Category Archives: Ecclesiology

Canon Law, Church History, Editorials, Pope Hildebrand

Our Lady of La Salette did in fact prophesy the election of the Pope restorer

2 Comments

A Meditation on the words of Our Lady at La Salette

Nearly six months ago, John Henry Westen, of Life Site News raised attention once again to the words of the Immaculate Corredemptrix, during Her visit to the two children on the mountain top at La Salette, France, on the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, September 19, 1846 A. D., which in that year was transferred.

FromRome.Info reported on John Henry Westen’s interview of the former French intelligence officer, Xavier Ayral, back on November 22, 2025, the day before the Apostolic Election of Hildebrand, with an incisive editorial by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, our founder, entitled, “The Prophecy of Two Popes”. Click the image here, to read it.

Two Worm-Ridden Popes

The words of the ever-Virgin Mother of God, on that momentous day of revelations, which are most crucial, are these: “deux papes vermoulus”, that is, “two worm-ridden popes”.

In the editorial by Br. Bugnolo last year, he focused his attention on the “two” popes.

Here, however, we present a powerful meditation on the other part of the phrase “worm-ridden”.

Worm-Ridden Cheese: What it is and Why it is dangerous

In modern times, we scarcely have occasion to encounter anything which is worm-ridden, that is full of worms. Modern foods, especially fruit and cheeses are nearly always grown or prepared under conditions which make the infestation of larva from flying insects impossible.

To get an idea of worm-ridden cheese, then, one has to resort to images of cheeses which are especially prepared in traditional methods, where the infestation of worms is used to cure the cheese and produce the final tasty product: such as in the traditional Sardinian cheese – now outlawed for commercial distribution – called, Casu Marzu. Here is just one video which shows what this chese looks like.

However, for normal cheese, the infestation of worms is not something desired. Rather, it is considered the worst possible result, destroying all the work and expectations of the cheese maker and the cheese eater, since to eat worm ridden cheese is dangerous to your health and potentially can cause severe and long lasting digestive problems, such as infestation of your gut with parasites and worms.

A worm-ridden cheese, therefore, was something our forefathers warned their children against, and diligent mothers, in the market place, would examine a cheese carefully before purchasing it. They taught these skills to their children who accompanied them and this wisdom was passed down through the generations, until recently.

The Parable given by Our Heavenly Mother

The Mother of Jesus Christ was and is His first perfect disciple. Therefore, it should not surprise us that when She truly and in person descends from Heaven to visit Her adopted children on earth, that She will speak in parables, just as Her divine Son did when He walked this Earth in the Flesh.

Thus, we can understand this phrase, “worm-ridden”, in its proper context, of a mother instructing her children about a future danger to be encountered in the public forum, counseling them to be on their guard about it.

But if we are to be diligent and intelligent children of Our Lady, then, it behooves us to think about what Our Lady has said, and ask why the Holy Mother of God would use such a parable about Roman Pontiffs.

A Queen is a monarch, and She thinks about the Law of Her Son

While there are many attempts by scholars in the last 180 years to interpret these words, if we remember that Our Lady of La Salette appeared to two children, as a Queen wearing a Crown, we can recognize the strong HINT the Mother of Christians is giving us as to the proper interpretation of this phrase, “two worm-ridden popes”.

In the Catholic Church, in the West, “pope” is the default common term for the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Saint Peter.

And the Pope is certainly a public figure in the Church.

But to make the analogy or metaphor of cheese or fruit fit this context, we must first of all accept that the phrase must refer to some moment in our lives in which we are going to encounter a pope, in a public way, to whom we must apply the wise warning of our Heavenly Mother, to discern what kind of a pope this is.

And since mothers give this advice in the context of purchasing cheese, or examining it before accepting it to be eaten, then the equivalent parallel regarding popes, in our own lives, is obviously and logically the moment of a papal election, when there is announced to the world that the Catholic Church has a new Pope, and a man is proposed to us as the Vicar of Christ.

Thus, what Our Lady is warning about is first and foremost a legal defect, and not a moral defect. She is warning us about something which appears to be valid and worthy of acceptance, but is not. She is warning us of the cheese-hawker who in the past offered us good cheese, but in the future will offer us bad cheese, which is not only unedible, but dangerous, rotten, and worthy only of being rejected by us into the trash bin of history.

And all this has to do with whether a pope is a true pope, that is a canonically valid pope. That, is whether he was legitimately elected by the Cardinals or not. Here the College of Cardinals is the cheese-hawker in the implicit parable given us by Our Lady.

So what our Lady is warning us about is the bad cheese, or illegitimate claimant to the papacy. 

But what She is implicitly warning us to do, is to examine the legal claim of two future popes, to see if they are validly elected.

And this is just what a Queen would advise to Her children, years before the election of such men, especially since, this Queen is the Mother and disciple of the King, the supreme sovereign, of Whom the Pope is the vicar.

The implications of our Lady’s Warning contain the Prophecy of Hildebrand

And thus it is, if we have learned our lesson well, that we should READ and strive to understand well, the Papal LAWS on papal elections, with particular attention to when these laws say an election is valid or invalid.

Unwittingly, FromRome.Info for the last 10 years has been doing exactly what Our Lady of La Salette counseled Her children: examining the legitimacy of the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025.

You can read more about this in the following four articles:

  1. A Chronology of reports about how Team Bergoglio fixed the Conclave of 2013
  2. The List of all articles about the invalid renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013, which caused the Conclave of 2013 to be entirely invalid in its outcome
  3. The Canonical Analysis of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2025 according to the law of John Paul II
  4. The reason why the Conclave of 2025 was invalid according to the law of Pope Paul IV

The Prophecy of Hildebrand

Now since Our Heavenly Mother told us in 1846, that there were going to be at some time in the future, two worm-ridden popes, that is, two illegally elected invalid popes, there is something more She is telling us.

That after the two fake popes, there will be a true pope.

This follows, because She said, “two”. She did not say “many” or “several”.

This is common sense.

Thus, after the two worm-ridden popes, there will come a validly elected, legitimate and truly Catholic pope.

But since Popes, by all the laws about Conclaves in the last 967 years are elected by Cardinals, and Cardinals can only be validly, legally and legitimately appointed by true, valid and legitimate popes, it follows immediately that after two worm ridden popes it would be IMPOSSIBLE that Cardinals elect a true pope, since most or all of them would be illegitimately appointed or in schism from Christ for having supported or created or defended fake popes.

So what our Lady is saying, by saying “two” “worm-ridden” popes, is actually something encouraging, for those who want a true, Catholic and validly elected pope.

Because She is revealing and reminding us that there must be another way for the Catholic pope, after these two fake popes, to be elected.

And the only way to do that is specified in the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, which says what the Catholics of Rome have the right to do, when all the Cardinals give the Church a fake, illegal popes, bad cheese, instead of a validly elected Catholic pope, the good cheese of our Church.

And the Catholics of Rome did just that, on November 23, 2025, when they elected Hildebrand. 

And since that time our Holy Father, the true Roman Pontiff, has been giving us encouragement and instruction: you can read all about it at SedesApostolica.Info.

Fatima connection to Antipopes

One of the most important criterion to discern the true will of God has to do with the historical context or circumstances which surround the great graces God gives us. This can be seen in numerous cases of persons receiving life long graces similar to the graces given to their patron saints, whether they obtained these patrons by the name given to them in Baptism, or from the Saint patrons of the day on which they were born, were married, ordained, professed vows as a religious, etc..

Fatima has such connections, too, which is an important key to understanding its context.

The first has been reported here at FromRome, namely, that the Cardinal from whom the Freemasons in the Church, and the St. Gallen Mafia in particular, trace their episcopal lineages, was once the Bishop who held jurisdiction over the area of Fatima Portugal: Cardinal Nuno da Cunha de Athaíde,

The second is the historical fact that the Carmelite Saint, Nuno Álvares Pereira, who was in communion with the Italian Pope Urban VI, the true Pope, that of Rome, during the Great Western Schism, stopped to pray to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, at Cova da Ira, in 1385, before engaging the overwhelming forces of Castile and Aragon, who supported the French Clement VII, the Antipope of Avignon! And as a result, Saint Nuno defeated the forces of the antipope decisively!

And if we examine the personal details of the true Pope and the antipope of 1385, we find other stunning parallels to our own day. — The Italian pope, Urban VI was the last Pope elected who was NOT a Cardinal. And Hildebrand was also, never a Cardinal. However, the French antipope, Robert de Geneva, was born in a city on the shores  of a great lake, Geneva and bore the same first name as Prevost, who was born in Chicago on the shores of Lake Michigan. Also, Robert of Geneva served in the English speaking clergy of the Kingdom of England, and perpetrated a massacre while leading troops in Italy; while Prevost perpetrated a massacre by promoting the DeathVaxx, and is a native speaker of the English language.

Today, too, we have a true Pope, Hildebrand, who is an Italian, and a antipope, Prevost who is of French descent.  The parallels could not be more obvious, for those who still have eyes to see.

The message, therefore, to be had from these two facts, confirms that Our Lady at Fatima came to save the Church from two Freemasonic antipopes. And that the victory will be had by those who heed Her message, pray to Her for help, and fight against these antipopes, in communion with the true pope!.

Faith, common sense, logic, the historical context, the legal requirements, the facts of history, and loyalty to Jesus Christ and Our Lady make it all clear, for those who want the truth, and step into the light to embrace the truth.

+ + +

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Article about the Two Worm Ridden Popes, published in summary format by Complicit Clergy in December of 2025. Click here to read that.

Canon Law, Debates, Ecclesiology

Westen interviews Dr. Mazza over Pope Benedict XVI’s theological motivations

Leave a comment

At this late date, 13 years after the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, there is not much that can be said anew, but what is news worthy is that Westen is moving more and more to sustain the thesis that Prevost is an antipope, in the canonical sense. And that is significant, since holds such powerful influence on the news-gates in the English speaking world: for good or ill.

As for Dr. Mazza’s pronunciation of Latin and French, it’s horribly wrong. 

For everything on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, see our Index for the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI.

The fundamental error in Dr. Mazza’s presentation is that he denies that a Roman Pontiff can renounce the ministerium and retain the munus, which is patently false. However, what is true, is that if a Pope do such a thing, he remains the pope and MUST designate a vicar to exercise the ministerium, who, however, will have NO sui generis authority, but only vicarious, and thus lack completely the grace, office, munus and mandate of the Petrine Office.

Canon Law, Church History

1058 the Year Saint Hildebrand Saved the Catholic Church forever

Leave a comment

For the 941st anniversary of the Glorification of Saint Hildebrand

REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON NOV. 12, 2025 A.D.

A Recounting of History, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ITALIAN — FRENCH — ESPANOL

When we speak of history, we often begin our accounts by retelling the stories of a year in which memorable, unique and world-changing events took place.

In the Catholic Church, we often do the same thing, especially since our Holy Religion is based on events of history, which can be precisely associated with specific places and times.

Such dates are March 25, 2 B. C., Nazareth, in the Holy House of Our Lady, on the final day of the Feast of Passover, when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Her God’s plan for salvation, and She said, “Let it be done unto me according to thy word!”.

Or 33 A. D.., on April 3, at 3. P. M., on Mount Golgotha, when Our Lord and Savior atoned for all sin, by offering His life to God the Father on the Wood of the Cross.

Or May 20, 325, in the Imperial Palace at Nicea, Asia Minor (now Turkey), where the Emperor Constantine convoked and convened through his representative, Bishop Hosius of Cartagena in Iberia (now Spain), the First Ecumenical Council with consent of Pope Sylvester I of Rome.

+ + +

But one date or year, which Catholics have probably never heard of, which is just as important for the existence of the Catholic Church, is the year of Our Lord 1058.

Just as important, I say, from the point of view of jurisprudence, because just as the identity of an association of persons is from the point of view of right an identity of an institution according to its juridical foundation and continuation, so the identity of the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ Jesus is founded upon not only the Foundational events of Her History, but those moments in Her history, which were decisive for preserving Her juridical continuity in time.

And the Year of Our Lord, One Thousand and Fifty-Eight, was one such Year!

To understand this Year, I would suggest a refresher, with this new video about the Sutri of Synod in 1046, which launches the Gregorian Reform, which discusses especially the pontificate of Pope Saint Leo IX, who launched St. Hildebrand’s mission, after his faulty support of Pope Gregory VI.

The Crisis of 1058

The importance of 1058 begins with the failing health of Pope Stephen IX, who died on March 29, 1058, at Florence, in the embrace of his fellow Benedictine Monk, Saint Hugh of Cluny. — Forewarned of the disaster looming to break out at Rome, after his death, with the desires of the corrupt Roman Nobility to return to the immorality of previous decades, he imposed by oath upon the Clergy and Nobility of the Eternal City, that they would not convene an Apostolic Assembly to elect his successor, until his Archdeacon Saint Hildebrand returned from the Imperial Court at Goslar, in Thuringia, Germany, to preside over it. So relates Bonzio of Sutri in his history of the epoch.

