Category Archives: Canon Law

The anti-Church is an alternate Church with an alternate canonical reality

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


For more than 10 years we have been fed with an alternate reality from a group of Catholics who want an alternate Church. And it has been very difficulty for many Catholics, who discern truth, not on the basis of objective criteria, but on the basis of the majority of bits of information they receive, to discern who is right and who is wrong.

It’s like a classroom in a public school run by radical cultural marxists, where, in the class on Mathematics, when the teacher writes 2+3 = ?, she does not tell the class the answer, or ask them to calculate the correct answer, but instead says, “Let’s take a poll: who thinks the answer is 4, and who thinks the answer is 6?” To determine the truth of the question.

The only problem is, in such a chaotic classroom, the true answer is not allowed to be uttered. Everyone must live in the alternate reality and follow the alternate mathematics.

This is the ultimate phase of the dictatorship of relativism condemned by Pope Benedict XVI. And you cannot claim to be a true Catholic if you refuse to avoid this error.

But to avoid the dictatorship of relativism, you have to do something truly radical, rational, and traditional: you have to return to the ancient definition of truth, “which is the conformity of the mind with reality,” not with what others want that reality to appear to be.

This is why social media, and indeed all electronic media, are very unreliable sources of information to make true decisions, simply because there is too great a capacity granted to those who control the media and the content to claim that the reality is other than it is. And this is social media’s most potent power to control you: disinformation.

A case example of the Alternate Church with its Alternate Canonical reality

To help one understand this better, let’s take a look at a real case: the claim being made by Cardinal Roche, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, regarding the canonical value of his personal agenda of talking points, which he is now claiming is a rescript.

Here, I will cite for your the editorial on this topic by Michael Sean Winters, in the National Catholic Reporter, one of the most left-wing publications in the United States, which voices neither national opinions, not Catholic beliefs, nor presents reporting, other than planned propagandistic talking points of Freemasonry.

What is most striking about his editorial is that on the principle points of the facts he claims exist, he is in perfect agreement with all the Traditionalist social media influencers.

How can that be?

Well apart from objective facts, that is, the claims made by Cardinal Roche, they are both reading from the same alternate Canon Law, and thus are in agreement with the notions of the alternate Church.

Let’s examine these one by one, to see on what basis this alternate Church is claimed to exist and what are its fundamental doctrines, so that we can understand why on earth it is, that Traditionalist social media influencers are on-board, when they should be doing the exact opposite.

The Pope is not whom Canon Law says is pope, but rather is he whom the MSM says is pope

We have seen this already for 10 years. It has to do with the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013. According to the norm of Canon Law, it was an administrative decision based on the authority granted the person who is the pope in Canon 333 §2, whereby he is free to exercise the Petrine Ministry in any way he thinks best. But it was announced to the world, rather, as an act of Canon 332 §2, whereby the man who is the pope renounces the Papacy and abdicates.

This is where the true Church of Christ separates from the alternate Church. Here at FromRome.Info, we have by study, analysis and investigation shown how this error was propagated and just what it means (here and here).

As regards the present claims of Cardinal Roche, who was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to head the Congregation for Divine Worship, the true canonical reality has immediate effects. The first of which is that he was not the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship from Feb. 28, 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI renounces his ministry and effectively suspended all canonical functions of the entire Roman Curia, until January 30, 2023, when the faithful of the Church of Rome elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope.  Thus, Cardinal Roche has no authority to make any reference to any meeting he had with Pope Francis prior to Jan. 30th. And since his “rescript” claims that, it is ipso facto invalid in virtue of canon 63 §2, which declares all rescripts to have no force of law if they contain a falsehood.

The same results by Cardinal Roche’s reference to Traditionis Custodes, which is a non existent document.  I say, “non-existent” in the canonical sense, since Jorge Mario Bergoglio had no authority to issue it since at that time he did not hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict XVI never renounced in life.

The Church must conform Herself to the Masonic Agenda, not to Tradition

Returning to the article in the NCR, it is patently absurd that the Cardinal claims that two world wars necessitated Church reform, especially of the liturgy.  This is some sort of Masonic dribble, because the Church has had the same liturgy throughout 2000 years of wars and the most tremendous cultural and economic changes, world wide. What the Cardinal seems to be saying, rather, is that the stunning success of the Pilgrim Society to destroy Christendom in Europe must now be followed up by the total eradication of the traditions of Catholic worship in the Church.

This is an alternate view of reality for an alternate Church.

Obedience must be shown to non-existent documents made more restrictive by non-existent rescripts

And thus, Winters in his editorial accuses the Bishops in the United States of arrogating the right to ignore the non-existent document of a non-pope.  Here we find ourselves in the analogous position of a mental asylum arguing with a patient who claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte, and who insists that the Napoleonic Code is not being observed by the janitor in the cleaning of the toilets with the brush in the right hand rather than in the left, as he himself decreed just last week!

I have already mentioned, here, that it is not even a question of understanding the rescript as invalid in virtue of canon 63, as I stated above, since a rescript by its very nature is a favor granted by a superior, not a juridical act whereby a non-existent law is made more restrictive by an inferior who claims his superior approved his self-signed crib-notes for the meeting.

We are in full-blow alternate reality here.

Juridical acts of the Roman Pontiff are issued only by the Roman Pontiff, in written form, signed by 2 bishop witnesses. No mere curial official can take away the canonical rights of anyone, not even by whim or fraud.

Yet the traditionalist social media influences don’t even suspect the alternate reality as alternate. For them, as well as the leftist NCR, their alternate is the only reality. And. Don’t. You. Dare. Claim. Otherwise.

They are like the other patient at the asylum, who claims to be Josephine, the wife of Napoleon, and who barks in unison with him, in all his madness.

Christ, however, by His High Priestly prayer for Pope Francis, has protected the rights of all Catholics who recognize the traditional Roman Rite as the only one inspired by God, by preventing Pope Francis as pope, from affirming in any way either the non-existent Traditionis Custodes, or the demands of Cardinal Roche, dismissing him with the embarrassing situation of having to make claims on his own authority, and sending a strong message to all true Catholics, who live in the true Church with the true Canon Law, that the Traditional Rites remain forever free and accessible to all.


