Category Archives: Canon Law

Canon Law, Church History

1058 the Year Saint Hildebrand Saved the Catholic Church forever

7 Comments

A Recounting of History, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ITALIAN — FRENCH

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, 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). 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 Damnian 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 IX, 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 Damnian, 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 Gerard the Bearded of Burgundy, 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 Sienna, 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 Sienna 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 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

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.

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 REMAIN 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.

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?

4 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.

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.

Canon Law, Debates

Ed Condon, or how not to read the Law: 120+ Cardinal Electors O.K.?

11 Comments

+ + +

Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Br. Bugnolo, what do you think about Ed Condon’s Article from March of this Year?
Answer: When n. 33 of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, says, “Let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed 120”, I do not have to think, I only have to read to know the answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My own English translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon Law

On the Forfeiture of Right & It’s importance for today

4 Comments

An Essay in jurisprudence by Br Alexis Bugnolo

Most of us live in modern liberal democracies, so we enjoy the right to vote. And in most of these nations, we are not obliged to vote. So if we do not trust any candidate we can abstain from voting. And while such a situation is common for faithful Catholics, since so many candidates espouse agendas which are contrary to the Christian Faith, we are used to often abstaining from voting.

When we do so, however, we have forfeited our right to vote.

Forfeiture of right is thus a very common occurrence in modern nation states, so we don’t usually think anything about it.

This is even more true in the election of the Roman Pontiff.

But this year it is very important to pay attention to this loss of right.

PAPAL ELECTIONS

According to the current norms, Pope John Paul II in his law on Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis, (hereafter UDG) restricts in n. 33, the right to vote to 120 Cardinals maximum, and then only to Cardinals who were under 80 years of age on the day the previous pope died or validly resigned.

And since the right to elect the Roman Pontiff was restricted to Cardinals alone, back in 1059, there has been many occasions when Cardinals have forfeited their right to vote.

This can happen because they were too ill to vote, or to travel to the place of the Election. Or because the news of the Pope’s death arrived at the same time as the news of his successors election. In many other cases, wars, famines, and plagues prevented Cardinals from arriving in time for an election.

These are examples where one can be forced to forfeit one’s right because of an intervening obstacle which cannot be overcome: in jurisprudence this is called force majeure. You may have seen this term in a contract for insurance, where it lists the conditions under which the policy does not pay out, such as war, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, terrorism, and “acts of God”, such as the fall of a meteorite.

But what is to be done when everyone who has the right to vote forfeits their right?

This can happen voluntarily, or by force majeure, or by a consequence of one’s decision to not act rightly.

I have already mentioned the first two causes, but what of the third?  For example, if everyone voted for a candidate who was not authorized to be on the ballot, in most nations, while apparently exercising their right, they actually forfeited it. Keeping a candidate off the ballot is a common tactic by Masonic states to keep the people under control.

But if you vote in a manner that is improper or illegal you can also forfeit your right: such as casting your ballot incorrectly, or at the wrong voting station.

An Example of a Papal Election in which there was forfeiture of right

In the election of the Roman Pontiff, we have many cases of this, where Cardinals forfeited their right by participating in illegal elections. One example of this was, at the death of Pope Stephen IX, after he had promulgated a Decree whereby no election of his successor could take place until St. Hildebrand returned from the Imperial Court in Germany. However, the Cardinals and Roman Nobility, not wanting a reform candidate to be elected, proceeded to elect John, the suburbican Bishop of Velletri, using troops to seize control of the City of Rome to pacify any opposition to their actions.

Such a forfeiture is normally permanent, because if you not only participate in an illegal election but adhere to the candidate you elect, you obviously will refuse to participate in a lawful election, and thus have forfeited your right to vote in a legal election.

Pope Nicholas II, who was elected by the Cardinals at the Sienna with the permission of the Imperial Vicar at Florence, following the claim of John to be Pope Benedict X, thus had strong motives for clarifying once and for all what the forfeiture of right meant in a Papal Election. And he did this in the Bull, In Nomine Domini, of Feb. 15, 1059, in n. 3 of that law. You can read it in English, HERE, where I also have linked the original Latin text. — It is important to note that these Cardinals were Cardinal Hubert, Cardinal St. Peter Damnian, and the Cardinal Archdeacon St. Hildebrand. Thus, they first acted on the juridical principle of forfeiture and “necessity knows no law”, and only after being elected did Nicholas II apply this principle in his law for papal elections. The truth of the principles they acted, which are principles of natural right, do not exist in virtue of papal power, though Nicholas II affirmed their validly in n. 3 of his Papal bull.

Applying these principles to the Conclave of May 7-8, 2025

This brief consideration of the theoretical aspects of the forfeiture of right are highly pertinent to how Catholics should approach the Conclave of May, 7-8, 2025, because, most Catholics, who have no understanding or knowledge of the history of papal elections, simply suffer an intellectual short-circuit when confronted by possible evidence that the Conclave had no valid result, simply because they don’t know what to do in such a circumstance. It is as if you surprised them by bringing a Black Hole into their parlor room. The reaction is often also not very different.

But, now you might be able to see: by holding a Conclave in an illegal manner by claiming to have a dispensation which according to the Papal Law, UDG,  n. 4, they could not use, they counted 133 votes in an irregular manner, such that no one could have been validly elected. They also cast their votes for a man who was publicly known to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before his election, in violation of the Papal Law of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus Officio, n. 6, which declares the election of all such men, null, invalid and irritus, that is, to be treated as never having happened, no  matter how many Cardinals, Bishops or heads of state recognize the “elect” as the Pope. That these Cardinals, then, have forfeited their right to vote, because unless they recognize their error — a thing which they may never be able to do, as I explained in my recent article on possible bribery during the Conclave, they will chose never to vote in any other Conclave until the death or abdication of Prevost.

And since, as far as I know, so far no Cardinal Elector has spoken against this irregular election, the Church is faced with having no valid pope, and remains in a sede vacante, which ostensibly would last decades, if there was no legal remedy.

This is why the authoritative teaching of Pope Nicholas II on what is to be done in such a case, has such an important value for the Church today. For by applying the principal of “necessity knows no law”, as he teaches, and the principle that the restriction of the election of the Roman Pontiff to Cardinal clergy of the Diocese of Rome is only prudential, the same solution applies now, with their de facto forfeiture of right, as would have to be had if all the Cardinal electors had apostatized or died, namely, that the right to vote would return to the original electorate which Saint Peter the Apostle endowed with that right: the entire Church of Rome, clergy, religious and laity.

Catholics who have no comprehension of how the forfeiture of right effects elections, will, however, keep waiting forever for the Cardinals to repent or Prevost to die or abdicate. And to cure this ignorance, which will doom them, I have written this article today on the forfeiture of right.

Back in 1058, when the Cardinals who elected Benedict X acted as they did, the Catholic party of Cardinals did not wait to proceed to a lawful election. They did not sit around dialoging or negotiating, and they certainly did not think that just because Benedict X was elected first, that his election was valid. Nor did they invite the group of Cardinals who elected the anti-pope to the legal election at Florence. Neither did they consider their non-presence in any way causing the invalidity of their own election of Nicholas II.

The validity of an election does not come from the dignity of those who vote, but from their compliance with the rules for voting. The Cardinal electors in May of 2025 have forfeited their right, and it is only a matter of politeness that the Catholic clergy and faithful of Rome inform them of their error and delay hoping for their repentance. If the Catholic Faithful at Rome are to imitate Saint Hildebrand and Saint Peter Damian, however, they should proceed immediately to an election by the original electorate. This is especially true, because by adhering to someone who is not nor could ever be a Pope, the Cardinals are involved both in an act of schism and a conspiracy of heresy, both of which causes them to be excommunicated latae sententiae. They did this back in 2013 too, and the Catholic Faithful at Rome have already waited enough for their repentance.