But as soon as the Nobles of the City learned of the death of Pope Stephen IX, shortly after his arrival at Florence, to meet with Saint Hugo, they rushed on the night of April 4th, into the city with armed troops and forced the election of John Minucius, Bishop of Tusculum (now Velletri), as Pope Benedict X on April 5, 1058, just a week after, as soon as news arrived by horseback.

Stephen IX, in life, was called Frederick, and his brother was Godfrey the Bearded, the Duke of Lorraine (now Belgium-NW France) who was also Margrave of Tuscany. And so at his death, his brother immediately dispatched 500 men-at-arms to secure the City of Rome. They arrived too late to intervene.

John Minucius, was made a Cardinal by Pope Stephen IX in 1050 A. D.. And he was no outlier, since Frederick of Lorraine, the future Pope Stephen IX had nominated him as pope in the Papal Election of 1057, which instead chose the Frankish Cleric instead. It is said he was forced to accept his election as Pope.

Cardinal Peter Damian immediately denounced the illegal election and anathematized the perpetrators. For his personal safety he had to flee the city. Cardinals Humbert and Cardinal Peter of Tusculum fled to Benevento and declared the election irregular.

When Saint Hildebrand returned from Germany he found the City of Rome in the hands of the supporters of Benedict X, and declared the election invalid by reason of the violation of the precept regarding the requirement imposed by Pope Stephen, that Saint Hildebrand,the future Pope Gregory VII, was to be the sine qua non elector whose presence would make the election lawfully convened.

The Solution of 1058

So in May of 1058, Saint Hildebrand Archdeacon and Saint Peter Damian, Cardinal, along with Cardinal Umberto of Selva Candida, convened an Apostolic Assembly at Siena, Italy (about 3 hours by car north of Rome), and elected Gerard of Burgundy, the Bishop of Florence.

Gerard took the name, Nicholas II.

Gerard expected to have the support of Godfrey the Bearded, who was Margrave of Tuscany, and Wilbert of Ravenna (aka Guibert of Parma), the Imperial Chancellor of Italy. So he dispatched Saint Hildebrand as his Legate to them, and to the Imperial Court at Goslar in Germany, to secure his claim to the papacy.

Saint Hildebrand, having achieved this, returned with both Noblemen to Siena, where they proclaimed  Gerard, Pope Nicholas II on December 6, 1058, some six months later.

He then marched on Rome with the armed forces of the Margrave of Tuscany, and stopping at Sutri, convened the Second Provincial Council of Sutri and declared Benedict X deposed as an antipope and usurper.

On January 24, 1059, Nicholas II was enthroned at Rome, as Roman Pontiff, and it is from that date his Pontificate is normally reckoned.

The Legality of the Election of Nicholas II

The supporters of the antipope Benedict X would contest the legality of the election of Nicholas II for the next 130 years in the chronicles of local monasteries.

This contestation was based on the obvious facts that,

  1. The election of Nicholas II was outside of the City of Rome in violation of all precedent
  2. The election of Nicholas II occurred in second place to the election of Benedict X
  3. The election of Nicholas II was by a minority of Cardinals
  4. The election of Nicholas II was not consented to by the whole clergy and people at the time of his elections at Siena in May and December of 1058.

However, the legal claim of Pope Nicholas II to be the true Roman Pontiff was based on an even stronger argument, namely:

  1. That the election of Benedict X was procured by force of arms
  2. That the election of Benedict X was conducted in violation regarding the number of electors, namely, by denying Saint Hildebrand, the Archdeacon, from having the opportunity to be present.

The Legal Principles confirmed by the Infallible Papal Magisterium

For the next 4 centuries and, indeed, until the present day, the Catholic Church and all true Popes have consented to the election of Nicholas II as legitimate, by reason of two juridical principles recognized in Canon Law today:

  1. Since coercion destroys liberty, a coerced vote or election is illegitimate and thus irritus, to be reckoned as never happened (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 125 §1)
  2. Since violation of obligatory procedures produces an illegitimate election, all such voting under such violations lead to an election which is irritus, to be considered as never happened (cf. CIC Canons 42 and 124 §1).

We see these principles affirmed in the present Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis (UDG), in n. 76, where it reads in the Vatican’s English translation:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

Magisterial Teaching of Pope Nicholas II

The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Nicholas II on this topic was enshrined in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, in April of 1059, where it reads:

§ 3. Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, let the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where they might judge it to be more fitting. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, let the elect obtain as Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration.

This teaching is not merely disciplinary but also doctrinal since the Church has ever considered the principal valid as applied to the election of Nicholas II in the year before he was the pope.

Moreover, when the historical circumstances of the election of Nicholas II are understood, in comparison with this his Bull, we see an amazing triple level of fail-safe detailed: that an election whose validity be corrupted by whatsoever means, grants

  1. the right of the original electorate of the whole Roman Church,
  2. to hold the election anywhere and
  3. with any few members representing that Church.

Thus, though this Bull is from a point of view of law no longer in force, its teaching regarding this juridical safe-guard remains in force, in cases in which the current Papal Law makes no provision.

How Saint Hildebrand defended the Church from all future Antipopes

And this is how Saint Hildebrand saved the Catholic Church’s juridical identity as the Church of Christ, forever, for by his decision to oppose Benedict X’s unlawful claim to the papacy, he brought to light the principle of the Natural Law to guide all future generations, which can be summed up in several rules:

  1. An election which violates precepts regarding procedure, renders the election irritus, that is of no legal value, (Cf. CIC 1983, Canon 124 §1)
  2. An election in which coercion occurs, in such wise as to determine the vote to be other than it would be, is illegitimate (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 125 §1 and 170)
  3. An election without the proper number of electors is invalid (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 119 §1, 161 §3 and 172 §1)
  4. All who have the right to vote, when voting in an illegitimate election for the Pope, suffer the forfeiture of their right by the act of entering into Schism from Christ by adhering to a man as pope who is NOT the pope. (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 1364 and 1331 §1)

And these are the very principles which are embodied in the Save Rome Project last year in the year of Our Lord, 2025, since the Cardinals selected Prevost as Leo XIV with 133 of them voting, even though the Papal Law forbids (UDG n. 33) more than 120 electors and forbids (UDG n. 4) the use of dispensations to allow more than 120.

Pope Saint Gregory VII, died in exile at Salerno, Italy, then the Norman Principality of Salerno, on May 25, 1085, saying, “I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile” (from Rome).  He had been Pope for just over 12 years and single-handedly changed the course of world history, causing the German Emperor to kneel in the snow at Canosa, outside of the Castle of Countess Matilda of Tuscany, asking to be absolved from excommunication, and having first called for a Holy War to liberate Jerusalem. He imposed celibacy as a canonical requirement upon all clergy in the Latin Church and vigorously rooted out simony and lay interference in the Church.

Saint Hildebrand, pray for us!

And pray for the Holy Father, that the Lord concede to him a double portion of your spirit!

2013 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History, Debates

Westen interviews Coffin about the invalid Conclaves of 2013 and 2025

2 Comments

Nearly everything in this 47 minute discussion has been reported years ago here at FromRome.Info. But this presentation takes a different take: it presents facts as certain but laws as doubtful and conclusions as uncertain, which is a very different approach from FromRome.Info.

In fact, it is a grave philosophical error and gaslighting, to present facts and yet insinuate doubt in the human intellect’s capacity to reason from facts to true conclusions. Saint Thomas Aquinas would have never written his Summa Theologica if he had the same uncertainty of mind.

See if you can spot how this presentation moves between what is socially acceptable and what is true. Comment below, if you spot errors, problems, or inconsistencies, since, you, the readers of FromRome.Info are probably better informed than these two men.

But what is really cheeky, is that both these men said that they were persecuted for speaking the truth about these things, when in truth, they were both some of the principle censors of this truth and hid the truth and discussion for nearly 10 years.

FromRome.Info was and is the leading source of news coverage of the invalid Conclave of 2013 and the Conclave of 2025, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. Use our search function to find what can be found no where else.

Debates, Ecclesiology, News

Bishop Sanborn lectures Kokx, as he trembles in dismay

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: Stephen Kokx, former journalist at LifeSite News, and one of the leading members of the Neo-Sedevacantists, who preaches, “Recognize and withdraw”, interviewed Bishop Donald Sanborn, who identifies as a Sedevacanist (Thuc lineage), on whether Catholics can refuse obedience to man they recognize as a legitimately elected Roman Pontiff, and receives a devastating catechetical instruction in response. — As readers know, I have strongly criticized the neo-Sedevacantists and Kokx in particular, HERE.

Bravo to Bishop Sanborn!

During this interview, Kokx ignores what Bishop Sanborn says and keeps attempting to elicit from the Bishop the affirmation that Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV are valid popes. Bishop Sanborn, for his credit, is not fooled by Kokx’s dishonest yet very subtle tactic.

Stephen Kokx did his interview of Bishop Sanborn, last night, about two weeks after my video, “Traditionalism vs. Sedevacantism, which is the Catholic Response?“, which I believe irked Kokx enough as to induce him to undertaken this video.

As regards what Bishop Sanborn said, distinguishing between the personal sin of heresy and teaching heresy, for a Roman Pontiff, the distinction is badly made, because he says the pope could publish heresy in a book without imposing it — and that, theologians hold is theoretically possible — but that the Cardinals would have to address that, he says — though the Cardinals in Church law have no such duty.  Rather, as we see in the case of Pope John XXI in regard to his denial of the immediate beatification of the saints, after death, if a pope manifest any formal heresy, he must be publicly rebuked. And if he persists, which Pope John XXI did not, then at a Provincial Council here at Rome, he needs to be rebuked and if he persists be declared self deposed. I discuss this in the Council of Sutri initiative.

Again, at 38 minute mark, Bishop Sanborn says that Sedevacantism is what preserves (the claim of) the indefectibility of the Church. This is simply absurd. It is the canonical removal of a heretic or the refusal of an invalid election which preserves the Church, because the solution is not in what I opine, but in what the Church judges and rules regarding who is the Pope or not the Pope. — I think the Bishop means “preserve the sacramental continuity of the Church”, because simply stated it certainly does not preserve the juridical continuity of the Church.

Bishop Sanborn also says that Universal Pacific Acceptance (UPA) would sanitize a controversy against a valid election — which is the correct doctrine — but he does not directly refute the error of saying that UPA applies to elections which are objectively discrepant with the rule of law, as in the papal election of Benedict X in 1058, and of Pope Francis in 2013, and of Leo XIV in 2025.

At the 48 minute mark, Kokx makes a comparison to a dead body and separated soul, at which Bishop Sanborn bites his lip at the level of ignorance implied in such a question moved by Kokx. And in reply Sanborn does admit that the juridical character of the Church is part of the Church, but he classifies it as regarding the material aspect of the Church — incorrectly — rather than as a formal characteristic of the true Church. Indeed, the Church has always taught that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is indefectible, that is preserves juridical continuity from Christ down to the most recent validly elected Pope.

Most praiseworthy are the statements at the 56 minute mark, where Bishop Sanborn says that the best thing Leo XIV can do is resign. And at minute mark 1 hour 9 minutes, Sanborn endorses the Great Catholic Reset, an idea I launched in 2021, and which has also been endorsed by Archbishop Viganò.

For my critiques of Sedevacantism, see HERE.

At the 1 hour 14 minute mark, and thereafter, Bishop Sanborn says, that the worse thing for the Sedevacantist movement was Pope Benedict XVI, and the best was Pope Francis and will be Pope Leo.  I can scarcely imagine thinking such an outrageous statement than this. — At 1 hour and 20 minutes, Sanborn claims the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and UPA made it valid. I won’t comment on such a modernist view of juridical acts, but you can read the hundreds of pages of my investigation here. — At 1 hour and 22, Bishop Sanborn falsely claims that Pope Pius XI condemned the second redaction of the Message of La Salette, when in fact it was the Holy Office, not the Pope, which said that it was not worthy of credence, even though the Holy Office has no infallible charism to discern prophecy, as the Church teaches that that charism pertains to the local ordinary and to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, the Bishop of Lecce, Italy, where Melanie lived and died, approved the Second Version some 30 years before. — At 1 hour and 23 minutes, Sanborn erroneously says Pope Saint Gregory VII established the college of Cardinals and restricted the election of the Pope to them: this is false, and in saying this Bishop Sanborn appears, at the time of this interview, to have had no knowledge of In Nomine Domini, of Pope Nicholas II, published on April 13, of 1059 at the Roman Synod at the Lateran.

Canon Law, Church History

1058: El año San Hildebrando salvó la Iglesia Católica para siempre

1 Comment

Un ensayo del fraile Alexis Bugnolo

ENGLISH — ITALIANO — FRANCAIS

Cuando hablamos de historia, a menudo comenzamos nuestros relatos volviendo a contar las historias de un año en el que tuvieron lugar acontecimientos memorables, únicos y que cambiaron el mundo.