Here Mr.  Lamb appears to have read FromRome.Info from the other side of the fence.

Quo Primum — St. Pius V’s 1570 Bull on the Roman Missal — Latin and English Text

Editor’s Note by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since the persecution of the Catholic Faithful who continue to use the ancient missale is even more in the news lately, I present here the original text of the Bull of Pope Saint Pius V which forever declared the Ancient Roman Rite the liturgical norm of the Roman Church. And to better aid comprehension to all my readers, I have included after the original text, which I have extracted from the Benzinger edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum, my own English translation of the Latin original of the Papal Bull, which I prepared this afternoon.

Saint Pius V, was the greatest Dominican to sit on the throne of St. Peter. He organized the Holy League which defeated the entire navy of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto, Oct. 7, 1571, and in the year before defended the Roman LIturgy with this monumental declaration of Quo Primum. He is also known to have authorized the official text of the Hail Mary (Ave Maria), which the Catholic world prays today.

In all the debates over the rights of Catholics to continue praying the same prayers that their ancestors have used from the distant ages of the past, there is continual reference to the Bull Quo Primum, which follows below. — St. Pius V did not invent this liturgy. His Missale Romanum of 1570 was nearly identical to the Curial Missal published a century beforehand, which was in turn nearly an exact copy of the Missal compiled by the Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor in the 13th century, when for a more useful single compilation of the liturgical books of the ancient Roman Rite, which Pope Innocent III granted to St. Francis of Assisi as the liturgy proper to his new Order, he ordered them recompiled into a single volume with permission of the Apostolic See.

Here follows the text of the 1570 A. D. bull.




QUO PRIMUM tempore ad Apostolatus apicem assumpti fuimus, ad ea libenter animum, viresque Nostras intendimus, et cogitationes omnes direximus, quae ad Ecclesiasticum purum retinendum cultum pertinerent, eaque parare, et, Deo ipso adiuvante, omni adhibito studio efficere contendimus. Cumque inter alia sacri Tridentini Concilii decreta, Nobis statuendum esset de sacris libris, Catechismo, Missali et Breviario edendis atque emendandis: edito iam, Deo ipso annuente, ad populi eruditionem Catechismo, et ad debitas Deo persolvendas laudes Breviario castigato, omnino, ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missse celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat), necesse iam videbatur, ut, quod reliquum in hac parte esset, de ipso nempe Missali edendo, quam primum cogitaremus.

First, from moment We were raised up to the summit of the Apostolate, We willingly turned Our spirit and strengths, and directed all Our thoughts, to those things, which pertained to retaining the cult of the Church pure, and We do now, also, with God Himself helping, strive to effect their preparation, having employed every effort. And when among other things there was established by Us, among the other decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent, concerning the publication and emendation of the sacred books, the Catechism, the Missal and Breviary: with the Catechism already published, with God Himself approving, and the Breviary corrected to render to God due praises, it seemed then entirely necessary that the Missal respond to the Breviary, as is fitting and convenient (since in the Church of God it is most decorous that there be one manner of singing Psalms, one manner of celebrating the ritual of the Mass), that, what remained in this matter, namely, in publishing the said Missal, We might consider first of all.

Quare eruditis delectis viris onus hoc demandandum duximus: qui quidem, diligenter collatis omnibus cum vetustis Nostrae Vaticanae Bibliothecae, aliisque undique conquisitis, emendatis, atque incorruptis codicibus; necnon veterum consultis ac probatorum auctorum scriptis, qui de sacro eorundem rituum instituto monumenta Nobis reliquerunt, ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt. Quod recognitum iam et castigatum, matura adhibita consideratione, ut ex hoc instituto, coeptoque labore, fructus omnes percipiant,

Wherefore, We directed that this burden be committed to chosen expert men: who indeed, having diligently gathered together all the ancient, emended and incorrupt codices from Our Vatican Library, and others searched out from all places,; and not without having consulted the writings of ancient and approved authors, who left to Us their testimonies concerning the institution of the same rituals, and restored the same Missal to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers. Which having already been recognized and corrected, having employed mature consideration, so that all might perceive the fruit of this instituted and undertaken labor,

Romae quam primum imprimi, atque impressum edi mandavimus: nempe ut sacerdotes intellegant, quibus precibus uti, quos ritus, quasve caeremonias in Missarum celebratione retinere posthac debeant. Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum Ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis,

We ordered that it be first printed at Rome and published in printed form: namely, so that priests might understand, which prayers to use, which rituals, or which ceremonies they ought hereafter to retain in the celebration of Masses.  Moreover, so that all the things handed down by the sacrosanct Roman Church, the Mother of all other Churches, be embraced everywhere and observed, lest unto posterity in unending future generations in all the Patriarchates, Cathedrals, Collegiate, Parish and secular Churches, and those of any Order or monastery whatsoever, both of men, as of women, even of regular soldiers, or Churches and/or Chapels without the care of souls,

in quibus Missa Conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari iuxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet, alias quam iuxta Missalis a Nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exemptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam iuramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica approbata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem, vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus;

in which Conventual Mass is accustomed or ought to be celebrated out loud with a Choir, or in low voice, according to the rite of the Roman Church, there be sung anything other than according to the formula of the Missal published by Us, even if the same Churches have been exempted in any manner by an indult of the Apostolic See, custom, privilege, even under oath, by Apostolic confirmation, and/or any other faculty; lest having been approved by the Apostolic See from their first institution, whether by a custom, which, has been observed and/or by its own institution more than two-hundred years of being assiduously celebrated in those same Churches: from which, We in no way take away the aforesaid constitution, and/or custom of celebrating;

sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati, Capitulique universi consensu, ut, quibusvis non obstantibus, iuxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorundem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnino reiiciendo, ac huic Missali Nostro nuper edito, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis Nostrae poena, hac Nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus. Mandantes ac districte omnibus et singulis Ecclesiarum praedictarum Patriarchis, Administratoribus, aliisque personis quacumque Ecclesiastica dignitate fulgentibus, etiamsi S. R. E. Cardinales, aut cuiusvis alterius gradus et praeeminentiae fuerint,