Pope Benedict XVI knew them well

In his Declaratio, of February 11, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI said that his successor will have to be elected by those “who are competent”. He used the very language of Canon 349, where the Cardinals are named as the ones who are competent to elect the Roman Pontiff. But competency is utterly destroyed when you use your ministerial rights to violate every trust God and the Church put in you to elect validly a Catholic as the Pope. Seeing that the Cardinals have twice broken this trust in the last 12 years, Pope Benedict XVI’s comment has aged well indeed. “Competency” refers to the quality of an ability which because of its higher quality, the holder of which is sought out before all others: this is the sense of the Latin cum- & peto-, to seek out completely. Obviously, when the entire College acts as to forfeit their rights to elect the Roman Pontiff, they no longer meet the qualifications of canon 349.

For just as the the Cardinal Saints Peter Damian and Hildebrand acted in 1058, in response to the illegal election of Benedict X, perpetrated by the Cardinals, Clergy and Laity of the Church of Rome, so today, because of the entire defection of the Cardinal Electors from their duties, the Clergy, Religious and Laity of the Church of Rome recover their right, by apostolic ordinance and for the salvation of the Church, to elect a Catholic Pope.

Here the legal principles are the same, but they move in opposite directions.

Canon Law, Debates

Let the Martyrs of the Church at Rome, be my witness

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

Canon Law, Debates

A Canonical Analysis of why the Conclave of May 2025 had no valid result

35 Comments

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

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

VERSIONE ITALIANA

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

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

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

AN INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is that text of that Claim:

+ + +

Declaration of the Congregation of Cardinals, 30.04.2025

The Congregation of Cardinals wishes to make public the following two matters of a procedural nature, on which it has reflected and debated in recent days:

1)    Regarding the Cardinal electors, the Congregation has revealed that His Holiness Francis, by creating a number of Cardinals higher than the 120 stipulated by no. 33 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis of Saint John Paul II, of 22 February 1996, in the exercise of his supreme power, has dispensed with this legislative provision, whereby the Cardinals exceeding the set limit have acquired, in accordance with No. 36 of the same Apostolic Constitution, the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, from the moment of their creation and publication;

+ + +

Legal Problems with the Claim of April 30

1. Founded upon the revelation of a fact not publicly known

The legal problems in this Press Release are immediately obvious. First, the Cardinals claim to be revealing something which was not publicly known. This is outstanding, since the last time was 1130 A. D., that the Cardinals have made a claim, before a Papal Election, that the prior, now deceased Pope, had made some decision which would have effected in some way the manner of the election. — When the thing to be revealed is documented, there is no problem, but a secret which is not documented can never have force of right or law — this is an ancient principle of Roman jurisprudence.

And it is even more astounding, that the Cardinals say that only now they are revealing to the world, that this decision was made, even though they refer to an event on Dec. 8, 2024, nearly 6 months before!

If you want to understand how radically problematic this is, just call up any Estate Attorney, who deals with inheritances, and ask him what would be the legal value, if the heirs of someone who has passed away, claim before the reading of the will, that they had secret knowledge of how the deceased wanted his will to read, which they are only now revealing.

2. A Patent Conflict of Interest underlies the claim

The second problem is also obvious: the claim by the Cardinals is colored by self-interest, since the claim allows 13 more of them to vote during the Conclave than the rule of the Papal Law,

3. The claim runs counter to a formal precept or prescription of written law

Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II (Text Here), specifically regulates the number of Cardinals who can vote in a Conclave, in paragraph n. 33, which reads in the Latin:

Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerus centum viginti ne excedat.

Or, in English, “Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed one-hundred and twenty.”

As is clear to anyone, this verbal statement is a command. In law it is called a precept, or prescription. A precept refers to a rule which is laid down before some action is to be undertaken; a prescription is a rule written beforehand in a binding text.

The Papal Law on Conclaves is a Constitution, because it explains completely how a Pope is to be elected, in the normal course of things. It was promulgated by the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II, and as such represents the binding obligatory norm, which no one can obviate or ignore.

So to claim that you have a dispensation to not follow part of it, is really a momentous claim, not any small thing.

4. The Claim is not supported by any written document

Thus, when examining the claim, it becomes obvious that there is something very wrong: first of all, that their claim has no evidence of being true. That is, they are not making the claim, because they have a paper or document from Pope Francis formally granting this dispensation from the rule of no more than 120 Cardinal electors participating in the Conclave at any one time.

5. The Claim cites no specific verbal statement by Pope Francis

What is even more amazing, is that the Cardinals are making a claim without even citing any specific moment, in time or space, when they all heard from Pope Francis’ lips some same utterance in which he granted such a dispensation, or words equivalent.  This is totally extraordinary. Such a claim would not even meet the most basic requirements for evidence to be admitted to any court of law in the world!

6. The Claim involves an interpretation of another legal act by persons without any authority to interpret such an act, as Canon 16 and UDG 1 declare
No authority to Interpret

And to add offense to injury, the Cardinals are claiming that a specific act of Pope Francis was equivalent to granting the dispensation which they claim to have.  This is really outstanding, to speak in the most gentle terminology! Because if the legal act has such a meaning, the Cardinals could well cite the law that declares this. But no such law exists. And that they cite no such law or document which declares that the naming of more Cardinals than 120 by that very fact dispenses from the rule, they have conceded that there is no such document or law.

And this is very serious: because in Canon Law, canon 16 §1, the Cardinals do NOT have the authority to interpret Papal acts, unless this has been granted to them by some Pope or Canon of the Code of Canon Law. Here is the Latin of that canon:

Canon 16 §1. Leges authentice interpretatur legislator et is cui potestas authentice interpretandi fuerit ab eodem commissa.

Or in English,

Canon 16 §1. The legislator and the one to whom the authority to authentically interpret them has been given by the same, authentically interpret the laws.

So if the Cardinals’ claim implies an interpretation, which it obviously does, since they claim the act of naming Cardinals has a juridical effect, which no papal law says it has, they have to quote some Papal Law which granted them this authority to interpret the papal act in this manner.  Thus their implicit claim to interpret has no foundation either in the law or in the grant of the authority to interpret. This is simply outrageous.

Faulty reading of the Law

I have mentioned before, elsewhere, but it is worth the while to repeat it here, that the Claim of the Cardinals contains an incoherent and false argument, since they say that UDG n. 36 gives all of them the right to vote in Conclave, even though UDG n. 36 expressly makes its declaration bound by the strictures in UDG. n. 33, which limits the number of Electors during the Conclave to 120. — Moreover, they seem not even to be able to read, because UDG n. 33 does not place restrictions on how many Cardinals a pope can nominate, it only places a restriction on how many can vote at any single time during a Conclave! Thus, their pretense that there is some sort of connection between the act of being named a cardinal and the right to vote is totally vacuous and inane, a reading which is based on an interpretive presumption, which they have no right to make since they are not legislators.