En la Iglesia Católica, a menudo hacemos lo mismo, especialmente porque nuestra Santa Religión se basa en acontecimientos de la historia, que pueden asociarse con precisión a lugares y tiempos específicos.

Tales fechas son:

  • El 25 de marzo del 2 a. C., en Nazaret, en la Santa Casa de Nuestra Señora, el día final de la Fiesta de la Pascua, cuando el Arcángel Gabriel le anunció el plan de salvación de Dios, y Ella dijo: “Hágase en mí según tu palabra”.
  • El 3 de abril del 33 d. C., a las 3 P. M., en el Monte Gólgota, cuando Nuestro Señor y Salvador expió todo pecado, ofreciendo Su vida a Dios Padre en el Madero de la Cruz.
  • El 20 de mayo del 325, en el Palacio Imperial de Nicea, Asia Menor (actual Turquía), donde el emperador Constantino convocó y reunió, a través de su representante, el Obispo Osio de Cartagena en Iberia (actual España), el Primer Concilio Ecuménico con el consentimiento del Papa Silvestre I de Roma.

Pero hay una fecha o año, del que los católicos probablemente nunca han oído hablar, que es igual de importante para la existencia de la Iglesia Católica: el año de Nuestro Señor 1058.

Digo que es igual de importante desde el punto de vista de la jurisprudencia, porque así como la identidad de una asociación de personas es, desde el punto de vista del derecho, la identidad de una institución según su fundamento y continuación jurídica, así también la identidad de la Iglesia Católica como la verdadera Iglesia de Cristo Jesús se fundamenta no solo en los eventos fundacionales de Su Historia, sino en aquellos momentos de Su historia que fueron decisivos para preservar Su continuidad jurídica en el tiempo.

¡Y el año de Nuestro Señor, Mil Cincuenta y Ocho, fue uno de esos años!

Para entender ese Año, sugeriría un repaso con este nuevo video sobre el Sínodo de Sutri en 1046, que lanza la Reforma Gregoriana, y que trata especialmente el pontificado del Papa San León IX, quien lanzó la misión de San Hildebrando tras el apoyo defectuoso de este al Papa Gregorio VI.

La Crisis de 1058

La importancia del año 1058 comienza con el deterioro de la salud del Papa Esteban IX, quien murió el 29 de marzo de 1058 en Florencia, en un abrazo con su compañero monje benedictino, San Hugo de Cluny. — Advertido del desastre que se cernía sobre Roma tras su muerte, debido a los deseos de la corrupta Nobleza Romana de regresar a la inmoralidad de décadas anteriores, impuso bajo juramento al Clero y a la Nobleza de la Ciudad Eterna que no convocarían una Asamblea Apostólica para elegir a su sucesor hasta que su Arcediano, San Hildebrando, regresara de la Corte Imperial en Goslar, Turingia, Alemania, para presidirla. Así lo relata Bonizo de Sutri en su historia de la época.

Pero tan pronto como los Nobles de la Ciudad se enteraron de la muerte del Papa Esteban IX, poco después de su llegada a Florencia para reunirse con San Hugo, irrumpieron en la ciudad la noche del 4 de abril con tropas armadas y forzaron la elección de Juan Minucius, Obispo de Velletri (Túsculo), como Papa Benedicto X el 5 de abril de 1058, apenas una semana después, tan pronto como llegó la noticia a caballo.

Esteban IX, en vida, se llamaba Federico, y su hermano era Godofredo el Barbudo, el Duque de Lorena (actualmente Bélgica y el noroeste de Francia) y Margrave de Toscana. Por ello, a su muerte, su hermano envió de inmediato 500 hombres de armas para asegurar la Ciudad de Roma. Llegaron demasiado tarde para intervenir.

Juan Minucius había sido nombrado Cardenal por el Papa Esteban IX en el 1050 d. C. Y no era un extraño, ya que Federico de Lorena, el futuro Papa Esteban IX, lo había nominado como papa en la Elección Papal de 1057, que en su lugar eligió al Clérigo Franco. Se dice que fue forzado a aceptar su elección como Papa.

El Cardenal Pedro Damián denunció inmediatamente la elección ilegal y anatematizó a los perpetradores. Por su seguridad personal tuvo que huir de la ciudad. Los Cardenales Humberto y el Cardenal Pedro de Túsculo huyeron a Benevento y declararon la elección irregular.

Cuando San Hildebrando regresó de Alemania, encontró la Ciudad de Roma en manos de los partidarios de Benedicto IX, y declaró la elección inválida debido a la violación del precepto impuesto por el Papa Esteban, de que San Hildebrando, el futuro Papa Gregorio VII, debía ser el elector sine qua non (condición indispensable) cuya presencia haría que la elección se convocara legalmente.

La Solución de 1058

Así, en mayo de 1058, el Arcediano San Hildebrando y el Cardenal San Pedro Damián, junto con el Cardenal Humberto de Silva Cándida, convocaron una Asamblea Apostólica en Siena, Italia (a unas 3 horas en coche al norte de Roma), y eligieron a Gerardo de Borgoña, Obispo de Florencia.

Gerardo tomó el nombre de Nicolás II.

Gerardo esperaba contar con el apoyo de Godofredo el Barbudo, quien era Margrave de Toscana, y de Wilberto de Rávena (también conocido como Guido de Parma), el Canciller Imperial de Italia. Por ello, envió a San Hildebrando como su Legado ante ellos y ante la Corte Imperial en Goslar, Alemania, para asegurar su reclamo al papado.

San Hildebrando, habiendo logrado esto, regresó con ambos nobles a Siena, donde proclamaron a Gerardo como Papa Nicolás II el 6 de diciembre de 1058, unos seis meses después.

Luego, Nicolás II marchó sobre Roma con las fuerzas armadas del Margrave de Toscana y, deteniéndose en Sutri, convocó el Segundo Concilio Provincial de Sutri y declaró a Benedicto X depuesto como antipapa y usurpador.

El 24 de enero de 1059, Nicolás II fue entronizado en Roma como Pontífice Romano, y es a partir de esa fecha que su Pontificado se cuenta normalmente.

La Legalidad de la Elección de Nicolás II

Los partidarios del antipapa Benedicto X impugnarían la legalidad de la elección de Nicolás II durante los siguientes 130 años en las crónicas de los monasterios locales.

Esta impugnación se basó en los hechos obvios de que:

  • La elección de Nicolás II fue fuera de la Ciudad de Roma, en violación de todo precedente.
  • La elección de Nicolás II se produjo en segundo lugar respecto a la elección de Benedicto X.
  • La elección de Nicolás II fue realizada por una minoría de Cardenales.
  • La elección de Nicolás II no contó con el consentimiento de todo el clero y el pueblo en el momento de sus elecciones en Siena, en mayo y diciembre de 1058.

Sin embargo, el reclamo legal del Papa Nicolás II para ser el verdadero Pontífice Romano se basó en un argumento aún más fuerte, a saber:

  • Que la elección de Benedicto X fue obtenida mediante fuerza de armas.
  • Que la elección de Benedicto X se llevó a cabo con una violación en cuanto al número de electores, es decir, al negar a San Hildebrando, el Arcediano, la oportunidad de estar presente.

Los Principios Legales Confirmados por el Magisterio Papal Infalible

Durante los siguientes cuatro siglos y, de hecho, hasta el día de hoy, la Iglesia Católica y todos los verdaderos Papas han consentido la elección de Nicolás II como legítima, en virtud de dos principios jurídicos reconocidos en el Derecho Canónico actual:

  • Dado que la coacción destruye la libertad, un voto o una elección coaccionada es ilegítima y, por lo tanto, irritus (inválida), debe considerarse como si nunca hubiera ocurrido (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 125 §1).
  • Dado que la violación de procedimientos obligatorios produce una elección ilegítima, toda votación bajo tales violaciones conduce a una elección que es irritus, considerada como si nunca hubiera ocurrido (cf. CIC Cánones 42 y 124 §1).

Vemos estos principios afirmados en la actual Ley Papal, Universi Domini Gregis (UDG), en el n. 76, donde se lee en la traducción inglesa del Vaticano:

    1. Si la elección se lleva a cabo de una manera distinta a la prescrita en la presente Constitución, o si las condiciones aquí establecidas no se observan, la elección es por esta misma razón nula e inválida, sin necesidad de ninguna declaración al respecto; consecuentemente, no confiere ningún derecho al elegido.

Enseñanza Magisterial del Papa Nicolás II

La Enseñanza Magisterial del Papa Nicolás II sobre este tema quedó consagrada en su Bula In Nomine Domini, n. 3, de abril de 1059, donde se lee:

  • 3. Por lo cual, si la perversidad de hombres depravados e inicuos prevaleciere de tal modo que no se pueda celebrar una elección pura, sincera y libre en la Ciudad, que los Obispos Cardenales con los Clérigos religiosos y laicos católicos, aunque sean pocos, obtengan el derecho de potestad (ius potestatis) para elegir al Pontífice de la Sede Apostólica, donde juzguen que es más conveniente. Claramente, después de que la elección haya sido completada, si hubiere un conflicto bélico, y/o si la lucha de cualquier tipo de hombres se resiste con el ahínco de la maldad, de modo que aquel que ha sido elegido no pueda prevalecer para ser entronizado en la Sede Apostólica según la costumbre, no obstante, que el elegido obtenga como Papa la autoridad para gobernar la Iglesia Romana y disponer de todas Sus facultades, lo cual, sabemos, hizo el Beato Gregorio antes de su propia consagración.

Esta enseñanza no es meramente disciplinaria, sino también doctrinal, ya que la Iglesia siempre ha considerado válido el principio tal como fue aplicado a la elección de Nicolás II el año anterior a que él fuera Papa.

Además, cuando se entienden las circunstancias históricas de la elección de Nicolás II en comparación con esta Bula suya, vemos un asombroso triple nivel de seguridad jurídica detallado: que una elección cuya validez sea corrompida por cualquier medio, otorga:

    1. El derecho del electorado original de toda la Iglesia Romana,
    2. para celebrar la elección en cualquier lugar, y
    3. con pocos miembros que representen a esa Iglesia.

Por lo tanto, aunque esta Bula desde el punto de vista legal ya no está vigente, su enseñanza con respecto a esta salvaguarda jurídica sigue en vigor en los casos para los que la Ley Papal actual no contempla ninguna disposición.

Cómo San Hildebrando Defendió a la Iglesia de Futuros Antipapas

Así fue como San Hildebrando salvó la identidad jurídica de la Iglesia Católica como Iglesia de Cristo, para siempre, ya que, con su decisión de oponerse al reclamo ilegal de Benedicto X al papado, sacó a la luz el principio del Derecho Natural para guiar a todas las futuras generaciones, que se puede resumir en varias reglas:

  • Una elección que viola los preceptos relativos al procedimiento vuelve la elección irritus (inválida), es decir, sin valor legal (Cf. CIC 1983, Canon 124 §1).
  • Una elección en la que ocurre coacción, de tal manera que determina que el voto sea diferente de lo que hubiera sido, es ilegítima (Cf. CIC 1983, Cánones 125 §1 y 170).
  • Una elección sin el número apropiado de electores es inválida (Cf. CIC 1983, Cánones 119 §1, 161 §3 y 172 §1).
  • Todos los que tienen derecho a voto, al votar en una elección ilegítima para el Papa, sufren la pérdida de su derecho por el acto de entrar en Cisma con Cristo al adherirse a un hombre como papa que NO es el papa (Cf. CIC 1983, Cánones 1364 y 1331 §1).

Y estos son los mismos principios que están incorporados en el Save Rome Project este año de Nuestro Señor, 2025, ya que los Cardenales seleccionaron a Prevost como León XIV con 133 de ellos votando, a pesar de que la Ley Papal prohíbe (UDG n. 33) más de 120 electores y prohíbe (UDG n. 4) el uso de dispensas para permitir más de 120.

Ecclesiology, Faith, Testimonies

#YWeNeedCatholicPope — Why we need a Catholic Pope? by Claudia

3 Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the testimony of a Catholic Housewife in the USA. If you make your own testimony in favor of the Save Rome Project share the URL here in the comments. — Consider how adding your voice to this effort will be more powerful than anything else after prayers. But keep your message under 5 minutes, since that is the attention span of users of social media. — Then consider sharing your video on TikTok, or other platforms.

Here is the hashtag to use: #YWeNeedCatholicPope

In related news:

There is a Catholic Warrior Princess (@SperoinDeo) — I hope in God, on X sharing this:

Canon Law, Church History

1058 the Year Saint Hildebrand Saved the Catholic Church forever

8 Comments

A Recounting of History, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ITALIAN — FRENCH — ESPANOL

When we speak of history, we often begin our accounts by retelling the stories of a year in which memorable, unique and world-changing events took place.