thus, if this Missal, which We now have taken care to publish, pleases the same more, by consent of the Bishop, and/or Prelate, or entire Chapter, We permit that they can celebrate Masses according to it, with nothing whatsoever withstanding: however, We establish and ordain, under the punishment of Our indignation, by this our perpetually valid Constitution, that with the publication of this our said Missal, nothing is ever to be added, detracted, or changed by taking it from the use of those same Missals of any of the aforesaid Churches, and by rejecting those things thoroughly or entirely. We, commanding also strictly each and every Patriarch, Administrator of the aforesaid Churches, and other persons enjoying whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, even if they be Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or anyone of another grade or preeminence,

illis in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipientes, ut ceteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis, ac plane reiectis, Missam iuxta ritum, modum, ac normam, quae per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur, decantent ac legant; neque in Missae celebratione alias caeremonias, vel preces, quam quae hoc Missali continentur, addere vel recitare praesumant.

precepting these in virtue of holy obedience, so that with all those reckonings and rituals, from other customary Missals howsoever ancient hitherto observed, hereafter entirely omitted, and plainly rejected, they may sing and read the Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm, which is handed down now by Us through this Missal nor let them presume in the celebration of the Mass to add and/or recite other ceremonies and/or prayers, than those which are contained in this Missal.

Atque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus. Neve Praesules, Administratores, Canonici, Capellani et alii quocumque nomine nuncupati Presbyteri saeculares, aut cuiusvis Ordinis regulares, ad Missam aliter, quam a Nobis statutum est, celebrandam teneantur:

And also, by Our Apostolic authority, and the tenor of the present letters, We also concede perpetually and indulge, that they may entirely hereafter follow this Missal in a sung, or recited, Mass in whatever Churches without any scruple of conscience or incursion of any punishments, sentences and censures, and use this freely and licitly and validly. Or lest Praefects, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains and other secular Priests named by whatever name, or regulars of any Order, be bound to celebrate Mass otherwise, than is established by Us:

neque ad Missale hoc immutandum a quolibet cogi et compelli, praesentesve litterae ullo unquam tempore revocari, aut moderari possint, sed firmae semper et validae in suo exsistant robore, similiter statuimus et declaramus. Non obstantibus praemissis, ac constitutionibus, et ordinationibus Apostolicis, ac in Provincialibus et Synodalibus Conciliis editis generalibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus, et ordinationibus, nec non Ecclesiarum praedictarum usu, longissima et immemorabili praescriptione, non tamen supra ducentos annos, roborato, statutis et consuetudinibus contrariis quibuscumque.

We similarly establish and declare that they also cannot be coerced and compelled by anyone to change this MIssal, nor can the present letters be at any time ever revoked or constrained, but that they stand forth always firm and valid in their strength. With no Apostolic constitutions, and ordinations, and/or special constitutions and ordinations published in Provincial and Synodal general Councils, nor use of the aforesaid Churches, strengthened by the longest and immemorial prescription, not more than two-hundred years, or statutes and customs whatsoever contrary, withstanding the aforesaid.

Volumus autem et eadem auctoritate decernimus, ut post huius Nostrae constitutionis, ac Missalis editionem, qui in Romana adsunt Curia Presbyteri, post mensem; qui vero intra montes, post tres; et qui ultra montes incolunt, post sex menses, aut cum primum illis Missale hoc venale propositum fuerit, iuxta illud Missam decantare, vel legere teneantur. Quod ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus purgatum praeservetur, omnibus in Nostro et S. R. E. dominio mediate, vel immediate subiecto commorantibus impressoribus, sub amissionis librorum, ac centum ducatorum auri Camerae Apostolicae ipso facto applicandorum:

Moreover, We will and decree by the same authority, so that after the publication of this Our Constitution, and Missale, which shall be displayed at the Roman Curia, for the Priests, after a month: but who dwells on this side of the Alps, after three months; and where beyond the Alps, after six months, or when this Missal has been offered to them for sale, that they be bound to sing and/or read the Mass according to it.  Wherefore, so that it be preserved incorrupt in all lands, and purged from emendations and errors, to all printers resident in Our immediate and/or mediately subjected Domain and that of the Holy Roman Church, under the loss of the books, and 100 ducats of gold to be applid ipso facto to the Apostolic Camera:

aliis vero in quacumque orbis parte consistentibus, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae, et aliis arbitrii Nostri poenis, ne sine Nostra vel speciali ad id Apostolici Commissarii in eisdem partibus a Nobis constituendi, licentia, ac nisi per eunden Commissarium eidem impressori Missalis exemplum, ex quo aliorum imprimendorum ab ipso impressore erit accipienda norma, cum Missali in Urbe secundum magnam impressionem impresso collatum fuisse, et concordare, nec in ullo penitus discrepare prius plena fides facta fuerit, imprimere, vel proponere, vel recipere ullo modo audeant, vel praesumant, auctoritate Apostolica et tenore praesentium similibus inhibemus.

but to others consisting in whatever part of the globe, under the punishments of latae sententiae excommunciation and others at Our will, We prohibit by Apostolic Authority and the tenor of the present letters, that, they dare in any manner to receive, and/or presume, to publish or offer for sale, without Our permission and/or special license, according to that of the one to be constituted in those same parts by Us as Apostolic Commissioner, the exemplary copy, from which there is to be accepted the norm of other printings by the printer himself, before full faith has been first given to the printer himself by the same Commisioner for the Missal to be published in great quantity in the City of Rome and that it not be discrepant in anything at all.

Verum, quia difficile esset praesentes Iitteras ad quaeque Christiani orbis loca deferri, ac primo quoque tempore in omnium notitiam perferri, illas ad Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae de more; publicari et affigi, ac earundem litterarum exemplis etiam impressis, ac manu alicuius publici tabellionis;  subscriptis, nec non sigillo personae in dignitate ecclesiastica constitutae munitis, eandem prorsus indubitatam fidem ubique gentium et locorum, haberi , praecipimus, quae praesentibus haberetur, si ostenderentur vel exhiberentur.