Matter about which they claim to interpret, excluded by UDG n. 1

In addition, I wish to add here, from the observation of the commentator below — thank you Giuseppina! — that UDG n. 1 forbids the Cardinals all authority and right to make ex post facto declarations about the actions of the deceased Roman Pontiff,

1. Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium nullam potestatem aut iurisdictionem habet in ea quae pertinebant ad Summum Pontificem dum vivebat vel muneribus officii sui fungebatur; ea omnia exclusive uni Pontifici futuro debent reservari. Quapropter invalidum et irritum esse decernimus quidquid potestatis aut iurisdictionis – ad Romanum Pontificem dum vivit pertinentes, vel ad perfunctionem officii ipsius – coetus ipse Cardinalium duxerit exercendum nisi quatenus in hac Nostra Constitutione expresse permittatur.

Which in English would be:

1. With the Apostolic See vacant, the College of Cardinals has no authority or jurisdiction in those things which pertained to the Supreme Pontiff while he lived and/or while he exercised the munera of his Office; all these things ought to be reserved exclusively to the next future Pontiff.  On which account, We judge as invalid and irritus whatever of authority or jurisdiction — pertaining to the Roman Pontiff while he lived and/or to the performance of his office — the congregation of the Cardinals itself would decide to do except to the extent that it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.

Thus, it should be clear that the Cardinals never had any authority to interpret the act of being nominated Cardinals as having the right to vote in the Conclave, since over that act by the deceased Roman Pontiff they never had any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever, not even to interpret it has having such a inherent or consequential effect.

7. The Claim of the Cardinals is explicitly nullified by UDG n. 4

On top of all these legal problems, the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, in paragraph n. 4, explicitly says that no laws can be dispensed from during a sede vacante, and that if anyone claims to have such a dispensation, no matter how they claim it, their claim is null and void:

    1. Sede Apostolica vacante, leges a Romanis Pontificibus latas non licet ullo modo corrigi vel immutari, neque quidquam detrahi iis sive addi vel dispensari circa partes earum, maxime eas, quae ad ordinandum negotium electionis Summi Pontificis pertinent. Si quid contra hoc praescriptum fieri vel attentari contigerit, id suprema Nostra auctoritate nullum et irritum declaramus.

Which in English, would be:

    1. With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit that the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, be in any way corrected and/or changed, nor that anything whatsoever be taken away from or added to them and/or dispensed from concerning their parts. most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus.

Here, “null” means it is to be treated as of no value, and “irritus”, as having never been done or granted. And since this prescription in UDG n. 4, does NOT say, “During a sede vacante no one can dispense, or receive a dispensation”, but rather “With the sede vacante, it is not licit in any manner that any laws be dispensed from”, not only is the claim that Pope Francis dispensed, while he was alive, of no value to escape the nullification by this precept, but even if he had, such a dispensation could not be used regarding any part of any papal law, such as UDG n. 33, where the maximum number of cardinal electors is set at 120. — In other words, dispensations by their very nature are impotent to change the observance of papal laws, after the death of a pope!

Objection: Pope Francis is the supreme legislator, so he can grant a dispensation, even though Pope John Paul II forbade it, because one pope cannot constrain another

Response: It is true that a living pope can alter the laws of his predecessors, since while alive he is the supreme legislator. But after he is dead, his decisions and wills no longer have the force of the authority as supreme legislator, because he no longer holds the office of Roman Pontiff.  The only way a pope can make his decisions and wills live on with authority is if he promulgate them in a law.

This is why when Pope John Paul II published his law on Conclaves and put the stricture of 120 Electors maximum in paragraph n. 33, and then forbade any dispensations from this rule in his general censure in paragraph n. 4, Pope Francis being dead cannot undo it. And Pope Francis in granting a dispensation while he was alive, would have granted a dispensation which could not be used, UNLESS he also granted the faculty to the same Cardinals of not being bound ALSO to UDG. n. 4.

Now as Pope he could have granted this. It would have been a legal act of derogation: that is a change in the law which would have value during the next Conclave. But a derogation would have to have been written, signed by Pope Francis in the presence of two witnesses an published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, which is the official Gazette for legal acts by the Pope.

But the Cardinals do not claim or cite any such derogation from UDG n. 4. Thus their problematic claim to have a dispensation from UDG. n. 33, is worthless and of no juridical value.

Legal Consequences from the use of the claimed dispensation during the Conclave of May 2025

The legal consequences are severe, therefore, because of the legal error of the Cardinals, if we are to use the most polite language for their outrageous, unfounded, unlawful claim, renders the election NULL, IRRITUS and INVALID, conferring no right upon Cardinal Prevost.

EXPLANATION:

For when the Conclave began in its secret sessions of voting, UDG n. 68 required them to determine if the number of ballots cast is equal to the number of Cardinal electors present:

… Quodsi schedularum numerus non respondet numero electorum, omnes comburendae sunt, et iterum, id est altera vice, ad suffragia ferenda procedatur; si vero schedularum numerus numero electorum respondet, subsequitur publicatio scrutinii, quae hoc modo fit.

Which in English reads:

…  Wherefore, if the number of ballots does not correspond with the number of electors, all are to be burnt and again, that is another time, the balloting is to be taken; if, however, the number of ballots corresponds to the number of electors, there follows the publication of the vote-tallies, which is done in this manner.

And since UDG n. 33 sets the maximum number of Cardinals who ca be present at 120, if more than 120 ballots are cast, UDG. n. 68 requires that the ballots be burnt and NOT counted. And thus in every session of voting when there was more than 120 Cardinal Electors present, no count was lawful, and thus no one could ever have been elected.

And from this conclusion there is no escaping, because the Cardinals cannot claim that 133 Cardinal Electors can vote, since n. 68 says nothing about the limit, for two reasons: first of all, n. 68 is a section of the law over which UDG 5 forbids them to use any interpretations; and second, they cannot pretend to use a dispensation to change the meaning of n. 68, when as it has been shown, that without a derogation from UDG n. 4, they cannot excuse themselves from the limit on the number of Cardinal electors in n. 33.

OR in other words, you cannot claim you have a piece of cake in your hand, which does not exist, and then claim you ate it, on top of that. That would just compound lie upon lie, for no false claim can be used to make another claim. Logic does not work that way. And Law does not work that way.

Thus, by counting the votes in the wrong way, when they should not have been counted, the tallies taken were IRRITUS, that is, taken against the norm of the prescription to be followed, and thus of no legal value, as if they had never been taken or counted.

And that we are certain that they were irritus, is had from the promulgatory censure in the penultimate paragraph of UDG, where it declares anything done by persons of whatsoever dignity “against this contitution”, is “irritus”. Because to allow more than 120 to vote is to act contrary to the precept in UDG n. 33 and to count more than 120 during the election is contrary to n. 68 read in the context of n. 33.

But even moreso, since UDG n. 76, in addition declares NULL and INVALID any Papal Election in which in the very act of voting any alteration is made:

76. Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.

Which in English is:

76. Wherefore, if the election will have been celebrated in another manner, than this Constitution has established, or with the conditions prescribed equally here not observed, the election for this very reason is null and invalid without any declaration, and for that reason grants no right upon the one elected.

This prescription addresses two parts of the Papal Law on Conclaves: first the entire constitution, “if the election … than this Constitution has established” — such as allowing 133 Cardinals to vote– and secondly the chapter in which UDG n. 76 is contained in, which includes n. 68: “or with the conditions prescribed equally here not observed” — such as counting 133 votes in each balloting session, though only 120 are allowed to vote. — And, the choice of the adverb, here, is very important: aliter, which in Latin means, “in another manner”, that is, in any other manner than. This adverb does not admit of degrees of difference, that is, it does not mean, “in any other significant manner”, or “in any other important manner”. It means simply “in any other manner”. So the conclusion is inescapable.