In the Catholic Church, we often do the same thing, especially since our Holy Religion is based on events of history, which can be precisely associated with specific places and times.

Such dates are March 25, 2 B. C., Nazareth, in the Holy House of Our Lady, on the final day of the Feast of Passover, when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Her God’s plan for salvation, and She said, “Let it be done unto me according to thy word!”.

Or 33 A. D.., on April 3, at 3. P. M., on Mount Golgotha, when Our Lord and Savior atoned for all sin, by offering His life to God the Father on the Wood of the Cross.

Or May 20, 325, in the Imperial Palace at Nicea, Asia Minor (now Turkey), where the Emperor Constantine convoked and convened through his representative, Bishop Hosius of Cartagena in Iberia (now Spain), the First Ecumenical Council with consent of Pope Sylvester I of Rome.

+ + +

But one date or year, which Catholics have probably never heard of, which is just as important for the existence of the Catholic Church, is the year of Our Lord 1058.

Just as important, I say, from the point of view of jurisprudence, because just as the identity of an association of persons is from the point of view of right an identity of an institution according to its juridical foundation and continuation, so the identity of the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ Jesus is founded upon not only the Foundational events of Her History, but those moments in Her history, which were decisive for preserving Her juridical continuity in time.

And the Year of Our Lord, One Thousand and Fifty-Eight, was one such Year!

To understand this Year, I would suggest a refresher, with this new video about the Sutri of Synod in 1046, which launches the Gregorian Reform, which discusses especially the pontificate of Pope Saint Leo IX, who launched St. Hildebrand’s mission, after his faulty support of Pope Gregory VI.

The Crisis of 1058

The importance of 1058 begins with the failing health of Pope Stephen IX, who died on March 29, 1058, at Florence, in the embrace of his fellow Benedictine Monk, Saint Hugh of Cluny. — Forewarned of the disaster looming to break out at Rome, after his death, with the desires of the corrupt Roman Nobility to return to the immorality of previous decades, he imposed by oath upon the Clergy and Nobility of the Eternal City, that they would not convene an Apostolic Assembly to elect his successor, until his Archdeacon Saint Hildebrand returned from the Imperial Court at Goslar, in Thuringia, Germany, to preside over it. So relates Bonzio of Sutri in his history of the epoch.

But as soon as the Nobles of the City learned of the death of Pope Stephen IX, shortly after his arrival at Florence, to meet with Saint Hugo, they rushed on the night of April 4th, into the city with armed troops and forced the election of John Minucius, Bishop of Tusculum (now Velletri), as Pope Benedict X on April 5, 1058, just a week after, as soon as news arrived by horseback.

Stephen IX, in life, was called Frederick, and his brother was Godfrey the Bearded, the Duke of Lorraine (now Belgium-NW France) who was also Margrave of Tuscany. And so at his death, his brother immediately dispatched 500 men-at-arms to secure the City of Rome. They arrived too late to intervene.

John Minucius, was made a Cardinal by Pope Stephen IX in 1050 A. D.. And he was no outlier, since Frederick of Lorraine, the future Pope Stephen IX had nominated him as pope in the Papal Election of 1057, which instead chose the Frankish Cleric instead. It is said he was forced to accept his election as Pope.

Cardinal Peter Damian immediately denounced the illegal election and anathematized the perpetrators. For his personal safety he had to flee the city. Cardinals Humbert and Cardinal Peter of Tusculum fled to Benevento and declared the election irregular.

When Saint Hildebrand returned from Germany he found the City of Rome in the hands of the supporters of Benedict X, and declared the election invalid by reason of the violation of the precept regarding the requirement imposed by Pope Stephen, that Saint Hildebrand,the future Pope Gregory VII, was to be the sine qua non elector whose presence would make the election lawfully convened.

The Solution of 1058

So in May of 1058, Saint Hildebrand Archdeacon and Saint Peter Damian, Cardinal, along with Cardinal Umberto of Selva Candida, convened an Apostolic Assembly at Siena, Italy (about 3 hours by car north of Rome), and elected Gerard of Burgundy, the Bishop of Florence.

Gerard took the name, Nicholas II.

Gerard expected to have the support of Godfrey the Bearded, who was Margrave of Tuscany, and Wilbert of Ravenna (aka Guibert of Parma), the Imperial Chancellor of Italy. So he dispatched Saint Hildebrand as his Legate to them, and to the Imperial Court at Goslar in Germany, to secure his claim to the papacy.

Saint Hildebrand, having achieved this, returned with both Noblemen to Siena, where they proclaimed  Gerard, Pope Nicholas II on December 6, 1058, some six months later.

He then marched on Rome with the armed forces of the Margrave of Tuscany, and stopping at Sutri, convened the Second Provincial Council of Sutri and declared Benedict X deposed as an antipope and usurper.

On January 24, 1059, Nicholas II was enthroned at Rome, as Roman Pontiff, and it is from that date his Pontificate is normally reckoned.

The Legality of the Election of Nicholas II

The supporters of the antipope Benedict X would contest the legality of the election of Nicholas II for the next 130 years in the chronicles of local monasteries.

This contestation was based on the obvious facts that,

  1. The election of Nicholas II was outside of the City of Rome in violation of all precedent
  2. The election of Nicholas II occurred in second place to the election of Benedict X
  3. The election of Nicholas II was by a minority of Cardinals
  4. The election of Nicholas II was not consented to by the whole clergy and people at the time of his elections at Siena in May and December of 1058.

However, the legal claim of Pope Nicholas II to be the true Roman Pontiff was based on an even stronger argument, namely:

  1. That the election of Benedict X was procured by force of arms
  2. That the election of Benedict X was conducted in violation regarding the number of electors, namely, by denying Saint Hildebrand, the Archdeacon, from having the opportunity to be present.

The Legal Principles confirmed by the Infallible Papal Magisterium

For the next 4 centuries and, indeed, until the present day, the Catholic Church and all true Popes have consented to the election of Nicholas II as legitimate, by reason of two juridical principles recognized in Canon Law today:

  1. Since coercion destroys liberty, a coerced vote or election is illegitimate and thus irritus, to be reckoned as never happened (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 125 §1)
  2. Since violation of obligatory procedures produces an illegitimate election, all such voting under such violations lead to an election which is irritus, to be considered as never happened (cf. CIC Canons 42 and 124 §1).

We see these principles affirmed in the present Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis (UDG), in n. 76, where it reads in the Vatican’s English translation:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

Magisterial Teaching of Pope Nicholas II

The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Nicholas II on this topic was enshrined in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, in April of 1059, where it reads:

§ 3. Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, let the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where they might judge it to be more fitting. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, let the elect obtain as Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration.

This teaching is not merely disciplinary but also doctrinal since the Church has ever considered the principal valid as applied to the election of Nicholas II in the year before he was the pope.

Moreover, when the historical circumstances of the election of Nicholas II are understood, in comparison with this his Bull, we see an amazing triple level of fail-safe detailed: that an election whose validity be corrupted by whatsoever means, grants

  1. the right of the original electorate of the whole Roman Church,
  2. to hold the election anywhere and
  3. with any few members representing that Church.

Thus, though this Bull is from a point of view of law no longer in force, its teaching regarding this juridical safe-guard remains in force, in cases in which the current Papal Law makes no provision.

How Saint Hildebrand defended the Church from all future Antipopes

And this is how Saint Hildebrand saved the Catholic Church’s juridical identity as the Church of Christ, forever, for by his decision to oppose Benedict X’s unlawful claim to the papacy, he brought to light the principle of the Natural Law to guide all future generations, which can be summed up in several rules:

  1. An election which violates precepts regarding procedure, renders the election irritus, that is of no legal value, (Cf. CIC 1983, Canon 124 §1)
  2. An election in which coercion occurs, in such wise as to determine the vote to be other than it would be, is illegitimate (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 125 §1 and 170)
  3. An election without the proper number of electors is invalid (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 119 §1, 161 §3 and 172 §1)
  4. All who have the right to vote, when voting in an illegitimate election for the Pope, suffer the forfeiture of their right by the act of entering into Schism from Christ by adhering to a man as pope who is NOT the pope. (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 1364 and 1331 §1)

And these are the very principles which are embodied in the Save Rome Project this year of Our Lord, 2025, since the Cardinals selected Prevost as Leo XIV with 133 of them voting, even though the Papal Law forbids (UDG n. 33) more than 120 electors and forbids (UDG n. 4) the use of dispensations to allow more than 120.

Canon Law, Debates, Papal Documents

Ryan Grant usurps Papal Authority in an attempt to refute Br. Bugnolo

6 Comments

+ + +

Commentary and Refutation of Ryan Grant’s Position by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

In the above article, published on October 27, 2025, Mr. Ryan Grant, attempts to show that this Bull no longer has any force of law, even in the particular of its censure of the election of a heretic as pope.

Before I comment on his treatise, I will cite my previous writings on this matter, which he does not so clearly present.

Back in May of this year of Our Lord, 2025, the first argument I moved against the validity of the election of Cardinal Prevost, was that the election of a man who is found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before his election by the Cardinals was declared ipso facto invalid by the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio.

In this, I cited my former argument on the matter, from 2015, and with the passing of some days, I returned to that argument and refined it, here — note that the edition of 2015 is revised, though the date still reflects the original publication:

This article discussed the effect of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, on the perpetual validity of the precepts contained in the Bull. And I concluded, that in regard to the declaration of the invalidity of an election of a Cardinal in a Conclave, who had previously deviated from the Catholic Faith, fell into heresy or adhered to a schism, that Papal censure on the validity remained valid.

Subsequently on August 19, I revisited the argument regarding, as I just mentioned, and published the revision separately here.

And on August, 2, of this year, I published the second English Translation of this Bull, publicly available, on the Internet — there may be others in books or manuals — Here:

+ + +

So far, for what I previously have written.

Ryan Grant’s Treatise — A Historic Publication

I think this particular tract by Ryan Grant is the most thorough and complete treatment I have ever seen him muster on any topic, and shows that he has come of age in the matter of public disputation.

As a dinosaur who has been doing such things since my first Refutation of Father Wathen, back in 1996 — if I remember correctly, I welcome the graduation of the newest tract-writer on the block.

Second, Ryan Grant’s essay is the first to cite me by name in any Catholic publication, since the L’Avvenire in the summer of 2021, so it is indeed quite extraordinary. OnePeterFive, where Ryan Grant’s essay is published, even extended to me the unheard of decency, of a hyperlink to my August article, cited above. That has not happened since the Team Bergoglio Scandal in December of 2014.

So for both reasons, I sense that someone has “broken reality itself” in the Trad inc. camp, where the absolute censorship of everything said or done by Br. Alexis Bugnolo has been the unbroken rule since Michael Matt’s last publication of a letter to the Editor of The Remnant back in like 2004 or something like that — my grey hairs being unable to recall that misty past, it being so long ago.

For each of these reasons, Ryan Grant’s article is historic and I recommend my readers, here at FromRome, to read it, if they have the time.

The Complete Refutation of Ryan Grant

Ryan Grant’s article is entitled, “The Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio — Void and of No Authority.” — Leaders in publication are usually placed by the Editor, not the author, so I can scarcely fault Grant for this erroneous and scandalous title. But it needs to be said, that “of No Authority” is theologically and canonically erroneous and false, because, theologically speaking, it remains a monument of the authentic Papal magisterium, and canonically speaking, it remains a source for ecclesiastical jurisprudence. As such, these words are scandalous and ignorant, and should be removed or replaced.

Now, Grant’s article is lengthy, and would take several hours perhaps for the layman to read, if he was able and familiar enough with the terms, for when printed out, my browser produces a PDF file which is 27 pages long!!!!

So for Catholics who have not that time, I will cut to the meat of the problem with it: Ryan Grant has founded his argument on private interpretation.

You see, a Papal Law or Papal Bull can only be interpreted by the Roman Pontiff. There is no authentic interpretation, in the canonical sense, from any other source. Nor is there an honest interpretation of the same, in a juridical sense, if you interpolate words, and make the law say something it does not say.

Thus does Grant attempt to refute two of my positions.

My Refutation of Grant’s First Argument

In the First Position, Grant recites thus:

To summarize Bugnolo’s argument, while it is true that all penal sanctions of Cum ex are abrogated in paragraph 5 of Canon 6, the section of the Bull (n. 6) which deals with the election of the Roman Pontiff is not penal by nature, because it imposes no penalty, but only a discipline, per the language of the code, and thus under paragraph 6 of the same canon, it would have to be explicitly abrogated, otherwise it is still in force. This is easily refuted. St. Pius X had already abrogated this clause of Cum ex by his own constitution Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§29), where he abrogated all previous laws considering the voting in papal elections.

Unfortunately, since Grant has not ennumerated his paragraphs, I cannot give an exact location in his work for this quote, but it appears to be half-way through, according to the measure of the scroll bar in a browser.