Truly, because it might be difficult for the present letters to be borne to all places of the Christian globe and to proffer unto the notice of all at first notice, We precept, that these be published and affixed to the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Flori as is customary; and that there be had printed also copies of the same letters, and in the hand of any public notary;  and to those underwritten, and not without the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, that they be regarded the same undoubted faith in whatever nations and places, as the present letters are held, when they are displayed and/or exhibited.

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo quingentesimo septuagesimo, pridie Idus Iulii, Pontificatus Nostri anno quinto.

Therefore, to no one among men let it be licit to infringe this page of Our permission, statute, ordinance, mandate, precept, concession, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition, and/or with darying temerity to contradict it. if, however, anyone will have presumed to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indigation of the Omnipotent God and of His blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord, 1570, on the first day of the ides of July, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.



Anno a Nativitate Domini 1570, Indict. 13, die vero 19 mensis Iulii, Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris et D. N. Pii divina providentia Papae V anno eius quinto, retroscriptae litterae publicatae et affixae fuerunt ad valvas Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae, ut moris est, per nos loannem Andream Rogerium et Philibertum Cappuis Cursores.

In the year of the Nativity of the Lord, 1570, in the 13th indiction, but on the 19th day of the month of July, in the fifth year of the Pontificate of our most holy Father in Christ and our lord, Pius V, Pope by the divine providence, these letters transcribed were published and affixed to the folding-doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Florae, as is the custom, by us Footmen, John Andrew Roger and Philibert Cappue .

SCIPIO DE OCTAVIANIS, Magister Cursorum.

Canonical Questions regarding the election of an antipope to the Papacy

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


As I am getting priests and laity and religious from the world over asking me the same questions, I will not answer the more common questions in one article, so that all might have the answers.

The case here regards when an antipope, like Leo VIII or Bergoglio, who reigns for a time and posits various acts, magisterial and juridical, is elected the true pope, by the Faithful of Rome, in an assembly by apostolic right.

Q. Can a not yet condemned heretic or schismatic be elected to the Papacy?

A. Yes, because in canon law, no one who has NOT yet been deprived of his rights by the public sentence of Church authority, loses his rights. Even canon 1364 which imposes immediately the penalty of excommunication does not take away the rights to be elected by or to participate in a Conclave, as the Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis states in n. 35.

Cardinals specifically can only be judged by the Roman Pontiff alone (canon 1405 §1, n. 2).

And since no one can arrogate to himself the right to judge anyone in the Church in such a way as to deprive him of his canonical rights (cf. Discernment vs. the Arrogation of Right), such a man can be elected pope.

Q. Does an antipope have to accept his election as true Pope?

A. Canon 331 requires a pope accept his election. But in natural law, when a man is already claiming the office, his consent to his election is presumed, for it is actual and habitual and manifest that he wants the office. Thus passive or tacit acceptance of his election, that is, without publicly renouncing it, suffices for him. And since the Canon does not require active verbal expression of acceptance, this suffices in elections by apostolic right where, in the absence of rules of acceptance, the natural law prevails. But it would not suffice in a Conclave, because there the Papal Law UDG requires active, verbal expression of acceptance.

Here many are confused, because they understand “accept his election” to mean, “accept the manner of his election”, or accept being the true pope, when it only means “accept being elected the pope”. Obviously, an antipope accepts being chosen the pope. To hold otherwise is madness.

Q. Do we have to accept all the previous acts of such a Pope while he was antipope, if we accept his new election as valid?

A. No, certainly not.

Q. Are the Cardinals he appointed before when he was antipope, valid cardinals now that he is elected as the true pope?

A. Yes. Because the only thing lacking for their validity was the will of one who held the petrine munus. That deficiency is now remedied. And so they are valid cardinals and can validly elect his successor.

Q. Are all the appointments of Bishops etc., which he made as antipope valid now?

A. Yes, for the same reason.

Q. Are all the magisterial acts which he did as antipope valid now?

A. No, none of them are valid. For he had no magisterium to exercise and thus they never were acts of the Apostolic See, nor can consent after the fact make them such, because they are in the past and juridically non existent. This differs from Cardinals and Bishops etc., because they are living beings and in the present.

Q. How about all the juridical penalties which were imposed by himself or the Roman Curia, while he was antipope: are they now valid now?

A. They must be all presumed to be invalid, for reasons of the fact that they are acts in the past which had no authority to be leveled.

Q. Should we continue to oppose the errors of the man when he was antipope? And if so, how, without incurring the penalty of attacking the Pope?

A. We should continue to oppose all the errors, sins, and scandal of the antipope, but when doing so we should distinguish them from the acts he now makes as pope. This is respectful and will help spread the knowledge that he was never from the beginning the true pope, but only after his election by apostolic right.

Q. What can we expect in him now that he has been validly elected and at last has the Petrine Munus?

A. We can expect that he will not teach error in matters of faith in morals, even though his politics may remain the same. We can expect that when asked or pressured  to undo what he has done as antipope that he will concede to the pressure and to the requests. We can expect him not to condone his past errors which are contrary to the faith.

Q. Does his valid election absolve him of his past sins?

A. No, rather, it makes him more responsible before God to repent of them and to do so publicly. Without that he cannot be saved.

Q. How do we now show true loyalty to Pope Francis?

A. By continuing to denounce what he did as antipope, but praying for him as pope, trusting in the prayer of Jesus, “That his faith may not fail”.

Q. How should our position differ from Bergoglians, Recognize & Resist, Anti-Roncallian Sedevacantists and Anti-Bergoglian Sedevacantists?

A. We should not like Bergoglians approve of any of his errors, sins, scandals or crimes as antipope. We should resist his past errors but not attribute them to the Vicar of Christ, but only to his person, and thus act differently from the Recognize and Resist crowd who defame the Papacy. We should recognize him as the true Pope and refrain from arrogating the right to judge him as the Sedevacantists of old and of the new kind do.