Please note, that I render “aliter” as “in another manner”, but this might mislead the English reader, since “aliter” does not mean “in alio modo”. Here, “in another manner” is my stylistic choice, not an affirmation about the modality or kind of election. You can translate “aliter” more directly with the English, “otherwise”, which is linguistically more correct. Thus, UDG n. 76 is not speaking of how to do the election, just about how it was done differently.

Thus, there is no escaping that the Conclave of May 2025 had no valid result and that Cardinal Prevost is not the Pope. And we do not have to petition anyone to declare this to make it so, it is so by the very fact of the discrepancy of what the Cardinals did with the prescriptions of the law.

+ + +

I have responded in detail to the argument of Ed Condon, at The Pillar, regarding the rule of 120 (here) in a comment to a previous article.

Call to Action, Canon Law, News

Letter to a Cardinal regarding the irregularities in the Conclave of May 2025

39 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

UPDATED with PDF & Text Versions

Readers have asked me to publish a suggested letter which they could send to any Cardinal, whether elector or not, asking him to attend to the two grave legal irregularities in the Conclave of May, 2025.

So here below is a suggested letter in PDF format. Beneath that, is the same letter in the format of an article here at FromRome, so that with Chrome or Firefox you can see the text in your native language in a mechanical translation (which probably has errors, but will give you the gist of the Letter).

While we can be sure that some of the Cardinals do not care, it may be that many of the Cardinals do, especially those 65 who were not involved in the claim of April 30, “that Pope Francis granted a dispensation” to the rule of having no more than 120 Cardinal electors, or that Prevost’s election could never be valid on account of his previous public acts of the sin of heresy.

This letter contains the complete canonical argument in a direct, to the point, format, as a formal canonical petition, which must at least be read the Cardinal and his legal team.

Here is that suggested text, in format of PDF, I wrote it in suchwise that you need only sign it and mail it to a Cardinal.

Note, as I correct minor typographical errors, the version of this letter will change. Currently the version is 1.03.

If you do not have the access to someone who can translate this letter precisely, using the normal ecclesiastical terminology which prevails in your native language, you can still send this letter to any Cardinal in the English language.

Finally, I advise you not to change anything in this letter on the basis of any claim by any social media grifters, because once they see this Letter their vanity and jealously will cause them to attack every part of it and or suggest alterations so as to make the canonical petition it contains null and void or at least seem ridiculous. I warn you all in advance, since I have seen the malignity of these sort of people for the last 12 years and am familiar with their modus malum operandi (their way of working evil).

If you send such a letter, send it by registered mail, or at least in suchwise as you have a receipt for the date of its sending.

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS BEFORE JULY 30, 2025, so that your petition arrives before 90 days, after the initial claim of the Cardinals to have a dispensation, has elapsed,

To download this file, press FULL SCREEN when on a PC, and then click the download icon in the upper right corner on the tool bar.

After 90 days, if the Cardinals do not take any action on this petition, then they are canonically demonstrated to be knowingly and willfully complicit in the crime of schism and promoting heresy, and excommunicated latae sententiae by canon 1364, for schism at the very least, after which according to canon 1331 §1, they can exercise no office, ministry nor confer any Sacrament licitly in the Church, until a true pope absolve them after they have repented. Then the Catholics of Rome can proceed to the election of a Catholic Pope in accord with the teaching of Pope Nicholas II, and this with their enemies having  no valid basis for a contrary claim that the Cardinals will or might at some future time repair their fault, since after being excommunicated they cannot licitly exercise their offices as Cardinal electors.

Letter to a Cardinal about the Juridical Problems which Invalidate the Recent Conclave of May, 2025

Your Eminence,

As a fully incardinated member of the Church of Rome, and prince of the Church, I am writing to you to express my grave concerns, using the rights granted me by Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law for the Roman Rite, published by Pope John Paul II, on January 25, 1983. Hereafter, in my letter, when I refer to the Code, I will cite this edition.

My concerns are not those of myself only, but are held by hundreds of thousands of Catholics of the Roman Rite throughout the English, Spanish, French and Italian speaking world.

And as they regard the recent Conclave, I trust in the Lord that He will abundantly pour out upon you, if you ask Him, the grace and light, since being a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, He will always stand at your side ready to give you such blessings to fulfill your duty to serve Him, who is the Supreme Head of the Church.

These concerns regard two grave juridical problems and arise solely out of the discrepancy of the historical record of how the Conclave was conducted with the prescriptions of papal law.

The First Problem

The first regards the press release made by the Cardinals assembled in General Congregation on April 30, 2025, and reported by Vatican News, and now published on the Vatican Website, regarding the claim of the Cardinals to have received a dispensation from Pope Francis to violate the formal equipollent precept found in n. 33 of the papal law on conclaves, Universi Dominic Gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, on February 22, 1996, and which I will refer to, hereafter, in my letter, with the symbol UDG, for brevity’s sake.

That precept reads in the Latin text of the papal law – which is the only legally binding text – as follows:

Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerus centum viginti ne excedat.

And which in English would be, precisely: “Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed one hundred and twenty.”

The Vatican’s English translation has the helping verb “must”, which is in no way signified in the Latin, though it does not formally deviate from the same sense.

The point is, however, that in claiming to have been dispensed, the Cardinals failed to take note of UDG n. 4, which forbids dispensation from papal laws during a sedevacante:

  1. Sede Apostolica vacante, leges a Romanis Pontificibus latas non licet ullo modo corrigi vel immutari, neque quidquam detrahi iis sive addi vel dispensari circa partes earum, maxime eas, quae ad ordinandum negotium electionis Summi Pontificis pertinent. Si quid contra hoc praescriptum fieri vel attentari contigerit, id suprema Nostra auctoritate nullum et irritum declaramus.

Which in English, would be:

  1. With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit that the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, be in any way corrected and/or changed, nor that anything whatsoever be taken away from or added to them and/or dispensed from concerning their parts. most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus.

Here, Pope John Paul II not only declares the use of any dispensations illicit – which he signifies by putting the verb, dispensari in the passive voice of the infinitive of the verb, “to dispense” (dispenare), and thus connecting it syntactically to “it is not licit in any manner that the laws … be dispensed from” (leges … non licet ullo modo) – but also declares them null and irritus (irritus means “to be considered as never having existed” because not done according to the prescribed rules)

Thus, if the Cardinals wanted not only to use the dispensation they claimed, but that it be effective so as not to impinge upon the juridical value of their acts, they would have to have also obtained a derogation of UDG n. 4, which they did not claim to have. In fact, since UDG. n. 4 forbids all changes to papal laws during a sede vacante, echoing Canon 335, which forbids all innovations in right, during the same, Pope Francis would have had to permanently or temporarily derogated, that is removed, the prescription of UDG n. 4, so that it would not cancel out the dispensation that the Cardinal claimed to have received.

But in the Roman Church, derogations are alterations of law, and only come into effect, when promulgated in written form and signed by a competent superior. In this case Pope Francis would have had to publish the derogation from UDG n. 4 in the Acta Apostolic Sede, before or after granting the dispensation – even if one admits arguendo that a dispensation can be verbally granted.

All of this is true, because in ecclesiastical right, in the Roman Church, the authority of every Roman Pontiff ends completely with his death, IF he has not promulgated his will in some juridical act. Thus after his death Pope Francis could exercise no authority over the papal law, UDG, by a mere verbal comment or by the appointment of Cardinals, since all the rights regarding voting in a Conclave, (cf. UDG n. 36) are conceded under the stricture of the rule of 120 maximum. – The resulting legal error by the Cardinals, caused the Cardinal Electors in Conclave to violate UDG n. 68, when they unlawfully counted 133 votes in each ballot, rather than the maximum number allowed, which is 120. Thus, the prescription of UDG n. 68 was violated, when the votes were counted rather than being collected and being burnt, as UDG n. 68 requires when there are more votes cast than the allowed 120.

