, and Apostolic Right is intimately associated with that, since Christ commissioned the Apostles personally and Saint Peter immediately.

And thus in the Roman Church, the Apostolic Tradition of the Clergy and Laity together electing their own bishop, is of the highest order of right. No papal law, thus, can ever entrust the vote to anyone outside of this Church, or deny entirely that at least one member of the Roman Church be an elector.

Now in the interpretation of law, every law remains in force until one of three things happens: either it is abolished by a legitimate authority (derogation), or it is replaced wholly by another law promulgated by a legitimate authority (obrogation), or it regards circumstances which no longer can be observed.

In the third case, we have the Papal Law on Papal Elections, Universi Domini Gregis, of Pope John Paul II, because the law clearly presumes that the Cardinals want to and will enter into Conclave to elect a pope within 20 days of the death of the previous pope. And there is no term whatsoever, in that law, which allows them to postpone the election, except in cases of force majeure, that is externally — against their own will — applied pressure (e. g. as during a military occupation of the Vatican, or their imprisonment to the last man by a hostile power).

Thus, when interpreting the scope of that Papal Law it is obvious to anyone who understands the principles of right, that it cannot bind in the case where no Cardinal wants to elect a pope or there are no Cardinals who are of the age capable or there are not Cardinals alive.

For in all such cases, if you were mad enough to insist that the law still was in force, you would arrive at the conclusion that the Apostolic Succession could end in the Roman See with the express consent and intention of Pope John Paul II, the author of that law!!!

And that would not only be absurd but quite dishonest, not to mention calumnious.

Thus, there can be no other reasonable sentence than that in such cases the Papal Law does not bind in such cases. And thus, it is, that in its introduction it says, in paragraph 9, that the Conclave — about which the law regards — is not necessary for a valid election of the Roman Pontiff. A thing which not need to be said IF it was the intention of the lawgiver, Pope John Paul II, that his law be observed in extraordinary circumstances beyond those envisioned by the law itself.

Which means that the lawgiver himself did not intend the prescriptions of his law to then apply (since the condition of Cardinals wanting to elect the pope is essential and substantial presumption of the entire intent of the law, not merely a minor detail); and thus that the law’s right interpretation is, in such circumstances outside of its framer’s intent and presumption, to have recourse to the higher juridical font of right upon which basis John Paul II invoked the law; and that higher juridical font of right is the Apostolic Right of the Roman Church to elect Her own Bishop in general assembly. Moreover since this is part of Apostolic Tradition, not even a pope can be held to presume to have the intention to alienate this right in extraordinary legal circumstances by adherence to a specific law which does not make provision regarding such circumstances!

Now, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope by Apostolic Right in a public assembly on January 30, 2023, is a thing known to all in this controversy in Italy, since the enemies of Christ have ridiculed the event for neigh 18 months. So certainly Father Faré also knows of it, since he expressly denies recognizing any other means of papal election but that which takes place in a Conclave, a thing he need not say otherwise.

And that Assembly acted in a perfectly legitimate and juridically valid manner as can be discerned from the evidence of its four causes: where it was held, why it was held, who was allowed to vote and the kind of candidate to be elected, as is explained at great length in the article, The Chronology of the Triumph of the Lamb, published on Feb. 11, 2023, which totally refutes the position of Andrea Cionci, Don Minutella, and all others, who hold that Pope Benedict XVI, presently, has no validly elected successor in the Apostolic See. A document which they also dare not to quote, because it has convinced so many of their former admirers that they are wrong in claiming there is no Pope, at present.

Thus, the argument of Father Faré is a straw man, which presumes that “never” precisely because his position on the interpretation of law is based on total ignorance or stubborn madness. He will not accept any other manner of papal election even though he alludes to knowing of it, in his text above. Nor does he accept the historical fact that the Faithful of Rome, on January 30, 2023, did their duty and exercised their God given right to elect Pope Benedict XVI’s successor in the face of the full and entire defection of the College of Cardinals to do their legal gravely binding duty.

And if Father Faré, who is not a member of the Roman Church, and who has no authority to judge the validity of papal elections, has read FromRome.info, which I gather he has, he then knows about the Apostolic Right of the Roman Church, because since 2019 I have reviewed this legal interpretation in several articles (such as here, here here and here), all published before the election of Pope Francis by Apostolic Right on January 30, 2023.

Let us pray for Father Giorgio that he withdraws from his obstinate rejection of Apostolic Right and his sui generis interpretation of law. For his position is that of legal positivism, a thing condemned by Pope Benedict XVI himself here. And his madness leads in fact to the end of the papacy forever. Because the Papal Law gives no right to elect the Pope months or years after the death of a legitimate pope.

He is attempting to reconcile in his own mind the personal heresy of a man with his claim to the pontifical office. He has, too lately, proposed the solution in his own mind, that it is possible that he be a heretic because he was never the Pope: a position held first by Bishop Henry Rene Gracida in 2013 and many others including myself before the death of Pope Benedict XVI. But a position which cannot be sustained anymore. He also falsely assumes that it is the teaching of the Church that the person of the Roman Pontiff cannot be a manifest, formal or pertinacious heretic. Whereas the true doctrine is that he cannot be a public heretic. (He seems not to understand the difference among the 5 species of heresy). But how can this be?

Father is a graduate of the Pontifical Gregorian University, which is notorious for imparting to its students a total lack of knowledge of Latin and Canon Law. Don Minutella is also a graduate of this university. What can I say? but that both of them are victims of Jesuit intellectual formation: for it is now far better and more prudent to simply join in the Sutri Initiative than declare the Pope not a pope or a heretic by your own authority, because in the latter case you end up defrocked and or excommunicated, but in the former case you might just help heal the Church. And should we not prefer healing the Church to committing professional suicide?

It is the Sutri Initiative which is the best medicine for the whole Church, for Pope Francis, for the Bishops, for all priests and laymen and women. If the clergy has not the courage to sit down and frankly ask the real hard questions and demand answers, then they are morally failing their Lord and God in a most fundamental aspect of what it means ‘to be part of the Church’ and ‘to be the Church of the living, incarnate God.’

Indeed, until the Sutri Initiative obtains what it requests (viz. a clarification of the status of the claim of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be the pope), more and more clergy, religious and laity are likely to fall into the error which has entrapped Father Faré, simply because the invalidity of the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI is far more obvious and clear and well understood than is the way back to Catholic unity through an election by Apostolic Right. And I say “more … understood” in regard to the number of expositors only, since of all the conversationalists in this debate, I alone have spoken of the latter and been one of the antagonists in its execution; and not in regard to the juridical principles which any legal expert (who is not a juridical positivist) can confirm, if you just ask.

I encourage everyone to share this article with Father Faré so that he can study the matter with the same academic precision he employed to arrive at the confession that the Declaration did not suffice for an abdication.

I also ask you to join me in prayer that the madness of both sides — those who say Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated but refuse the election by Apostolic Right of Bergoglio, and those who say Benedict XVI did validly abdicate — comes to an end through the grace of the Holy Ghost, Who is the Source of true Unity and Reconciliation, and that they accept this grace for the honor and glory of God, the love of Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls: to meet in a Provincial Council at Rome and in the mutual acceptance of the whole truth, reprehend Pope Francis for his errors, declare his antipapacy invalid and all it contains, and put the Church back on the right track, which is canonical regularity and doctrinal fidelity to Jesus Christ. And if they refuse this grace, let us pray, that at least the next true Pope commands them to do this!