Q. Who has the authority to sort all this out?

A. The present valid pope or any future valid successor.

Discernment vs. the Arrogation of Juridical right

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


In the Catholic Church, the authority to judge comes from God alone. Catholics cannot maintain their status as Catholic for long, so long as they do not accept that principle.

Thus, by the Faith which comes from God we can, if we understand it well, discern who is teaching wrongly or not. And we can then discern whether a man be teaching contrary or apart from Christ, His Apostles or Prophets.

And this personal discernment is an ability, but not all have the capacity. Since though we all receive faith in Baptism, not all have faith, and not all understand the Faith.  Faith is the virtue, the Faith is the sum of the doctrines of our holy religion. Both come from God. But having the knowledge of one does NOT guarantee the other.

Now in the Church, since the authority to judge for the community comes from God, God has given it to Bishops alone, and to the Bishop of Rome in its highest grade here on earth. These alone can take away the canonical rights of an individual or community.

The recognition of this is what separates and distinguishes Catholics from protestants and orthodox schismatics. These latter two refuse to accept the Pope as supreme judge in matters of faith and discipline. And protestants refuse also to accept bishops as judges in matters of discipline in their own dioceses.

And here is the pitfall of all those Catholics who take the first step on the road of Sedevacantism: they refuse to admit that while they have the ability by faith to discern who is a heretic, they have no juridical authority to declare anyone such, as to deny that accused of his canonical rights.

This is affirmed in the very important passage in Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 35. This rule echoes the long standing debate among canonists, which Pope Paul IV in 1559 spoke, of what is to be done with a Cardinal who deviated publicly from the faith prior to his election to the Pontificate. Paul IV wanted in his Constitution, Cum ex apostolatu officio, that his election be declared null and void. His constitution however was annulled by his successor. And the precedent of his opinion was refuted in the above manner in every subsequent Papal Law on elections.

The reason for this, is, if an undeclared person could be refused the canonical right to vote (active voice) or be elected (passive voice), then it would introduce into the election a doubt which could possibly render many or most elections doubtful and hence invalid.

And the theological justification for removing this doubt, is the Faith of the Church in the promise of Jesus Christ and His always efficacious power of impetration, when He declared, “Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to sift you all as wheat, but I have prayed for YOU, that your faith may not fail, and when you are converted, confirm your brethren.”

Note, our Lord says, “when” not “if”, because His is always efficacious in His prayer to the Father and obtains all that He asks for.

And since the man elected pope becomes the target of Christ’s prayer, thus promised, it matters not if he had deviated from the faith beforehand, so long as he was not declared by the Church to have done so.  For if he was declared by the Church, then the word, of Christ would apply: “He who hears you hears Me.”

Those who become Sedevacantists do not avert to these words of Jesus Christ, and once they start on that path, out of pride they refuse to accept them, so as to justify the path already undertaken. And so they fall into heresy and schism, and go to perdition, because if you do not believe in every word of Jesus Christ, you cannot be saved.

And now, this is the temptation of those who refuse the juridically valid election of Bergoglio on Monday, and who are attempting to argue thus: that election cannot be valid, because it elected a man whom I consider a heretic.

To these I say: YOU are not the Church. YOU do not have the juridical authority to declare someone a heretic. Yes, you have by faith the ability to discern heresy, if you know your faith. But that is not the same thing. To presume that your judgement of heresy is equivalent to a juridical pronouncement is to arrogate to yourself a right which God has not given you. Even Cardinals in the Conclave do not have this right. How much more a bishop, priest, or layman anywhere else at any time, when the person to be judged is not even under their jurisdiction.

Perhaps, the ignorant confound the possibility that some tribunal or future pope might agree with their judgement as sufficient authorization, but they are confusing the ability to discern from the authority to issue a judgement binding on the community.

Have a little humility.

Have faith in Christ.

Only those who have both, can be saved.


Only in certain cases, where the Church herself or the very nature of the act prescind from the necessity of a public judgement, can Catholics act on the basis of personal discernment.  Such is the case of papal renunciations, which must be manifest in themselves, and when doubtful, can be considered invalid by all Catholics who thus discern them to be. This is because a renunciation of papal office cannot be judged or interpreted by anyone, since there is no one who can judge it. For if it was invalid, the pope would remain the pope yet hold it valid. And if it was valid, the man who was the pope could not longer judge it. This is why in such cases Catholics do not arrogate to themselves a right which belongs to others, as Sedevacantists do who refuse the validity of this or that papal election.

That the Right to Elect the Roman Pontiff belongs to the Roman Church

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


Contra factum non est argumentum, as the Latin adage goes: that is, “Against a fact, there is no argument”.

If there is any Catholic who doubts that the Catholics of Rome have the right to elect their own bishop, they need not believe anything I say, they need only to open up any book about the election of the Popes, or in this case, even see the List of Popes over at Wikipedia, to confirm this.

Deny this, and you deny the Apostolic Succession in the See of Rome, and make every pope after Peter a fake. But if you do that, you are anathematized by Vatican I, which declared infallibly that there will always be successors of St. Peter at Rome, until the coming of the Lord.

So, to those who are are reading this or that section of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, and understanding none of it, I make this reply.

Yes, there is a stricture in that law, that states that for the election of the Pope in a Conclave only Cardinal Electors can vote (n. 33). That stricture applies only to the manner of election in that Apostolic Constitution, for otherwise the Apostolic Succession would be in jeopardy. Indeed, in the final sentence of the preface, Pope John Paul states explicitly his intention, that the norms of the special law are to bind the Cardinals. He does not impose them on the whole Church.

Those who do not think so, are pretending that John Paul II or the scholars of jurisprudence who worked for more than 10 years on the new Code of Canon Law did not know about what happened in the Church for the previous 19 centuries, or how the Apostle Peter left this right to the whole Church.

For they pretend that John Paul II wants in all times and places, even outside of a conclave, that only Cardinal electors vote.

But if that were the case, then the enemies of God would only have to kill 120 men, to end the Apostolic Succession forever. — But, that would make the Gates of Hell prevail. Which is absurd.