Grant’s claim of the abrogation, does not cite the words of the Constitution of Saint Pius X. And as any good debater knows, that, when you cite a law in Latin but give not the citation in words, then your citation probably does not prove what you are claiming. This concern is deepened when the passage you cite, here §29 regards the burial of popes, not the election of heretics.

And that is the case, here, since, as you can see, here at the very words of Saint Pius X in the passage which Grant should have cited, n. 34, since as a Latinist he claims to be able to read Latin: I quote from the Latin edition at the Vatican Website, found here.

34. Nullus Cardinalium, cuiuslibet excommunicationis, suspensionis, interdicti aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu vel causa a Summi Pontificis electione activa et passiva excludi ullo modo potest; quas quidem censuras ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, illis alias in suo robore permansuris, suspendimus [27].

Where the footnote 27 reads:

[27] Clem. V, cap. 2, Ne Romani, § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 29; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 22.

Even if you cannot read Latin, you can see immediately that Grant has dishonestly referred to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Saint Pius X, because in this passage, when it speaks of the suspension of previous laws (suspendimus), it cites the laws of Pope Clement V, Ne Romani, and Pius IV ‘s Constitution, In eligendis, and Pope Gregory XVI’s Constitution, Aeterni Patris. There is no mention of Cum ex apostolatus officio.

Here is my translation of n. 34, and its footnote:

34. None of the Cardinals, by pretext and/or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or any ecclesiastical impediment you like, can in any manner be excluded from active and passive election as Supreme Pontiff: which censures indeed, only as regards the effect of this manner of election, We suspend, with the former (illis) otherwise remaining in their force. [27]

Here, the Latin “illis”, which according to the rules of Latin grammer are to be translated contextually as referring to the aforementioned matter, rather than they are normally rendered (“those”, “they”), and refers here to “excommunciation, suspension, interdict or any ecclesiastical impediment”.

Where the footnote 27 reads:

[27] Pope Clement V, in chapter of, Ne Romani, section § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pops Pius IV, in his Constitution, In eligendis, § 29; and Pope Gregory XV in his Constitution, Aeterni Patris, § 22.

Thus, since Saint Pius X explicitly restricts his suspension to these three Papal Laws, he obviously does NOT intend to suspend the effect of Pius IV’s, Cum ex apostolatus oficio.

This is also confirmed by a comparison of the text of n. 34 of Pope Saint Pius X’s Constitution, with n. 6 of Pope Paul IV’s constitution, because the latter speaks both of the right to vote and be voted for (electio activa et passiva), and of his censure when an election is to be or not to be considered valid; but the former speaks only of electio activa et passiva. These are two different things, as is obvious, since the latter, as I have said in my article in August, regards the right of the faithful to regard or not regard an election valid or not, whereas the former regards the right of a Cardinal to vote and be voted for. Those ignorant of Latin think that the right to be voted for, means the right to be elected, since they confound “being voted for” with “being elected”. The modern concept of “being elected” refers technically to “being voted for by the needed majority AND accepting the election”, but the Latin concepts of  electio activa et passiva, only refer to casting votes and receiving votes in one’s favor during the procedure of the Conclave.

However, Grant quotes for his position, Fr. Wernz-Vidal’s general statement, found in Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum, t. 2, Rome, 1928. Tit. VIII, n. 413, p. 403. You can see Grant’s Footnote 21 for the Latin and his English translation of it. — This noted author, however, as has been seen from what I just said, obviously never read the footnotes which the Saintly Pope used in his Apostolic Constitution, since by placing footnotes to cite the previous laws which in regard to Papal Elections, which are to be suspended during elections of this kind, he has expressly restricted the limit of his own suspension. — Also, to say, “suspend” is not to say “abrogate”, since to suspend merely stays the application for a limited time. And since the determination of the validity of an election obviously takes place after the election, even this passage would not suspend anything at such a time, even if it referred to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Thus, I believe, Grant’s first argument against my position is entirely destroyed.

My Refutation of Grant’s Second Position

Grant’s second salvo against my argument follows immediately after his first. For he holds that my citation of Canon 2265 of the 1917 Code is inappropriate. And in this he advances his principal error, as he says:

… the 1917 code has a different scope. Moreover, it does not specifically address the situation with the Roman Pontiff, and the code is silent about how to proceed in that case, leaving us to turn to the dogmatic theologians …

For here he appeals to private authors to interpret papal law, which, as I said above, is a grave error and violates the very principal of ecclesiastical jurisprudence that only the authority issuing a law can interpret it.

Thus it is that he has usurped Papal Authority, perhaps without realizing it, since in a clear matter of omission, one cannot appeal to dogmatic theologians for anything.

And I cannot shout this out louder, since I have been shouting it since 2018:

THE CESSATION OF RIGHT IS NEVER PRESUMED.

Thus if the code of 1917 or 1983 clearly and explicitly does not alter the standing of a papal precept, we can never lawfully or morally presume that papal precept is no longer in force.

However, he makes his assertion of an erroneous principal of interpretation while conceding to me that the Code have not spoken of this matter, and thus concedes my argument, since, if the 1917 Code has not expressly established any other discipline, then, my argument, which holds that because it does not, the former remains in force, is completely validated, since as Christ declares, “Whatsoever you bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven …”, in Whose Royal Decree we find no clause such as, “and it shall not remain in force in the future, if some dogmatic theologian opines that it does not”.

Finally, I will omit a refutation of Grant’s false allegation, made in passing, later in his tract, that I hold that there is a footnote in canon 188, as I never made such a claim. I spoke of a footnote in a commentary on Canon Law.

Conclusion

Grant’s article was heavily criticized by “Chris Jackson” here, though ineptly since he does not know the first thing about jurisprudence or theological distinctions, not to mention following the erroneous approach of many sedevacantists, who falling into the same error as Grant, have recourse to erroneous arguments that the Bull remains valid because it contains infallible teaching, not distinguishing properly between a disciplinary and a dogmatic decree.**

I welcome Grant’s attempt to rebut this my present refutation. But I will not demand a response, since I do not want my brother in Christ to publicly shame himself by advancing any more unfounded arguments to make his point.

Thus, that the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus offcio, in n. 6, in regard to the right of Catholics to hold the election of a Cardinal in a Conclave as invalid if he has previously (1) fallen into heresy, or (2) joined a Schism, or (3) deviated from the Catholic Faith, without repenting prior to his acceptance of his election, remains IN FORCE AND IN FULL EFFECT AND OF DIVINE AND PAPAL AUTHORITY, until a future pope, if he will or dare, explicitly refutes it, or in some other way effectively abolishes it.

FOOT NOTES

** Jackson publishes his critique of Grant on the Chinese based Substack platform, without mentioning my name of course, since Jackson’s handlers forbid him to do that, since all hell would break lose in his pysop if his readers came to know of my writings on the Conclave of 2025 or the Conclave of 2013. ( In the comments there, it appears there is a number of Zionist bots who claim that I am paid to say what I say, have never called for the abolition of Vatican II, and unfairly criticize “the annointed of Jakob”. But worse of all, I raise money to help the poor, suffering and canonically abused. That is unforgivable. — The only substantial criticism seems to confirm what AJ and I have said, that the C. J. operation is a MI6 operation, since they are incensed in that com thread that we together outted Lefebrve’s father as a MI6 agent, HERE) Jackson for his or her or its part lauds the Archbishop and finds nothing wrong with his father being an intel agent working for the United Kingdom. — As for “the annointed of Jakob”, he is living up to all the sterotypes by accusing Grant of “distracting Catholics”, when AOJ has hidden the invalidity of the conclave and the work of Catholics at Rome to have a Catholic pope, just the like of the other USAID narrative supporting “Catholic” mainstream and “independent” media. This is astronomical hypocrisy.

Ecclesiology

How to Discern the Masonic Anti-Church from the Catholic Church

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

“Ecclesiology” is the term used for the theological principles by which the Church is constituted. Broadly speaking, it can be used also in regard to fake Churches, not founded by God, but by men.

Thus, we can in a sense speak of the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, as well as of a Masonic Church, which apes to be a Christian Church.

Here it will be useful to compare the two, to help Catholics discern the signs of the true Church from the masonic ideal of “church” promoted by nearly every “Catholic” influence who opens their mouth on the subject.

First, you must understand, that no one becomes a influencer unless a social media platform allows them to speak. And no major platform allows you to speak unless they make money out of it via advertising.

Thus, when you see a YouTube channel with 25 million followers, you know that the producer is a YouTube partner with a special deal on advertisement revenue sharing, and an agreement to produce videos on certain topics and not on others. If anyone of these channels did a video on the Scamdemic it would be shut down in one day, in the electronic equivalent of a Charlie Kirk style Assassination.

So let’s compare the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology with that of the Antichristic Church which the Freemasons have constructed.

Founder

For the Catholic Church, the Founder is Jesus Christ.

For the Antichristic Church, the Founder is some man.

Foundation

For the Catholic Church, the Foundation event is Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended.

For the Antichristic Church, the Foundation event is some meeting or synod or council of men.

Purpose for which it Exists

For the Catholic Church, the purpose for which She exists is the greatest glory of God through the salvation of souls and the honoring of the Divine Majesty.

For the Antichristic Church, the purpose for which it exists is to be some sort of control system over the minds and hearts and persons of men and women and children, for the sake of some earthly, temporal objective.

Means by which it Operates

For the Catholic Church, the modus operandi is the preaching of the Eternal Truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the instruction of souls in these truths.

For the Antichristic Church, the modus operandi is the propagation of lies and half-truths, to ape the Gospel of Christ and to brainwash the masses in these lies and errors by means of the control of the press and the bitter persecution of all who object.

Visible Head on Earth

The visible head of the Catholic Church on Earth is Christ’s Vicar, a legitimately elected Roman Pontiff.

The visible head of the Antichristic Church will be some human person usurping authority over mankind: ultimately the Antichrist, and penultimately the False Prophet. But until then, schismatic clergy or falsely elected antipopes or arch-Heretics, such as Luther. Worse of all of these lessers would fulfill all the conditions of the Antichrist, without being yet him: namely an illegitimately elected Jew who publicly professes heresies against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

System of Government

The Catholic Church is governed by legitimately appointed superiors from legitimately appointed popes: the Church strives to appoint honest, holey and lawabiding men to lead the Faithful to God.

The Antichristic Church must necessarily search for corrupted heretical men, who are depraved in their innermost hearts, who are appointed illegitimately by antipopes and heretics and who strive to corrupt men, women and children in morals so as to lead them to damnation and further subservience to the Globalists Elites.

Applying these Principles of Ecclesiology to Discernment

I hope you can now see, by applying these principles, that every “Catholic” influencer who says:

  1. It’s not important who is the pope.
  2. Don’t call the pope a heretic even if he is.
  3. Don’t question Papal Elections.
  4. Presume the Cardinals are always honest, even when they publicly lie or violate the law;
  5. Remain calm and follow your superiors.
  6. Don’t pay attention to the news which is trying to distort your views of the Clergy and Church.
  7. There may be masonic or globalist conspiracies in the Church, but it’s wrong to judge the Pope or your Bishop as being involved in any of these;
  8. Don’t read the Papal Laws for how the Church should be governed, but follow what the Cardinals and Bishops say is O. K..

is a member of the Church of the Antichrist.

But, that those Voices who say:

  1. Following the true pope is a matter of eternal salvation.
  2. If the pope is a heretic he must be denounced as such in a Provincial Council.
  3. In an Age of Lies, question every Papal Election, to see if it has conformed with the laws.
  4. Never presume a Cardinal is honest, when he has publicly lied or violated the law;
  5. Stoke the fires of holy zeal by meditating on what Christ did to save souls.
  6. Chronicle the news of scandals so as to identify who are Christ’s enemies and who are the clergy who are faithful.
  7. Since there are masonic or globalist conspiracies in the Church, it is reasonable to presume a Pope or your Bishop is being involved in them when he pushes these agendas;
  8. Read the Papal Laws for how Popes must be elected, how the Church should be governed, and follow no cleric who refuses to do this or counsels the opposite.

are members of the Catholic Church.

This is why you will find me, on these pages of FromRome.Info, often railing against other “Catholic” publishers, since 99.999% of the time they fail to observe the last 8 points, and instead fulfill one or more of the first 8 points.

This is why, for 12 years, as of this month of September, 2025, I have been publishing FromRome. These 8 rules of discerning a true Catholic publisher are the very constitution and editorial policy here. Thank you for supporting FromRome all these years. Without you it would not be possible. But perhaps, in all the 12+ thousand articles, you might have missed the big picture. So I have spelled it out for you in this one article.

Canon Law, Debates

Even Canonist Canale admits a Papal Election by Apostolic Right

15 Comments

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.