All this is a very grave irregularity, in the very act of the election, a thing which UDG. 76 forbids and declares, that in all such elections with irregularities in the very act of election, the one elected receives no right or office, and the election is null and invalid.

The Second Problem

However, the second legal error is even more grave, and it regards the violation of the Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, of February 15, 1559, and confirmed by Pope Saint Pius V, in his motu proprio, “Inter multiplices curas”, of January 12, 1567, which in paragraph 6 reads as follows, in the Latin:

  1. Adiicientes quod si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum, etiam pro Archiepiscopo, seu Patriarcha, vel Primate se gerentem, aut praedictae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem, etiam ut praefertur, Legatum, seu etiam Romanum Pontificem ante eius promotionem, vel in Cardinalem, seu Romanum Pontificem assumptionem a fide Catholica deviasse, aut in aliquam haeresim incidisse,

(i) promotio, seu assumptio de eo etiam in concordia, et de unanimi omnium Cardinalium assensu facta, nulla, irrita,

(ii) et inanis existat, nec per susceptionem muneris, consecrationis, aut subsecutam regiminis, et administrationis possessionem, seu quasi, vel ipsius Romani Pontificis inthronizationem, aut adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam, et cuiusvis temporis in praemissis cursum, convaluisse dici, aut convalescere possit,

(iii) nec pro legitima in aliqua sui parte habeatur, 

Which in English, would read thus:

  1. Adding, that if at any time ever it will have appeared that any Bishop, even as an Archbishop, or Patriarch, and/or acting as a Primate, or Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as one promoted, Legate, or even a Roman Pontiff before his promotion, either to the Cardinalate, or his elevation as Roman Pontiff, had deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy,

(i), Let the promotion, or elevation of him, even in peaceful agreement, and from the unanimous given consent of all  the Cardinals, stand forth as null and irritus,

(ii) and void, nor said to be convalidated, nor even be able to be convalidated, through the undertaking of the munus, consecration, or subsequent possession of the government, and administration, or as if, either through the same’s enthronement as Roman Pontiff, or adoration, or through the obedience proffered him by all, and through whatever course of time in the aforesaid,

(iii) nor let his election be held as legitimate in any part thereof.

This censure which is not directed against the person of the elected pope, but against the canonical validity of his election remains in force since no Roman Pontiff has ever abrogated this Bull by name, nor derogated, subrogated, or obrogated it, on account of this, that no subsequent papal legislation has dealt with the validity of such an election of a pope, even though the Bull itself, as regards many other things deals with matters which have been integrated into the Codes of Canon Law of 1917 and 1983, as well as the papal laws for the election of the Roman Pontiff promulgated by Saint Pius X, Pius XII and John Paul II.

This Bull of Paul IV must be considered in mind, since Cardinal Prevost before his election was publicly known to have deviated from the Catholic Faith when he accepted the teaching contained in such documents as Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia, which teaching notable Cardinals of the Roman Church declared as heretical or contrary to Catholic Faith, or contrary to the discipline of the Sacraments established by the Apostles themselves; not to mention that Cardinal Prevost emphatically denies the admissibility of the use of capital punishment by the state in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Apostle Saint Paul, one of the co-founders of the Church at Rome.

For these two grave reasons, I, in my capacity as a Roman Catholic, do petition you, in your capacity as a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, to bring these concerns to the full consideration of Cardinal Prevost and the entire College, since the juridical error is of such a magnitude as to make it improbable and impossible that Prevost received the Papal Office from Christ, and as such, if left unaddressed, is and will be the cause of schism in the Church, because in the juridical order the entire body of the Faithful would be treating as Roman Pontiff a man who in the sight of God never received that office. And since that office has no superior on earth, its conferral must be impeccable without legal error of any sort.

Sincerely,

Canon Law, Editorials, Videos

Are Catholics required to accept Cardinal Prevost as Leo XIV?

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo:  English Language Transcript

Traduzione Italiana

Five years ago, I wrote to a Cardinal about the invalidity of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in the Conclave of 2013, and he wrote me back, claiming that as Catholics we must presume the election was valid and that Pope Francis had received the papal office from Christ. I responded to the Cardinal, here, in this open letter, “Dialogue with a Cardinal who refused to dialogue“, published on January 23, 2020, a copy of which I mailed directly to him.

Since the issue is timely, I will reformulate his question for present circumstances, and give my reply:

Must a Catholic presume Pope Leo XIV is a validly elected pope,
who actually holds the papal office?

No, because:

Firstly, because, that a man is the pope is not a presumption of fact, but the conclusion of law.

For example, he is not the pope, whom the Cardinals say is the pope, rather, he is the pope who was validly elected by the Cardinals according to the norm of the Papal Law of John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis.

To say the first, that is, that “he whom the Cardinals say is the pope, is the pope”, confuses the means whereby we know a canonical fact with the cause of the legitimacy of a canonical fact. They are two different things. — Yes, we know under normal circumstances who was elected by the Cardinals, from the Cardinals themselves. That is the normal channel for knowing the canonical fact of the election. But the canonical fact of the election is not the canonical validity of the election. The canonical fact is the witness that the event took place. Period. — But the legitimacy of the election is much more important. Just as the truth of any claim is more important than the fact the claim was made.

Otherwise, if anyone came to your door, knocked, and when you opened it, claimed to own your house, his mere fact of having claimed it, would make him its owner. Now just as this principle holds no matter who is at the front door, whether it be a nobody, the town clerk, the assessor’s office superintendent, the mayor, governor, etc., so also in a papal election. — Thus, the truth of the claim is based on the conformity of facts with the prescriptions of the law governing ownership. The truth of the claim is not based on the dignity of those claiming it!

So, the Catholic who can read the Papal Law and who has knowledge of the historical facts, can assess the validity of the claim of the Cardinals.  If he can do this it would be the mortal sin of sloth, if he presumed the claim was true, upon hearing a contrary claim, based on the factually demonstrated discrepancy of behavior with the requirements of the law.

So yes, an ignorant Catholic can presume that if the Cardinals say X is the Pope, that X is the pope. But a literate Catholic in the age of social media, who has access to nearly all information, can not presume, after the first moment in which he encounters any report that puts in doubt the validity of the election.

And here is the difficulty most Catholics have: They believe that they must wait for certain evidence that the Cardinals are not worthy of trust. That is, they refuse to read the law or compare the requirements of the law with the facts of what happened, BECAUSE they are waiting rather for the testimony of some Cardinal that disputes the claim of other Cardinals. And they infer from the unanimity of the Cardinals to the validity of the election, REGARDLESS of what the law says. A grievous error, which marks them with the mark of the disciples of the Antichrist, according to Saint Paul the Apostle.

I can recognize this approach, for being half Sicilian, I know how many deal  with organized crime: they simple do not admit it exists, so that they can go about their day without any worries. They might pity the victims of the Mafia, but they really don’t care about that, until one of their loved ones becomes a victim.

So the next time anyone, especially a priest, tells you to shut up or be quite or that you are a sinner or bad Catholic for NOT presuming he is a pope and/or for sharing the truth about the election so that others might be liberated from the deception, ask your interlocutor if they are preaching out of their personal presumption, born of sloth or because they have done their own investigation.