So obviously neither the Pope nor his experts intended that.

Which means, that their argument is false.

And these experts show that this argument is false, because this stricture of n. 33 is placed in the special law UDG and not in canons 349 and 359, which regard the privileges of the College of Cardinals. By placing this in a special law, it removes the stricture from general application. And this is confirmed by canons 5 §1 and 5 §2, which affirms apostolic rights remain in force in special circumstances not provided for in law.

And this was necessary, because Canon Law depends upon Apostolic Right for its authority, not the other way around. Thus, no Pope can abolish anything in Apostolic Tradition, not even the right of the Roman Church to elect his successor.

And to the further argument, that in canon 349, it says the contrary, it is clear that that argument would be wrong, since the Latin says, that the election pertains to the College of Cardinals as to provide for it (provideat) according to norm (ad normam) of the special law on elections.  It does not say they enjoy this right per se or semper nor does it use a verb which signifies or connotes that they can obstruct the election by violating the norms of that special law. Indeed, someone who has the right to provide for something which is needed, does not have the right to deny that something when needed, because the right to provide is the right of a servant not of a lord. Otherwise, a mother who has the right to provide for her children’s supper could rightfully starve them to death by not providing for it, and a father who attempted to do so, when she was starving them, could not rightfully act. Which is horribly absurd.

So there are a lot of laymen out there who cannot read Latin or who have not studied law or history, who are saying foolish things. That they do not pause to think what will happen to the Church before they speak, is incredible, after the 10 years of savage attacks on the Faith and the Mass.

And for those who argue against n. 76, I have already replied in a footnote to my article, How John Paul II determined the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.

How John Paul II determined the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo



When a law fails, one has recourse to the principles of right which are derived by greater authority. This is a general principle of jurisprudence, which alas, many moderns no longer understand.

This is because in modern times, we are afflicted with a theory of right which is called juridical positivism. This error was condemned by Pope Benedict XVI in his speech to the German Parliament in September 22, 2011 (News report here, full text here). The error of positivism consists in holding that there is no authority until authority acts, and that there is no authority among men, unless men put laws into writing. And that subsequently they can change moral principles and rights by making written or verbal declarations.

Juridical positivism is, as you can see, the atheist’s notion of jurisprudence.

But the Catholic notion of jurisprudence holds that there is a God, and that He is the supreme authority in all matters of jurisprudence not only in virtue of His teaching or pronouncements, recorded in Scripture, but also inasmuch as He is and acts, and in particular, in His act of creating and forming this world.

Thus in the Catholic Church law is not derived from Popes or Bishops first of all, but from Christ Jesus, the Living God, to whom all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given by the Eternal Father. Secondarily from the ordinances of the Apostles. And only after that from Popes and Bishops, individually or in Councils and Synods.

Now as regards the laws of the Roman Church, the Popes individually and often in Synods and even Councils have determined and legislated various things.

One of these regards the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Who holds the right to elect the Roman Pontiff?

But while the Popes have authority to determine this election by special or general laws, they are NOT the source of the right. That right comes to the Pope via Saint Peter whom the Pope succeeds. But the ability of the Pope by legislation to determine the exercise of that right, is limited by the ordinance of Peter to leave this right to the Roman Church.

In fact, the Pope himself does not have the right to elect his successor. Only the Church of Rome has that right. This is undisputed in the Catholic Church. And anyone who says otherwise, is simply totally ignorant of Church history and the jurisprudence of the Roman Church. Nor can the Pope make someone who is not a member of the Roman Church an elector for the Pope. This is why he incardinates all Cardinals, who are not Romans, into the Roman Church and gives them a parish to be their titular church. These parishes are found in the Dioceses of Roma, Ostia, Albano, Velletri-Seigni, Palestrina, Frascati, Sabina – Poggio Mirteto, and Porto Santa Rufina, because in St. Peter’s day the Church of Rome comprised all these territories, and these 7 Suburbican Dioceses were never detached from the Roman Church, as their name indicates (Suburbican = suburban, round about, near by).

Throughout 20 centuries the Roman Church has vindicated this right in various ways, but always in every election. At times this was done by all the Faithful of the Roman Church, such as it was in the first 7 centuries. At times, this was done under certain modalities, of having the clergy first discuss candidates and then in assembly with the faithful deciding.

By Roman Church, here, I mean all the faithful in these dioceses, whether clergy, religious, or lay, whether men or women, married or not, saints or sinners or mediocre, nobility and plebs, rich and poor. All these have the right to vote in a papal election by apostolic right.

Papal Laws for Papal Elections

However, with the passing of time, by certain papal laws, the Electorate was restricted.

That the Pope can restrict the electorate is undisputed. Because, though he is not the source of this right, he can determine its exercise, and part of that determination is delimiting who can vote. This does not damage the validity of the election, so long as who can vote is a member of the Roman Church.

The first such papal law was promulgated by Pope Stephen II in the Roman Synod of 769, when candidates for election were restricted to those men who were Cardinal priests and deacons, and when the electorate was restricted to “cunctis sacerdotibus atque proceribus Ecclesiae et cuncto clero”, that is, “to all the priests and mighty ones of the Church and the entire clergy”, that is, to the Bishops, priests, deacons, and those in minor orders.

Then, the next major Papal law came on April 13, 1059 A. D., with Pope Nicolas II’s In Nomine Domini, the Latin and English translation of which I have published here (2021 edition, 2020 edition here), which restricted the electorate to only the Bishops of the Roman Church.

In addition, those these previous laws did not contain them, in later centuries such papa laws contained specifications as to when the law went into effect and when those who exercise the rights it determines can exercise them.

The Strictures of John Paul II’s Papal Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis

The current Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, was promulgated by Pope John Paul II, in 1996 on Feb. 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. — Only the Latin version is binding. (Translations should be used with caution therefore, only as an aid to understanding roughly what is being said).

That law specifies that it regards what is to be done after the death of a Roman Pontiff, or his valid renunciation, that is, when the Apostolic See is juridically vacant of a legitimate claimant to the supreme office.