Canon Law, Papal Documents

Why Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was not abolished by 1917 Code

4 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This is part of the previous article, which I have updated as of today, August 19, 2025
You can read my new translation of Paul IV’s Constitution, here.

What the Code of Canon Law of 1917 abrogated by Canon 6

The argument which arises as to the perpetually validity of the Papal Constitution, « Cum ex apostolatus officio » arose principally upon the occasion of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (which we cite it from jgray.org), and that due to canon 6 of that code, which reads in Latin:

Can 6. Codex vigentem huc usque disciplinam plerumque retinet, licet opportunas immutationes afferat. Itaque:

1º Leges quaelibet, sive universales sive particulares, praescriptis huius Codicis oppositae, abrogantur nisi de particularibus legibus aliud expresse caveatur;

2º Canones qui ius vetus ex integro referunt, ex veteris iuris auctoritate, atque ideo ex receptis apud probatos auctores interpretationibus, sunt aestimandi;

3º Canones qui ex parte tantum cum veteri iure congruunt, qua congruunt, ex iure antiquo aestimandi sunt; qua discrepant, sunt ex sua ipsorum sententia diiudicandi;

4º In dubio num aliquod canonum praescriptum cum veteri iure discrepet, a veteri iure non est recedendum;

5º 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;

6º Si qua ex ceteris disciplinaribus legibus, quae usque adhuc viguerunt, nec explicite nec implicite in Codice contineatur, ea vim omnem amisisse dicenda est, nisi in probatis liturgicis libris reperiatur, aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis.

And which, in English, according to my own unofficial translation reads:

Canon 6. The Code for the most part retains the discipline here-to-fore enforce, though it introduces opportune changes.  And thus:

1°  Any laws you like, whether universal or particular, opposed to the prescriptions of this Code, are abrogated unless concerning particular laws something else is expressly exempted;

2° The canons which cite an old law in its entirety, by the authority of the old law, are, for that reason, also to be judged out of the interpretations received among approved authors.

3° The canons which are congruent with the old law only in part, are to be judged according to the ancient law; when they are discrepant, they are to be dijudicated according to their own sense.

4° In doubt whether any prescribed canon is discrepant with the old law, one is not to recede from the old law;

5° What pertains to the punishments, of which no mention is made in the Code, whether they be spiritual or temporal, medicinal and/or, as they say, vindictive, latae or ferendae sententiae, they are to be held as abrogated;

6° If any of all the other disciplinary laws, which were in force up to now, be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Code, it is to be said to have lost all force, unless it be found in approved liturgical books, or a law be of divine, positive or natural right.

RULE OF INTERPRETATION

First, it must be noted that the very introduction to Canon 6, of the 1917 Code as well as section 4° incline that the entire canon be read and interpreted as maintaining in force the parts of all laws which are not contrary to the Code of 1917.

NON APPLICABLE PARTS

Next, sections 2°, 3°, and 4°, do not pertain to the present argument, since they regard canons and not Papal Constitutions.

HOW THE LATIN ‘LEX’ IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

Next, regarding those parts of Canon 6 which abolish previous laws, we must read the term “law” (lex, leges, legibus) in a strict sense, as “any individual prescription, precept or provision”, and not in the broad sense of any particular document containing such. This is not only juridically sound, but theologically sound, because, when in regard to Papal Decrees of any kind, when there is a clear intention to promulgate an individual prescription which will have perpetual force — as are all the prescriptions in Paul IV’s Constitution — this intention passes into the intention of Christ the King, the High Priest, Who confirms, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” (Matthew 18:18) — and thus we cannot presume that a subsequent pope who speaks vaguely, not specifying whether he speaks of provisions or entire documents, intends to specifically abolish what he does not specifically name, especially when he already has declared his intention that all previous disciplines are to be maintained in force. — This reading of “law” (lex) is also confirmed in 6° of Canon 6, where it speaks of the divine, positive and natural “law”, all of which can be an individual particular provision, but only one of which, positive law, could refer to a document. The same is implied by the use of the word, “law”, in 2°, 3°, and 4° of the same Canon 6, cited above.

WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION?

Thus, here, it will be helpful to note, that a constitution differs from an individual law, because a law, which Saint Thomas Aquinas defines as “an ordinance of right reason for the common good, promulgated by one who has authority over the community” (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 90, a. 4), regards something individual and specific, whether prohibiting or enabling. But a constitution is an assembly of laws of different kinds (e.g. ordinances, prescriptions, commands, sanctions, decrees, institutions, wills etc..) in a single document with a common theme or purpose. — “As to subject-matter, the term “constitution”, if used in a restricted sense, denotes some statute which the Vicar of Christ issues in solemn form either to the whole Christian world or to part of it, with the intention of permanently binding those to whom it is addressed.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, here).  For this reason, “laws” (leges) in the 1917 Code, Canon 6, must be understood as referring to parts of the Papal Constitution, and not the whole document.

PAUL IV’S CONSTITUTION, IN N. 6 REMAINS IN FORCE?

With this clarified, let us proceed to consider the rest of Canon 6, as it specifically regards the censure of Paul IV, in n. 6 of his Constitution, regarding the election of a man who after his election is found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into heresy or schism:

As regards section 1°, it is clear that since n. 6 of the Constitution of Paul IV is not opposed to any Canon the Code of 1917, because this Code says nothing about how such an election of such a man is to be regarded, it does not fall under this provision, for to say “opposed” is to signify that it withstands, or is in disagreement; viz. to say one thing, when the other says something else. Juridical opposition occurs when the precept of one directs that a thing to be done while the precept of the other directs that another thing be done. But since in the Code of 1917, there is nothing said about whether the election of a man as Roman Pontiff is to be held to be juridically valid in the case spoken of in n. 6 of Paul IV’s Constitution, there is no “opposition”. In general, the Code of 1917 says nothing about Papal Elections since the law on papal elections was a special particular law published by Saint Pius X.

Also, it is clear that 5° does not apply  to n. 6 of this Constitution, because an election in conformity with a papal law for the election of the Roman Pontiff, cannot be punished, since an election which is according to the laws in force is not a criminal act.  Again, “punishments” (poenae) must be read in a restricted sense, regarding persons not things. Therefore, the censure contained in n. 6 of Paul IV’s Apostolic Constitution, since it does not regard, in the strict sense, a punishment or penal precept against a person, is thus not abolished by this section of canon 6.

Finally, section 6°, does not abrogate this provision of Paul IV. First, because the exclusion of a heretic from being elected is contained in canon 2265 of the 1917 code, and thus to this extent, n. 6 of Paul IV’s Bull is implicitly contained in the code, even if the Code forbids the person from being elected, whereas the Constitution of Paul IV sanctions his election as invalid.** — Second because, Paul IV’s, n. 6 requires by the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Legislator, that things be done by others, to protect the Church, and thus clearly fulfills all the conditions for a law of positive right in the sanction it levels in n. 6 against such an election. — Positive laws are those promulgated by the competent authority, which in the Catholic Church is the pope, and which grant rights which must be protected by others. — But clearly, since the Faithful are obliged by divine law to obey a Roman Pontiff, it certainly pertains to their rights that the Cardinals NOT elect someone who has deviated from the Catholic Faith, fallen into heresy or who partook of some schism. Thus, inasmuch as n. 6 of the Bull Paul IV raises an unassailable bulwark defending this right of the Faithful, its abolition would result in a grave attack against the rights of everyone in the Church. Indeed, the entire Bull of Paul IV is expressly intended and promulgated to protect the whole Church, and thus most certainly is a law of positive right of the highest order.

That the papal Constitution of Pope Paul IV, in regard at least to its sanction of against a papal election of a heretic or schismatic in. n. 6, remained in force after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, is thus morally certain, since the Code of 1917 expressly, thus, excludes laws of this kind in these particulars, from abrogation, when they are not contrary to nor re-integrated in the Code of 1917. However, as regards all other parts of the Constitution, when they were integrated fully or said contrary things than the 1917 code, they were obrogated or abrogated.

REPLY TO ALL CONTRARY OPINIONS OF CANONISTS

Thus, if there be found any commentary on Canon Law which holds that the Constitution of Paul IV was abrogated or obrogated by the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I would expect that it is speaking of all those parts which do not concord with Canon 6, and that its author or authors have considered the meaning of Canon 6, imprecisely, in regard to specific provisions of Paul IV’s Constitution. And if they have done either, then their opinion “that the Constitution of Paul IV has been abrogated” is simply an over generalized, hasty and erroneous formed opinion. — Moreover, once the Code of 1917 is promulgated, the law means what it says, and it no longer means what the canonists who wrote it may have intended, if they did not write that into the text. — This is because this Code was not legislated by an assembly, but promulgated by a Monarch. And thus subsequently its interpretation belongs alone to the Roman Pontiffs, when there arises a question the answer to which someone, whomsoever they be, would have be contrary to the plain meaning of the text. This is the teaching of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori in his tract on The Interpretation of Laws. — That is why, in reading the law, I always stick to the plain meaning of the text, and do not insert any interpretation which does not arise from the text itself.

But whether this papal constitution in n. 6, was abrogated or obrogated by subsequent legislation is another question.

___________________________________

* After the publication of this article, it was brought to my attention, that the Code of Canon Law of 1917, in canon 188, p.47 of the Kennedy & Sons annotated edition of 1918, explicitly cites Cum ex apostolatus officio in footnote 2: which signifies that the author of that footnote, the eminent canonist Cardinal Gasparri, who supervised the revision of the Code, was of the opinion that the code of 1917 was in harmony with — and did not intend to obrogate or abolish  — the terms of that Papal law in all of its particulars. — Canon 188, 4°, (source) in fact reads, “On account of tacit renunciation (of office) admitted by the law it self, let whatever offices you like be vacant, ipso facto and without any declaration, if the cleric … publicly fails from the Catholic Faith.” — And since obviously Paul IV’s n. 6 is to be read in the context of a man who after his election is discovered to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before his election and remained deviated, the condition is the same as a man who has publicly failed from the Catholic Faith. Here “deficere” signifies both heresy and apostasy, because of its generic sense of “failing” or “being deficient”. In the English language, some authors translate “deficere” as “defect”, and thus might read “a fide catholica defecerit” as “defects from the Catholic Faith”, but since Canon 188, 4°, is the only part of that canon which refers to Paul IV’s Constitution’s prescriptions — where apostasy is not mentioned — it is clear that in the mind of Cardinal Gasparri, the Latin term, “deficere” has the broad sense which includes “heresy”, “schism” or some other “deviation”, and not necessarily a public renunciation of the Faith.

** Paul IV’s Bull, nn. 2, 3, and 6, is also cited on p. 629, in footnote 2 of the 1917 Code, in Canon 2314, which reads, in part, thus:

Canon § 2314:

§1. Omnes a christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haereticis aut schismasticis :

      1. Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem;
      2. Nisi moniti resipuerint, priventur beneficio, dignitate, pensione, officio aliove munere, si quod in Ecclesia habeant, infames declarentur, et clerici, iterata monitione, deponantur;

From which it is clear that the position of those who hold that formal manifest a public or notorious heresy, of itself, causes the loss of office, are manifestly contradicting the 1917 Code of Canon Law., for the English of this Canon reads:

Canon §2314

§1. All apostates from the Christian Faith and all and each heretic or schismatic:

      1. Incurs ipso facto excommunication:
      2. Unless they come to their senses after having been warned, let them be deprived of  benefice,  dignity, pension office or other munus, if they have any in the Church; let them be declared infamous, and let the clerics, after having been warned again, be deposed;

For clearly, “let them be deprived” is not “they are deprived” ipso facto, but rather commands a juridical act of a competent superior, to remove them from office. This guts entirely what I call the classical Sedevacantist position proposed by many online bloggers.

Canon Law, News

Canon 332 §1 declares Pope Leo XIV an anti-pope

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are living in a very peculiar age in the history of the Catholic Church. As readers of FromRome.Info, from February 11, 2013 until December 31, 2022, the Catholic Church was caught up in a program of mass confusion which broke out over the terms of Canon 332 §2, which reads as follows:

Canon 332 § 2. — Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestatur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptatur.

Which in English is:

Canon 332 § 2. — If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, for validity there is required that the renunciation be made freely and be manifested duly (rite), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.

Here “rite” means in accord with due procedure: “rite” being the Latin word for “according to the ritual”.

This controversy was very easy to understand, since you only had to understand that the Law declared a renunciation of the Petrine munus valid, if the pope renounced the munus freely and duly. But the gaslighters of the Masonic Globalist New World Order wanted that you did not see the word “munus”, or if you did that you understood it as “ministerium” or ministry, as their falsified translations at the Vatican attempted to make it appear.  — You can read our collection of articles on this controversy at “The Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation“, which is the only collection still in existence after Andrea Cionci’s blog was erased from the internet two days before Pope Francis’ death.  FromRome.Info was the leading publication which covered that debate and was mentioned in other publications the world over.