Again, no, Secondly, because if you have the responsibility to act on the basis of another’s claim, you are liable if you act on presumption alone

Every Catholic who has ever been in a position of responsibility, understands this. Because, the mere fact that you hold authority, does not exculpate you from responsibility. Nay, it increases it. This is why in all official matters of state, every government official is required to act only if the proper verifiable and verified actions or documents are communicated.

The same is true for every Catholic. For if we are to accept the Magisterium of someone claiming to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ, we would be grossly negligent and responsible for the harm to all around us, if we propagate his teachings having presumed his election was valid, and remained in our presumption, even when other Catholics have shared with us information about the possibly invalidity of his claim to the papacy.

Remember, we are not dealing here with a controversy over whether the local Ice Cream Shop uses cream or milk to make their products. We are dealing with your eternal salvation and those of all around you, who heed your advice and counsel, whether you be a parent, friend, colleague or relative. Moreso, if you be a priest, pastor, confessor or spiritual director, or ecclesiastical superior.

Thus, it is both deeply irresponsible and gravely reckless for anyone in such position to accord to a man claiming to be the Roman Pontiff the presumption that he is, as soon as anyone whomsoever says there is a problem in his election. All Catholics of all ages before our own, understood this, which is why there have been named more than 40 antipopes in history. How did they earn the moniker, “antipope”, except by the fact that some Catholics contested the validity of his claim to power?

Those who refuse to hear any such contestation, and who hold responsibility over others, are thus showing themselves to be incompetent in the execution of their duties.

And this truth is reflected in Canon 41, which holds that anyone who is required to execute an administrative order, who has not verified that the one issuing it has authority and that the act itself is legitimate, acts invalidly, that is, posits an act which he has no authority to make, usurping the rights of the one who legitimately could authorize the act and defrauding all those subjects who have the right to not be deceived in a matter regarding the claim that a superior has asked something of them.

Thus, priests especially have the duty to investigate all reasonable claims that a papal election is irregular or invalid, otherwise they are sinning gravely in the execution of their ministry. Likewise are all those who have been entrusted or who have taken up by their own volition, the dissemination of information about the Catholic Church, if they censor any discussion or reports about the irregularities in a papal election.

And in all these cases, we are not talking about a small sin, but a mortal sin, because to spread information that someone is the Pope when he is not the pope is to spiritually mislead or scandalize the faithful, and thus is a mortal sin multiplied by as many persons who might hear him say such things.

Thus, if anyone tell you not to investigate, or not to listen to such news of problems in a papal election, remind them that they are sinning gravely against justice and are attempting to violate your rights and duties under Canon 41.

And so to such persons, a parent, for example, can reply in private or in public,

“Father, as a parent, who believes and holds to the Catholic Faith, I have the grave duty, according to Canon 41, of verifying Prevost’s claim to be the pope, before I can offer him any obedience, reverence or respect as the Pope; and your attempt to dissuade me of this grave duty, is a grave sin against the charity and justice you own me and my family. Moreover, since there is objective evidence that his election was invalidated by the presence of 133 Cardinal Electors in defiance of the Papal Law on Conclaves, and that he spoke against the Catholic Faith before his election, I must hold that it is more probable that his election is invalid, because of the authority of Popes John Paul II and Paul IV, the text of whose constitutions are clear on these points, and which cannot be overturned by the interpretations of anyone, but a true Pope.”

And if a priest persist, add:

“And if you continue to abuse your position over me as a priest, I will file a charge against you for spiritual abuse.”

+ + +

If you would like to download this video, click the down arrow in the upper right corner of this video:

Canon Law, News

The Cardinals’ claim to a dispensation from the rule of 120 is a total LIE

5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In my previous video about how Pope John Paul II declares the Conclave of May 2025, invalid, I argued from the inherent lack of juridical foundation in the claim of the Cardinals* to a dispensation, which claim they published on April 30, 2025. See Here. This regards the rule of having no more than 120 Cardinal  Electors participate in a Conclave.

My argument against their claim drew from the fact that since their claim to have a dispensation ran counter to the norms of Canon Law regarding dispensation from superiors which were never published in a juridical act, their claim fell under the censure of the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, Pope John Paul II’s law on Papal Conclaves, which declared irritus — that is, to be considered as having never existed — anything contrary to the law.

However, reading the Law over in Latin, I discovered today that there is an even more direct refutation of the claim by the Cardinals in n. 4 of the law, made by Pope John Paul II, himself, who foresaw their impiety, when he wrote in Latin in that paragraph:

4. Sede Apostolica vacante, leges a Romanis Pontificibus latas non licet ullo modo corrigi vel immutari, neque quidquam detrahi iis sive addi vel dispensari circa partes earum, maxime eas, quae ad ordinandum negotium electionis Summi Pontificis pertinent. Si quid contra hoc praescriptum fieri vel attentari contigerit, id suprema Nostra auctoritate nullum et irritum declaramus.

Which in English is:

4. With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit that the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, be in any way corrected and/or changed, nor that anything whatsoever be taken away from or added to them and/or dispensed from concerning their parts. most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus.

You cannot get more explicit than this, when the Pope who wrote the Law said that no one CAN EVER CLAIM TO HAVE RECEIVED A DISPENSATION from observing any part of it. This concords with canon 86 which forbids dispensations from essential elements of papal laws.

And if the Cardinals argue that they were dispensed before Pope Francis died, their argument is contradicted by the ablative absolute which begins n. 4, “Sede Apostolica vacante”, which is not translated, “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See” (Dummodo vacantia Sedis Apostolica sit), nor “When the Apostolic See is vacant” (Quando/Cum sedes apostolica vacat”, but “With the Apostolic See vacant”, because it specifies a condition of time, not a limitation of time. For, even if you were granted a dispensation before the sede vacante, to make use of it during a sede vacante would be “to be dispensed” (dispensari) “sede apostolica vacante”, and thus is explicitly forbidden.

In fact, since Pope Francis did not promulgate the Papal Law on conclaves, he would have to have derogated the rule of 120, rather than granted a dispensation. But since he did neither in writings, the Cardinals’ claim that he did is purely a preposterous deceit.

The Cardinals therefore are total liars. And if they call Cardinal Prevost the Pope, they know they are lying, since this law in the Latin was read in the presence of them all.

ADDENDUM

This censure in n. 4 regards papal laws. Canon 335 says the same thing regarding all other norms in the Church, whether canons, constitutions, laws or customs which have force of law. Thus, both the papal law of John Paul II and the Code of Canon Law which he promulgated confirm that the Bulls of Paul IV and Nicholas II remain in force, in those matters where they have never been abrogated, derogated, subrogated or obrogated. The prescription in both are elegant reminders that the laws of the Church promulgated by ANY pope remain in force, regardless of what the corrupt clerics of our own age want to pretend.

* Footnote: That when I say, “Cardinals” in the article above, I speak of those who promulgated the press release on April 30, 2025, wherein the claim was made that they were dispensed from the rule on 120. Only about 180 Cardinals of the 250 were present; and of these 180 more or less, 130 were Cardinals who could be Electors. Which means about 60 to 65 Cardinals who were not eligible to vote, did not approve of this statement, in the sense that they were not there to approve of it.