The Cardinals are forbidden in n. 1 of exercising any power of the Roman Pontiff, when he is alive, and after his death, of doing anything not authorized by this law.

And here, in n. 1, the law expressly declares NULL AND VOID the exercise of any power not specified in this Constitution.

Thus if the Cardinals fail to observe its terms, they HAVE NO RIGHT to do otherwise.

And this is why, when the Cardinals fail to meet by the 20th day, as is specified in n. 37, or when they change the modality of the preparation of the Conclave in any matter, John Paul II in nn. 76 and 77 declares ANY ELECTION WHATSOEVER that they undertake to be NULL AND VOID. Here is the Vatican English translation of those passages, for your better information:

37. I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent; the College of Cardinals is also granted the faculty to defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.

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.

77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.***

As of the hour of the death of Pope Benedict XVI, this morning, January 21, 2023 A. D., the Cardinal Deacon has not convened a conclave, the Cardinals have not begun a conclave, and no Cardinal anywhere in the world has announced that he is proceeding to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI.

Regarding the Claim that the Cardinals still can elect a Pope in Conclave, after January 21, 2023

Therefore, anyone who claims that the Cardinals can still proceed to validly elect the Roman Pontiff are simply uttering a massive falsehood, because there is no rational way to infer, that from a College which has DONE NOTHING, but is obliged TO DO EVERYTHING according to the law, that they retain any right to elect a Pope in a Conclave according to the terms of the law.

They have violated it completely.

Hence, they cannot claim to interpret it in any manner by which they could convene at a later time in conclave to elect the Pope.


Obviously their argument will be that Benedict XVI validly abdicated in accord with Canon 332 §2, and that with Bergoglio being elected, the papal law for electing Benedict XVI’s successor went into effect, in March 2013.

But as numerous studies have shown, Benedict XVI never abdicated in accord with Canon 332 §2. The text itself is only conform with a declaration of a decision to apply Canon 333 §2, by withdrawing into a life of prayer for the Church and laying down the active ministry.

Thus, Catholics rightly regard the death of Pope Benedict XVI as triggering the observance of the Papal Law Universi Domini Gregis. And since Canon Law in canon 15 affirms that laws which declare some act invalid, make these acts invalid, even in the case in which those acting are ignorant of facts or laws, the Cardinals cannot claim to have anymore, the right to elect a Roman Pontiff in Conclave.


This means that the Papal Law can no longer be observed. And since in Canon Law they do not have a habitual right to elect the Pope per se, but only those rights specified in special law (cf. canons 349 & 359), and since there is no other special law but the above cited Papal Law, Universi Dominic Gregis, at the promulgation of which Pope John Paul II expressly abrogated all customs and laws previously in force, as he states in its final promulgation, at the end of the Constitution:

As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.

Then, IF there were no other source of right, then the Catholic Church would never again have a legitimate Roman Pontiff, who holds the petrine munus via a legitimate and juridically valid election, in a Conclave.

That there must be another way to elect the Pope

But as Vatican I infallibly teaches, the Roman Church shall have in perpetuity, successors of Saint Peter as her bishops, (Fourth Session, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 2, n. 5),

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

there must be another perpetual source of right by which there can be a juridically valid election of Benedict XVI’s successor. And since Pope John Paul II, in his prefatory letter in the Papal Law, above mentioned, says expressly that a Conclave is not necessary for the valid election of the Pope:

It has been my wish to give particular attention to the age-old institution of the Conclave, the rules and procedures of which have been established and defined by the solemn ordinances of a number of my Predecessors. A careful historical examination confirms both the appropriateness of this institution, given the circumstances in which it originated and gradually took definitive shape, and its continued usefulness for the orderly, expeditious and proper functioning of the election itself, especially in times of tension and upheaval.

Precisely for this reason, while recognizing that theologians and canonists of all times agree that this institution is not of its nature necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff, I confirm by this Constitution that the Conclave is to continue in its essential structure; at the same time, I have made some modifications in order to adapt its procedures to present-day circumstances.

Then, there must be another valid way to elect him.

But there is none, but that established by the Apostolic Ordinance, by which Saint Peter gave this right to the entire Church, meeting in public assembly. And this alters the electorate from the small group with the exclusive right which can only be used in a specific time, to the entire group, without any restriction.

Confirmation of this by general principles of jurisprudence

And this is confirmed by the general principle of law, that when a specific law, which applies to specific circumstances only, can not be put into effect, because those conditions have been violated, or no longer exist, and it declares no action taken in accord with the special law can anymore be valid, then one has recourse to the general or higher source of right, which has not been abrogated by the human legislator, since one cannot assume that the human legislator no longer wants a juridically valid act to be posited.

Thus, one must conclude that John Paul II intended to forbid the Cardinals from electing the Pope in a Conclave, if they failed to elect one in a Conclave in the specified time, knowing, as he stated in his prefatory letter, that electing a pope outside of a Conclave has never been per se an invalid method.

This conclusion is especially true since the failure here is not in the text of the law, but in those to whom the law has granted special rights. Thus the law is not defective, but rightly punishes the Cardinals for not acting, with a deprivation of their exclusive right.

And this can be seen from an example. If you have rights to do something within a specified time, then if you do not do that within that specified time, you cannot claim that the one who wrote the law, would want you to have those rights still.

And thus, the only sane conclusion is that the legislator, knows that someone else has those rights in an undisputed manner, outside of that specified time, if the thing to be done MUST BE DONE. But the election of a new pope, must be done. Ergo, someone else has those rights and the Legislator knows it. And when those rights belong by Apostolic Ordinance to all the faithful in assembly — a fact attested to by the first 1000 years of the Papacy — then there the election must be had. And this is clear, that the exclusive rights of the Cardinals of the Roman Church, are only a specification of the rights of the entire Roman Church for a purpose, they do not deny the rights of the Church.

But only those with a thoroughly Catholic mind can see this, because they alone know AND accept the history of Papal Elections, and at the same time reject the concept of juridical positivism, and they too alone BELIEVE that there is a living God, that Jesus Christ is HIM, and that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail over His Church.