But now ahead in time, we go backwards in the Code for a new controversy

So it’s kind of amazing, that just two years later the Church is involved in another controversy, and this time about the previous paragraph of the same Canon in the Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II, published in 1983, Canon 332 §1. That paragraph reads:

Can. 332 — § 1. Plenam et supremam in Ecclesia potestatem Romanus Pontifex obtinet legitima electione ab ipso acceptata una cum episcopali consecratione. Quare, eandem potestatem obtinet a momento acceptationis electus ad summum pontificatum, qui episcopali charactere insignitus est. Quod si charactere episcopali electus careat, statim ordinetur Episcopus.

Which in English is,

Can. 332 — § 1.The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme authority in the Church by legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration.  Wherefore, the elect, who has been marked out with the episcopal character, obtains the same authority from the moment of his acceptation regarding the the Supreme Pontificate,  Wherefore, if the elect lacks the episcopal character, let him be immediately ordained a Bishop.

For today the controversy is about another single word, “legitima”, in the Latin, which means “legitmate” in English. And the gaslighting supporters of the Masonic Globalist Order have the same arguments: they want you not to see the word, “legitima”, and want you to understand as “universally accepted”, a term which they further constraint to mean, “accepted by us and all the fools we have fooled”.

But if a pope be elected illegitimately, then clearly according to Canon 332 §1, he is not the pope. And a man who claims to be pope without a legitimate election is an antipope.

This is why when the Cardinals decided to allow 133 Electors to vote, contrary to the law, and elected a man who previously had deviated from the Catholic Faith, they violated two laws (John Paul II’s Law and Pope Paul IV’s law) and thus made the election of Prevost invalid, null, irritus and juridically illegitimate.

Also, it is important to note that Pope John Paul II recognizes that what is important is that the election be juridically valid. Because in Canon 332 §1, he did not use the term “legally” (legale) which would refer only to his law for papal elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, but “legitimate”, a term which comprises all the existing laws, rights, canons which pertain to the election of a Roman Pontiff. Indeed, we know this is the correct reading of that Canon because in his papal law, which I just named, in paragraph n. 4, he explicitly states that during a sedevacante, ALL ecclesiastical laws regarding the election of a Roman Pontiff remain in force and NONE can be done away with by any means whatsoever.

Being a faithful Catholic requires that we accept the laws of the Church and defend them against anyone of any dignity who should attempt to violate them. These last 12 years have been a momentous moment in the life of the Church to out who are faithful and who are unfaithful.

Let us not fail to rise to the occasion and remain faithful!

Finally, we should keep in mind how serious all of this is, for to adhere to a man as the Pope, who was not legitimately elected, one is actively and FORMALLY participating in a usurpation and act of schism. And when this involves a claimant to the papacy who is a manifest heretic, it also involves treachery to Christ Jesus as Supreme Teacher. These are both damnable sins, that is, if you commit them there is absolutely no way to be forgiven in this life or the next, if you die in them without repentance.

Canon Law, Editorials, News

Cardinal Prevost is Francis 2.0+ in a pontificate of Sodomites

4 Comments

Editorial by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Every fact cited in this article, above, should be enough to make any sane and honest Catholic willing to hear the facts about how the Conclave rules were broken and how that results in Prevost not being the pope.  — The problem, however, among Catholic bloggers, in this regard, is thus twofold, “sanity” and “honesty”. — Perhaps I am too old, but this kind of sanity and honesty have been around in the Church for 2000 years, but is somehow, strangely, absent among Catholic Bloggerdom.

I do not know how many times I have to say it, but if one is willing to write the above and NOT read the laws for a Conclave, there is something wrong with either one’s sanity or one’s honesty. — And I do not say this to the author of the above, since he is a reader of FromRome.Info, attempting to slap some sense of reality back into Catholics.

But the argument of the article above fails, because what it seems to be saying is that Prevost is not the pope because he is in favor of sodomites, fails to discipline clerics, was chosen by Pope Francis, is a creature of the Bergoglian revolution.  But each of these charges is not a canonical offense, and none of them would prevent a candidate from being validly elected to the Papacy. So in truth, the above argument is totally invalid in an ecclesiastical tribunal, though, clearly, it is a strong emotional argument.

The only valid canonical arguments are the two which I advanced before anyone else, not because I am a saint or a prophet, but because I read papal laws (Universi Dominici Gregis & Cum ex apostolatus officio)  and I accept them out of Divine and Catholic Faith in the Living God, Jesus Christ, my King, Lord, and Savior, who said to Saint Peter and His Successors: whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven.

For this reason, if I were to say that Catholics, who argue that Prevost is not the pope for some other reasons, but refuse to admit or contradict or ignore that those two arguments are correct, sound, logical, honest, true and impeccable juridically and valid — because they merely recite the terms of Papal Laws — are simply playing your emotions, I would not be dishonest, because what they are doing is gay, in the sense of the court jester who is willing to mock his opponent, but not oppose his false pretense to right with a valid argument. Such a manner of acting is two faced, effeminate and useless.

Do writers of this ilk think Catholics are stupid?

I remember the events, still, of the U.S Presidential election of 2020, when Donald Trump’s lawyer filed legal challenges with a method of argumentation which was obviously invalid and incapable of winning. It was then I began to question the sincerity and sanity of not only his legal team but of himself.

Just as you don’t go into court, with an attorney who refuses to present a winning argument, so you do not base your decisions on who is or who is not the pope on reasons which are not juridical. Unless you think the Catholic Religion is a form of theatre or are trying to deceive your clients.

And just as in any legal contestation, you know who is who by which arguments they support, so in the present moment in the Church you know who is in communion with Jesus Christ and who is in communion with the spirit of the Antichrist by how they argue.

We have a problem with masculinity in the Church and the pontificate of sodomites is not limited to the Vatican. And by August 7th we will have 90 days of proof of that.

And if what I just said “offends” or “makes you upset”, you need to examine yourself, because you are acting like a denizen of Hell and someone destined to eternal damnation in the pit of the Inferno. And it is not nasty to say what I just said: it’s the way Catholics have thought, spoken and written during the last 2000 years.

Canon Law, Church History

Was Saint Hildebrand a Sedevacantist?

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The reality of social media is, that while you may be interacting with someone who claims to be Catholic, you nearly always assume that the other person is competent, sane and informed.  If you are like myself, who spent most of my lifetime at school or educational formation programs or in academic studies of one kind or another, public and private, you might have a psychological bias of thinking that everyone on social media asks a question or reads an article to be informed, and is able to think for themselves, do a search, investigate and be informed.

Alas that is not the case, as we all know, by hard knocks.

This is especially true among fellow Catholics.

Recently, one reader of FromRome.Info started asking fellow Catholics what they think of the Save Rome Project and received this stunning response:  “I do not want to get involved in Sedevacantism”.

I have to shake my head and roll my eyes at the expression of such total ignorance, that is, incapacity to evaluate problems in the Catholic Church.

The History of the Election of Pope Nicholas II, and St. Hildebrand’s role in it

So for those out there who suffer from having friends or relatives at this level of information bias, here is the story of Saint Hildebrand, and how he protected the Papacy by promoting Nicholas II to the apostolic throne against the antipope John Mincius, of the House of Crescentius, who was Bishop of the suburbican diocese of Velletri, and took the name, Benedict X.

Now, according to Cardinal Saint Peter Damian, John was an upright, honest and Catholic man, his only fault was that he was elected illegally. He was even pardoned by Pope Nicholas II and ordered out of the city of Rome. However, when he later returned, St Hildebrand brought him to trial, wrote out his own confession of guilt, forced him to read it, and had him condemned and reduced to the lay state. With the pleas of many, later on, Pope Nicholas raised him back to the status of a Lector.

Benedict X was not a heretic, but he was an antipope.  His election was illegal, because Pope Stephen IX, before he died, decreed that the election of his successor should not take place until St. Hildebrand returned from his diplomatic mission at the Imperial Court in Germany.

Now Saint Hildebrand is considered one of the greatest saints to ever become Pope — an event which took place 14 years later — and no one in their right mind has ever called him a “sedevacantist” because he opposed the election of a man against the rules.

Note Well: “Sedevacantism” is the name given to the position of those who insist that there have been no valid popes since the death of Pius XII or John XXIII: as regards Conclaves, their allegations are based on non-factually supported claims that were launched years after the election of popes and based on speculation of conspiracies during one or another Conclave, not evidence of anything illegal during the Conclaves. This is what makes “Sedevacantism” an ideology, not a valid juridical position worthy of any Catholic. The proponents of this position are more fixated on their alternative histories than on even the Code of Canon Law of 1917 or the Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII for papal elections. And they never sought the condemnation of those, whom they accuse, in any tribunal, tacitly admitting they had no legal proof.

But Saint Hildebrand of Saona based his rejection of Benedict X’s election on the historical events of his election which no one denied, which went against the published rule for the election to be delayed, established by Pope Stephen IX.

St. Hildebrand was, however, accused by those who favored corruption at Rome, of being a “fake monk”, though, since he went around wearing the habit of a Benedictine Monk without them asking him for proof of his vows.

How, history repeats itself!

You can read a summary of this history from pp. 17-18, in the book, “The Life and Times of Hildebrand”, by the Right Rev. Arnold Harris Matthew, published by Francis Griffiths, London, 1910. — You can click these two images to expand them for easier reading on your device.

+ + +

This year of Our Lord, 2025, we are in an exactly similar, though worse, juridical mess: since no one denies that 133 Cardinals voted in the Conclave, nor that the Papal Law forbids that in n. 33 of that Law. — While those who broke the Papal Law, this year, are like those in 1058, they make excuses but have no valid legal excuse, since Pope John Paul II’s UDG. n. 4, forbids the use of dispensations during a sedevacante. Nor is there any doubt that Cardinal Prevost embraced heresy before his election, a thing which makes his election null, void, and irritus, according to the Bull of Paul IV, “Cum ex apostsolatus officio”.

That it has been nearly 80 days since this fraud was perpetrated on the Church and THAT there are still Catholics, unwilling to review the facts of the matter and the law, says a lot about how comfortable Catholics have become with living in a corrupt society while rejecting even in their hopes the Kingdom Christ Jesus, Who is Infinite and Inescapable Justice, not to mention their utter contempt for the laws of Roman Pontiffs, Christ’s Vicars on Earth.

For those who would like more information about this great Saint, who becomes Pope Gregory VII, here is that entire book, I just cited from in PDF. Take note the the entire book is in a 358 MB file. However, if you would like to view this book online or download it in other formats, see HERE.

Ecclesiology, Editorials

Advice on Taking Counsel concerning the Masonic Takeover of the Vatican

6 Comments

Editorial by Br Alexis Bugnolo

I do not know about you, but I am old enough to say that I have seen 5 decades of nonsense going on in the Catholic Church, from my earliest memories of seeing communion in the hand introduced, to the destruction of altar-railings to calling a priest by his first name, from the de facto abolition of communion kneeling and on the tongue, to masses celebrated with pita bread.

And I have not seen even 1% of the nonsense, because I have always either lived in a parish which was conservative, or made the effort to join such a parish.

I thank God, though, that since I grew up in a devout Catholic Family, I have never lived but in a world of the Catholic Faith. I remember, asking one of my friends in middle school, if she was going to attend the Stations of the Cross — my favorite childhood devotion — and, when she said she was Episcopalian and they did not do those things in her church, asking, “What is an Episcopalian? Isn’t everyone in the whole world Catholic?”

But as the nonsense increased, I could not not try to investigate what was going on in the Church.

But I was mislead for decades with the dominant narrative that it was somehow the cause of Modernism, or a war between Conservatives and Liberals in the Church, or purely a spiritual battle. And since increasingly I met more and more clergy who has no sense of the Sacred, and read in newspapers such as Our Sunday Visitor, the Wanderer or The Remnant, of even worse problems round the world, I never found sound counsel about what to do about it, other than hiding away somewhere or avoiding certain parishes or institutions like they were plague-ridden.

This has been the experience of many Catholic laity since the days of Vatican II. Those of us who were born during or after the Council had an even harder time discerning what was going on, since we had no personal knowledge of what it was like before the Council.

However, for those who pay careful attention, it became obvious that as the years passed the situation in the Church was not getting better, but rather getting worse.

It is only after decades of observing how such an approach to the crisis in the Church was fruitless, do Catholics begin searching for the causes of the problem, if they have the intellectual stamina to do their own research and ask hard questions.

What we have been fed upon, however, is a narrative that if we only complain and resist, the problem will go away, the liberals will die out — it’s just the case of a spiritual disease.

But if you think about that, that narrative does not help at all, because it basically says, “Complain, do nothing and hope!”

And after 6 decades of this, I would hope that faithful Catholics would be able to break free of such a useless paradigm, which in its last analysis, NEVER seeks to win, and only contents itself with complaining.