Canon Law, Videos

Juridical Positivism, the Error which allows Freemasonry to Seize the Papacy

11 Comments

In this 32 minute video, Br. Bugnolo explains what the error of juridical positivism is, and why without it, the Freemasons could never seize the Papacy without a Catholic reaction.  Since many Catholic influencers unknowingly accept this error, they have no intellectual capacity to resist the psyop of mass formation, when the Globalist Controlled Media all start saying so-and-so has been elected the Pope. We saw this back in 2013, and now Br. Bugnolo addresses how this error is being used to prevent Catholics using an objective-reality based analysis in regard to the Conclave of 2025.

Documents or Videos cited in the above video:

  1. Save Rome Project
  2. 1983 Code of  Canon Law (unofficial English translation)
  3. 1996 Papal Law on Conclaves, Universi Dominic Gregis
  4. Canon Law would make Cardinal Prevost an impossible Pope
  5. Pope Paul IV declares election of Prevost null and void
  6. Pope John Paul II’s Papal Law on conclaves nullifies the election of Cardinal Prevost
  7. What is de Fide Catholica?
  8. Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domine

UPDATE of June 15, 2024: In this video I anticipated what I discovered  a month later in the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, “In Nomine Domine”, n. 3, where he affirms the same thing.

The above video is also available on the English language FromRome.Info Video channel on YouTube, where what Brother says is considered so “threatening” to Globalism, that YouTube put a note on the video about “Freemasonry”.

Canon Law

Why the Code of Canon Law would make Prevost an impossible Pope

2 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have previously demonstrated without any refutation from any Catholic author in the world, that Cardinal Prevost’s election as Leo XIV is invalidated by two Papal Laws: Bull of Pope Paul IV, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, of February 15, 1559, reconfirmed by the Motu Proprio of Saint Pius V, “Inter Multiplices Curas”, of January 12, 1567, and by Pope John Paul II’s, Papal Law on Conclaves, “Universi Dominic Gregis”, of February 22, 1996.

Now, I will demonstrate that his election, though a heretic, would by the 1983 Code of Canon Law create such a crisis in the juridical order in the Church that God would have to intervene.

Please refer to my article about what constitutes the Catholic Faith, and what is meant by  contrary to a truth de Fide Catholica, in my previous article from this morning, which explains how Cardinal Prevost is a formal manifest and pertinacious heretic.

The Code of Canon Law of 1983’s Description of “Heresy”

In the current laws of the Catholic Church, the most authoritative juridical reference to what Heresy is, is found in Canon 751, which reads thus in Latin:

Canon 751 — Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis fide divina et catholica credendae dengatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; ….

Which in English translation would be:

Canon 751 — Heresy is called the pertinacious denial, after the reception of Baptism, of any truth to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, or pertinacious doubting concerning the same; ..

As can be seen this canon describes “heresy” but does not define it, because it lacks the infinitive of the verb, “to be” (esse), which when used in conjunction with the opening verb, “Dicitur” forms definitive constructions of the type, “is said to be”. But it is a sufficient description for the law, since as the only such description in the Code of 1983, it can be considered the juridical minimum litmus test.

On social media, this canon is nearly never cited, and when it is, it is nearly always misrepresented, even by Canon Lawyers. This is because, modernists want this code to read, “to be believed by Divine and defined Catholic Faith”, that is, in regard only to truths of the Catholic Faith which have been verbally defined or censured by name by the extraordinary magisterium, of Ecumenical Councils or the Pope. While the canon itself does not say this, since it omits the word, “defined” (definita), and thus pertains to all the truths of the Catholic Faith which have been revealed by God and taught continuously by the Church, even if only in the liturgy or Tradition, all the public discussion of this canon, which I have seen on the internet has presented it as if it did.

Thus, contrary to the Urban Myth, this canon does describe “heresy” in suchwise as would include under the category of heresy, (1) the denial of the morality of capital punishment, (2) the denial that every priestly action of a Catholic priest invokes the power and authority of God and impinges on the dignity of His Divine Name (Fiducia Supplicans), (3) the denial that the 2nd and 6th commandment of the Decalogue are the moral foundations of Sacramental Discipline, as revealed by the Apostles (Fiducia Supplicans & Amoris Laetitia), (4) the denial of the sacramental discipline of exclusion for public sinners as taught by Saint Paul (Fiducia Supplicans), and (5) the denial that eternal punishments are part of God’s logic of salvation for those who reject His Revelation etc. (Amoris Laetitia) , all of which Cardinal Provost professes, since he has publicly accepted ‘Fiducia supplicans’ and ‘Amoris Laetitia’ as magisterial documents, and has declared capital punishment “never morally admissible”, even though each of these heresies have been openly denounced by innumerable authors and ecclesiastics, who have openly rejected or criticized both documents and the statements of Pope Francis on capital punishment. Wherefore, Cardinal Prevost is inexcusable in his persistence in accepting these documents and professing these heresies: whence forensically he can justly be termed pertinacious in them.

Canon 1364 imposes ipso facto excommunication on all heretics

This canon reads in the Latin,

Canon 1364 § 1. Apostata a fide, haereticus vel schismaticus in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit, firmo praescripto can. 194 §1, n. 2: …

Which in English reads:

Canon 1364 §1. The apostate from the Faith, the heretic and/or the schismatic, incurs latae sententiae excommunication, with the prescription of canon 194 §1, n. 2 remaining firm;

Here the phrase, “latae sententiae” which in the Latin is in the genitive, and is normally used as an adjectival phrase in English translations, can be rendered instead as, “without the necessity of a declared condemnation”.

As can be seen from canon 751, to commit the canonical crime of heresy one needs only to deny a revealed truth held by the Church to be believed, such as I have detailed in the article cited above about the heresies sustained by Cardinal Prevost, which he has pertinaciously adhered too, as evidenced by his post election declaration that he will “continue in the line of Vatican II as magisterially interpreted by Pope Francis”, who taught these heresies, and by such statements, that “Pope Francis is in heaven looking down upon us”.

Controversy over undeclared excommunications

The controversy over the current disciplinary regime regarding heresy, usually is presented in this  manner:  that the heresy has to be a denial of a truth which the Church has defined in council — which I demonstrated is false, in the article about “de Fide Catholica” cited above — and that the excommunication does not take place until some tribunal of the Church or Bishop declares that the punishment has been incurred. Having only heard this opinion before this week, I had heretofore held it and defended it.

However, this last assertion, I have recently found is entirely false, as I found in the text of Canon 1354:

1354 §2. Obligatio servandi poenam latae sententiae, quae neque declarata sit neque sit notoria in loco ubi deliquens versatur, eatenus ex toto vel ex parte suspenditur, quaetenus reus eam servare nequeat sine periculo gravis scandali vel infamiae.

Which in English would be:

1354 §2. The obligation of observing a latae sententiae punishment, which has neither been declared nor is notorious in the place where the delinquent is found, is suspended in whole and-or in part, to the extent that the one liable cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal and/or infamy.

From this canon it can be seen, that excommunications which are leveled by Canon 1364 against heretics go into full effect immediately upon the satisfaction of the conditions for the crime of heresy specified in canon 751, and that therefore there is no necessity of recourse to a superior or a tribunal to declare them. While this does not pertain to the removal of heretics from office, who must be brought before a tribunal in accord with canon 194 as cited above in the latter canon, it does affect those Catholics who would otherwise be promoted to office, when they attempt to exercise that office, as we can see in the next canon.

From the above, then, it is clear that when in canon 751 is speaking about pertinacious heresy, it is not referring to the pertinacity manifested after three corrections by ecclesiastical superiors or before a tribunal of the Church, but simply to a manifest persistence in the profession of the heresy. Also, it must be speaking of manifest heresy, that is which has been noticed by others after the heretical profession was made before witnesses. Likewise, it must be speaking of formal heresy, not material heresy, that not merely the passing expression of a heretical thesis but one to which the heretic has consciously embraced with the assent of his mind. And obviously the heresies of Cardinal Provost meet all these qualifications, not to mention that he was notorious for these before his “selection” as Leo XIV.