Now, I am not a psychologist, but even I can recognize that this approach is bad psychology, or rather, a degenerate form of moral behavior. For in every other field of life, if there is a problem, we move to solve it.  If you had sane parents, you know this from how your dad and mom immediately took action to keep your home in good running order, fix broken appliances etc. and make sure the necessities of living in your house were attended to.

The only way you would not have such a childhood experience is if you never lived in your own home, but were from a family who rented or was constantly on the road.

The Definition of a Good Catholic is not the definition of a real Catholic

I know the readers of FromRome.Info are good Catholics, because if you weren’t you would no suffer to read this electronic journal. But we should NOT set as the highest goal in life, to be merely good Catholics, that is, persons who strive to keep God’s commandments, grow in virtue and practice the supernatural habits which God gave us in Baptism, such as Faith, Hope and Charity.

Because, such a definition is a form of Protestantism, a private-me-only pietism where the only goal is an individualistic good. As Catholics we should recognize that we are called to be holy, not as an individual victory in a solo game, but as members of God’s Household, concerned not just for the welfare of those who are visibly wanting in material goods, or spiritual mercies, but also concerned about this, the biggest problem in the Church, since Vatican II, that is, with the loss of faith and morals among the Sacred Hierarchy, Clergy and Religious on account of what is coming out of the Vatican.

If we have such a global vision, then we are real Catholics, because we are acting as if we are members of the Church and have the same sort of zeal to fix problems as our parents had to fix our homes.

Just complaining will never fix a problem. Yes, complaints have their place. But after a number of family members complain about the same problem over a long period of time, the only just and honest response is to fix the things in the home which are causing them, not gaslighting the members of the family about them.

After 70 years of Aggiornamento, the Divine Providence has put the entire solution and the easiest solution on our plates. He has done this by allowing the Cardinals to embrace such darkness, that they did not even bother to follow the most obvious and patent rules on the Election of a Roman Pontiff, that of not allowing more than 120 electors vote in a Conclave and that of electing someone who is not already known to be a heretic.

He has also abandoned them to their own perverse counsels, because, so far, not a single Cardinal, not even among those who did not have the right to vote, has complained about it, as far as we all know, since there is no news of such a thing.

But the solution to these 70 years of internal conflict is by this error of the Cardinals and by their solidarity in this sin, now easy. As I have explained in the Save Rome Project, it is something that a Catholic anywhere in the world can help to accomplish. We can finally stop merely complaining, and we can instead win by helping the Catholics of Rome elect as Roman Pontiff a truly Catholic and militant man.

So I ask every Catholic who reads this article to NOT feel guilty about wanting to win and working toward the finish line. Stop listening to those who want you to accept the condition of a victim and play you with victim-outrage social media posts. Recognize that such persons are sick and out of touch with reality. Read how the Saints of old reacted, and finally, at last, at least this once in your life, begin to imitate the Saints of old by responding to what the Divine Providence has done, this year, to give us the chance to win against all the forces of darkness in the Church.  If we love Jesus Christ and Holy Mother Church, then, we can already see that this is the must-do for 2025.

Canon Law, News

By Christmas, the Catholic Church will have a new Pope

5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

You do not have to be a prophet to tell the future in a legal dispute. You only have to know the Law well enough to see the necessary consequences which will result from the Law.

This is true in many fields of jurisprudence, but this year, it is true most of all in the Catholic Church. And this is because, when Pope Francis died on Easter Monday morning, the Apostolic See became vacant, and the Cardinals had 20 days to elect another Successor of Saint Peter.

It has already been 90 days, and the Cardinals have failed to elect anyone.

That’s right. The Apostolic See remains vacant. And this is not true because I or anyone else says so, it is true because Pope John Paul in 1996, when he promulgated Universi Dominici Gregis, for the Election of the Roman Pontiffs in a conclave, predetermined that any Conclave in which more than 120 Cardinal Electors participate would have no valid  juridical result. A thing you would already know, yourself, if you had read that law.

And since that is what happened, that is the consequence.

And thus, the Apostolic See remains vacant, because the Cardinals have heretofore refused to return in Conlcave and elect someone validly by following John Paul II’s law.

And since the Cardinal Electors do not have the right to NOT return to conclave, if they refuse after 90 days, then canonically it is presumed that they will never do so, and have decided never to do so.

This is not the case of ignorance. The Cardinals knew the rule of a maximum of 120 Electors was written in the Papal Law, they  discussed it, and pretended an excuse not to.

And this is not a case of ignorance, now, that they refuse to correct themselves, because numerous members of the College of Cardinals have received written complaints to this effect.

So we are seeing a juridical avalanche as it happens, from the loftiest parts of the Church on account of the superabundance of the snow of hypocrisy, which is wont to cover such heights, breaking loose in total lawlessness, come crashing down the sides of the Mountain of New Zion, which is the Catholic Church.

In refusing to elect a man validly, they are in fact refusing to exercise their competence to elect the Roman Pontiff. And since they have no right to do that in the current normative order of ecclesiastical law, they are about to forfeit their right and that competence, and put the Church into the same condition as if the Cardinals all became apostates or were killed.

In which case, the original electoral body, the whole Church of Rome, which includes the eight dioceses of Rome, Ostia, Albano, Velletri-Segni, Frascati, Palestrina, Sabina-Poggio Mirteto, and Porto-Santa Rufina, obtain the right to elect the Pope. And all Catholics will have to accept that election, under the same censure of eternal damnation, as any valid Papal Conclave, as Pope Boniface VIII decreed in his Bull, Unam Sanctam.

The legal consequence is, then, if we speak strictly, that as of twenty days from tomorrow, July 21, 2025,* the Faithful, that is the Clergy, Religious and Laity who hold ecclesiastical residence or a pastoral mandate in these territories will have obtained the right to elect the Roman Pontiff in absence of any valid action by the College of Cardinals, whom the Papal Law orders to begin a valid election within 20 days.

It is true, I prefer to admit, that Cardinal Prevost can recognize that his election was null, void, illict and irritus, and abdicate his claim to the papacy, and then the Cardinals might return to Conclave and follow the rules before Christmas. But once you enter into the power networks of Globalism, you just cannot withdraw so easily, as if you do, you end up dead.

Thus, by Christmas the Catholic Church will have a validly elected Roman Pontiff, one way or another.

This news will engender rage and anguish among all those who love to be mendacious, who are invested in the Bergoglian revolution, who receive their paychecks or pension from the CIA or USAID, or who are sexual perverts or heretics.

And I ask you to share this article precisely for that reason, so that they can begin to taste in this life the suffering of the eternally damned in Hell, with whom they have chosen to dwell forever.

Contrariwise, for all those faithful Catholics who rejoice at this news, I would encourage you to join in assisting this wonderful event of juridical resurrection in the Church, through the Save Rome Project.

** In the Save Rome Project page, I have set the date of September 24, 2025, because not being a member of the clergy, I must await 90 days after informing them of their rights, before I take any initiative on my own, since I first must be sure they will not take action, before I can presume canonically that they have decided to forfeit their right to take the lead on this matter.

Church History, Ecclesiology, Faith, News

The Birth of Neo-Sedevacantism

18 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I first began using the Internet back in 1991, and as an apostolate in 1993, when in my former institute I was tasked by my superiors to put the entire order on the web. I am thus a sort of dinosaur, since I have 34 years of experience and generally I have seen every kind of grift there is out there, and crossed swords with not a few of the leading figures. But since 2013, a new generation of social media apostolates have been launched by laymen, all targeting Catholics and aiming to prevent them to react to the problems in the Church as Catholics of old did.

To do this, they engage in limited hangouts, the intelligence agency term for pretending to be a friend in the opposition, but doing and not doing everything necessary to prevent the opposition from unifying and acting against your paymasters.

From Feb. 11, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2023, their mantra was, “Benedict validly resigned”, and from March 13, 2013, to April 21, 2025, it was, “Pope Francis is definitely the pope”.

Most of these old guard grifters then began their new game of “Leo XIV is certainly the pope”.

This group of misinformation experts are seemingly in the direct employ of deeply dishonest stage-actors among the College of Cardinals, because their one ideological principle of unity is: Don’t you dare question the integrity or honesty of the Cardinals, and Don’t you dare take any action without their approval.

But there is a new Grift in town, laicism on steroids

Since Vatican II a lot of laymen have been pushing the Masonic Agenda of taking down the Church from within, by becoming active and influential while refusing to join the priesthood or become religious. They see the laity who are faithful has having more rights to govern the Church than bishops and priests. And they have been itching for years to grab power, a thing they could not do in the old grifter regime, which assiduously waited hand and foot on the tassels of this or that Cardinal or traditionalist Bishop.

And this new grift-theme is a thing which I call, “Neo-Sedevacantism”.

The apparent leader of this movement appears to be Chris Jackson, who for 13 years has written articles using as his personal photograph, the photo of a journalist from 1940, back in the first years of press control by the then Department of War. It’s not glizy but it’s very retro looking.

His circle appears to include Nicholas Owens and Steve Kokx, at the very least. Frank Walker of Canon212.com is strongly promoting them and all their posts, as if they suddenly graduated from the school of journalism and were running professional newspapers. By all accounts none of them has any credentials to write on topics of Faith, Theology or Canon Law.

I am not even sure if “Chris Jackson” exists, because it seems to be a nom-du-plume for a group of writers, since he publishes much to much material of various topics to imagine that he is a dad holding down a full time job anywhere. He may be a priest writing under an assume name, yes. But seeing that leading members of Trad Inc. from the hard right of Michael Matt to the left of center Peter Skojec have allowed him to use a fake photograph for more than a decade, he must be someone or some group which is very influential and in an executive position in comparison to them.

This was emphasized yesterday when Steve Kokx, recently let go from LifeSite News, wrote a “Chris is the only hero of the moment” post, on his own substack, a work of such oozing propaganda, that I will let you read it on your own time, here.

Steve has not been out of a job in more than like a week and he is already in ideological lockstep with Jackson and others, in rolling out reasons to return once again to the topic of sedevacantism, while they join in a barrage of attacks on Cardinal Burke, who is not by any means or measure the only Cardinal responsible for the debacle of the last 13 years. But as they chose the standard cut-out punching bag to blame, it is for certain that they are involved in a Narrative Game, not in a Christian based ethical project.

The barbs that all of these writers place at key points in their posts on Substack, is making it more and more clear that what they are working toward, in my estimation, seems to be:

  1. A Church without a Pope
  2. A Diocese without a Bishop
  3. A Notion of fidelity to the Church which does not include submission to
    1. A Pope
    2. The Church of Rome
    3. The Sacred Hierarchy
    4. The Priesthood

I call their project “Neo-Sedevacantism”, because unlike the Sedevacantists of previous decades, who were content to say the Popes of Rome were heretics, or that the Sacraments of Vatican II were null and invalid, were scrupulous to find traditional Bishops and promote vocations of men to the traditional priesthood or of women and men to traditional religious life, they seem to want laymen to have all the influence and be the gatekeepers and founders of the whole psyop.

This new movement however, has the mantra of “Recognize and Withdraw” from the communion of the Church. They are like the Old-Orthodox in the Russian Orthodox Church, but are have arguments more substantial than how the name of Jesus is spelled in Cyrillic.

That this group is strongly backed by some other network can be seen in how many thousands of followers they are garnering in a very short time, an phenomenon which is quite disproportionate to the value and quality of their writings.

I do not exclude, because of their ideological position, and because of Frank Walker’s support, that they are backed by Russian Federation agents of some sort, since they are basically following the same lines of schism as lay-run Russian Orthodox splinter groups follow.

UPDATE: Feast of Saint Alexis, Man of God — Ann Barnhardt seems to be a supporter of Chris Jackson too, on account of her recent blog post, entitled, “I want to be Chris Jackson when I grow up“, a really hilarious title, if you know anything about Ann. But this is no surprise to me, because she nearly had a mental breakdown in the spring of 2022, when she heard I had hitchhiked to Warsaw to help Ukrainian refugees from the war. You see, she has a profound admiration for Vladimir Putin.

This circle is obviously a heretical and schismatic movement, and I urge all my readers to pay attention to the writings of anyone pushing this agenda. In your social media interactions, point out that their proposal is NOT the Catholic way. The Catholic way is helping the Church of Rome elect a Catholic Pope and supporting him against the anti-popes installed by the enemies of the Church, for it is the Roman Pontiff who is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and it is the Roman Church which presides before all others in the charity which unifies us in the Truth which is Jesus Christ, by the charism of Her unique foundation. — And this Catholic Way has a specific project, aimed at doing the most momentous thing the Church of Rome can do in the face of this Globalist takeover of the Church by the anti-pope Leo XIV: it is called the “Save Rome Project, and you can read about it here.

Note, it is not my attention to attribute inaccurately any belief, idea or project to any person, so, if anyone mentioned in this article believes I have mischaracterized his behavior or writings, I will most willingly correct the article and/or post his brief rebuttal, here below.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us!