Canon 1331, the juridical effects of being a heretic

The next canon explains what the effects are of being excommunicated latae sententiae, without any tribunal or authority declaring it, that is, what would happen if a man who was a pertinacious heretic denying one or more truth that had to be believed by divine an Catholic faith, was elected the Pope, and what kind of pope he would be:

Canon 1331 §1. Excommunicatus vetatur:

1° ullam habere participationem miisterialem in celebrandis Eucharisticae Sacraficio vel quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimonalis;

2° sacramenta vel ssacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;

3° ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel munierubus qualibuslibet fugi vel actus regiminis ponere.

Which in English is:

Canon 1331 §1. The one excommunicated is forbidden:

1° to have any sharing as a minister in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonial worship of whatever kind;

2° to celebrate the Sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the Sacraments;

3° to exercise any kind of ecclesiastical offices and/or munera of whatever kind and/or to posit an act of government.

Thus, though the Papal Law of John Paul II does not forbid the election of a man who has not been placed under a penal sentence by the previous pope(s), it does clearly declare that a man who is a heretic, when elected pope, even if he has never been declared such by a tribunal, that is, even if he is a manifest formal and pertinacious heretic, but not yet a public one, to become incapable of exercising:

    1. The Petrine Munus,
    2. The Petrine Ministry,
    3. All and any power or act of jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, as Supreme Pontiff, Patriarch of the West or Primate of Italy, or by any other title,
    4. All and any power or act of jurisdiction pertaining to the same as Monarch of the Vatican City State.
    5. Of participating lawfully in any act of ecclesiastical communion.

Moreover, since canon 1331 does not consider this special cases of a heretic elected pope, the law being defective, leads to an intolerable juridical situation, in which the man would have to be condemned in a Provincial Council by the men whom he and his fellow heretics put in power as Bishops of the Province: a thing we saw they have no intention of doing, as the Sutri Initiative already established with forensic certitude.

The result of such a case would cause the one true Church to juridically disintegrate and lose all approval from God as a legal institution. Furthermore, all future Conclaves would likewise be invalid, if they elect heretics or have Cardinals he appointed.

Moreover, if you apply these same canons to Pope Francis, then after he became a manifest heretic by pertinaciously sustaining the heretical interpretation of Amoris Laetitia through his letter to the Argentinian Bishops, placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, and his persistence in naming Cardinals who supported Fiducia supplicans though he was forcibly rebuked for signing this very same document, one would be led to sustain that the cardinals at least named after 2023, or 2017, being present in the Conclave would also cause it to have an invalid result, by means of their invalid presence, resulting in the invalid election of Provost.

There is only one possibility left,  and Catholics at Rome must do it

If you believe the Catholic Faith and confront these facts of law and history, then the only possibility left is to admit that in such a Situation God Himself would have to intervene. And if you have Faith, then you can admit, at least, that God has already intervened, since He can foresee all futures, even ones in which Papal Laws are defective, and provide grace to previous Popes to issue laws to prevent this: or allow men to fail, to prevent this.

Thus, that Pope Paul IV issued “Cum ex apostolatus officio” regarding this very exact case, and since Pope John Paul II declared null and void any election with more than 120 cardinals, and since God allowed the Cardinal Electors to elect someone whose election is nullified by the first of these papal laws, by 133 Cardinals so as to be nullified by the second of these papal law, it remains that the only other possibility left is that Leo XIV is not the Pope and that there must be another way for Catholics to have a valid pope, if the Papacy is to endure until the coming of Christ Our Lord.

And there is, as I have demonstrated back in 2019, by an examination of this question, which no one has yet refuted in the entire Church, which you can find HERE in English and HERE in Italian.

And this is precisely what Catholics at Rome are organizing to do. Please help them here. And this time, it is clear, that they must elect someone who has never deviated from the Catholic Faith, so that he can validly exercise the office he is elected to.

UPDATE: After writing this article, I found on June 11, 2025, that in the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, does in fact teach infallibly, that when an election has been invalidly held, then the original electorate obtains the right to undertake another election. See, here.

Action Items, Apostolates, Asking for Help, Canon Law

Br. Bugnolo explains how Catholics at Rome can elect a Catholic Pope

13 Comments

Editor’s Note: On January 29, 2023, I was interviewed by “Caritate in Veritate” about the Election by Apostolic Right, of a successor of Saint Peter, the next day. Under a heavy chest cold, I explained the historical and juridical basis of such an election, and thus, this video serves as a good explanation even to this day.

What I failed back then to recognize, is that so many of those who said Pope Benedict XVI was the pope, were actually part of the fake opposition or under such strong psychological control of these persons, that out of pure spite, they did not come in great numbers to the Assembly. — And this game of deception is still going on in 2025, as you can see HERE, where they pretend to be fighting but entirely ignore the rights of Catholics at Rome to have Catholic Pope. Or even worse, they pretend that Prevost is Catholic and that his critics are schismatics, as is done HERE. — This is disinformation and coverup at a massively coordinated level.

Now after the doubly invalid Conclave of May 2025,* I will be doing more publicity, this time, to get the message out to persons of good will, so that the Church of Rome can have a Catholic Pope.

If you would like to help, see this article HERE.

This will require a lot of support, so I urge you to consider that at this point in the history of the world, God might be calling YOU personally to make great sacrifices to save the Immaculate Bride of Christ, taking Her down from the Cross of Globalism, where She has been crucified for such a long time, and giving Her back to Her Immaculate Spouse, Jesus Christ, by helping the Catholics of the Church of Rome have a Catholic Bishop!

This will be a  herculean task, and I need many volunteers to come to Rome to help me do it, in addition to significant funding, since even a 1 page advertisement in a daily newspaper here at Rome costs 70000 USD, and renting a venue for a large meeting even for a few hours, in the Jubilee Year, is probably double of that. But it is the publicity that will cost the most, because for several weeks I need to run ads on Radio, TV and in Newspapers, after I have a contract for a meeting place, payed for, and secured by unbreakable legal contracts. Such a meeting also requires by law many other services to provide for all possible and contingent needs of those who attend: Ambulances, Firemen, Beverages, Security, Seating, toilets, help for the handicapped etc..

I need both kinds of help, because, as you can see, last time I nearly “killed myself” in doing everything by myself, since I had no one to help me by God and His Angels. Italians here at Rome are just too afraid to be active participants in such a preparation, that is why Catholics from round the world need to come here in person to help. However, a large portion of Catholics at Rome are disgusted with the immorality of the Vatican and would come to such an Assembly, if they know of it.

Also, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, do you duty to recruit candidates for the election. He has to be unmarried, male, not under any ecclesiastical censures, and Catholic. This is not the time to merely eat popcorn and watch what happens. Nor is it the time only to send financial support. Encouraging a holy man to allow himself to be considered a candidate is also essential.

I should not have to say this, but some people have still not figured that out. They think it is sufficient to have an election and don’t do a blessed thing to encourage worthy candidates. — I saw this last time, and frankly it shocked me to my core and left me to ask: O Lord, why did you put me in an age where people find it so hard to live in reality!

*- For violating the rule of 120 Cardinals in conclave (Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 33), and because before his election he spoke against the Catholic Faith (Cum ex apostolatus officio, n. 6).