So let lawyers, nuns, and engineers, whether in Colombia, Brazil or Italy, who have never studied theology nor canon law, nor the philosophy of law, rail in the night. We Catholics of Rome know our rights and we will now use them to save the Papacy and the Church.

Finally, Pope Benedict XVI incited the entire Church to think about these things on Feb. 11, 2013, when he declared that his successor should be elected by those who are competent. To be competent in Latin means, in this context, to be capable of exercising a right.

ADDENDUM: the events of 964 A. D., at Rome prove the above interpretation of right

There is an historical example of the juridical principles I have explained above, in the election of Pope Benedict V in 964. In 963, the German Emperor deposed the true pope in an uncanonical action, and named Leo VIII as antipope. The emperor regarded Leo as the pope, because the Popes had granted him the right to nominate the candidate to be the pope. His election by the assembly of the Clergy would follow after that.

But as the deposition of pope John XII  was uncanonical, the Roman Faithful regarded Pope John XII as the true pope until his death on May 14, 964.  So on May 22, the Roman Faithful came together and elected Benedict V. They did this because clearly the German Emperor had no intention of getting Leo VIII re-elected, because by that act he would admit to having supported a usurper. That means there was no legal way to elect the Pope anymore, since you cannot elect a pope after the death of an antipope, only after the death of a true pope. — That is why the Pope is called the successor of St. Peter, because he succeeds in a juridically valid manner the previous successor who held that right. — So the Roman Faithful had recourse to the Apostolic Ordinance, and by apostolic right elected Benedict V, whom the Church has always recognized as the true pope.*

There are other cases in which the Apostolic Right of the Faithful was revived, as can be seen in the election of Pope John V, July 23, 685, as even Wikipedia admits:

John V was the first Pope of the Byzantine Papacy consecrated without the direct imperial approval. Emperor Constantine IV had done away with the requirement during the pontificate of Benedict II, John V’s predecessor, providing that “the one elected to the Apostolic See may be ordained pontiff from that moment and without delay”.[7] In a return to the “ancient practice“, John V was elected in July 685 “by the general population” of Rome.[7][8]

A case to compare, as a proof in reverse, occurred in 1058, where an papal enthronement took place without a free election by the Faithful. That enthronement created the antipope Benedict X, who was immediately opposed by St. Peter Damian and St. Hildebrand. Later that year Pope Nicholas II was elected, and he restricted the electorate to the Cardinals, by a papal law, In Nomine Domini, which however was abolished by subsequent popes, such as John Paul II, when they promulgated their own laws.


The Cardinals have not lost their right to vote, they have only lost their exclusive right to vote in a Conclave. They can also vote by apostolic right, but they have no more vote than any other Catholic in the Roman Church. Finally, the College of Cardinals can meet in conclave in the future and confirm the election of the man whom the Roman Faithful elect. That conclave would not be canonical, nor legal, nor legitimate, nor confer any right, but it would be a public and sane way to bring themselves and entire Church back into agreement as to who is the pope.


** The end of Pope Benedict V was a tragic one, because the German Emperor in vengeance sent an army to Rome, captured the pope and demanded his renunciation on the condition that he would not put him to death. After Benedict V renounced, out of human weakness, the German Emperor had Leo VIII affirmed as pope by the Roman people, and with Benedict’s agreement. Benedict was then taken prisoner to Germany and starved to death on bread and water. His remains have been lost to history. Leo VIII in his second election is considered to be a true pope by the Church, since there was no pope at the time still reigning, Benedict V having validly abdicated by agreement.

*** The universal prohibition of n. 76 applies even to n. 37 and 77, as can be seen from the clause, “in a way other than this Constitution prescribes”. Those who say otherwise, read “Chapter” in place of “Constitution” and in addition do this in an exclusive way. This simply violates the rules of grammar and syntax in addition to imposing an illicit interpretation the text reserved to the Legislator alone. “Celebrata fuerit” also is a verb referring to an entire event, not any one action. Even the Latin “electio” does not mean only casting  a ballot, but refers to the intention to select one rather than a multitude, and as such has a broad signification. Those who allege that a strict reading applies, but then want a strict reading to read the text in an inauthentic manner of referring only to balloting, are really saying, that everything in the Constitution could be violated, except chapter 5, and the election still would be valid. — I say, try that and see what happens in the Church. — Moreover, even if for the sake of argument, it was held that n. 76 does not make any other violations of UDG cause the election to be invalid, other than those in the chapter in which n. 76 is found, nevertheless, since Pope John Paul II has clearly in many other places commanded the Cardinals to do this or that, (e.g. in nns. 1 and 35 and 77) the election would be illicit, and hence illegal, if they violated any other part of the papal law during the Conclave. And hence the election would be without effect, because an illegal action is never held to have a canonical effect in law (canon 38). And to argue otherwise, is simply absurd, because it would be equivalent to saying that even without force majeur, the Cardinals could intentionally violate everything else in the law, and thus, that the law was no law at all. — Finally, since the Legislator never intended that the College obstruct the Apostolic Succession, by electing antipopes and refusing to elect legitimate popes, the same conclusion as I present here returns by referring to higher principles, because the Cardinals have failed entirely to elect a successor to the true Pope. And the law does not allow them to elect successors to false popes. In fact, never in the history of the Church, has the Apostolic See regarded the successor of an antipope to be the true pope. All true popes succeed immediately another true pope. That insurmountable fact of history makes their reading impossible, as it would imply the Legislator himself intended a notion of succession which was both a-historical and implicitly heretical.

The Canonical Tradition requires the renunciation of Munus not Ministerium

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In preparation for the juridically valid election of the Roman Pontiff by apostolic right, I have been reading some scholarly works on the renunciation of offices. And I have found confirmation for everything we Catholics, who recognize that Benedict XVI never abdicated, hold.

This is important, because there is advanced by many facetious authors, who have no training whatsoever in Canon Law, arguments about what munus and ministerium mean, which are wholly irrelevant and rarely valid.

Moreover, it is also important, because what true scholars say unmasks the advocates and defenders of the usurpation of the Apostolic Throne during the last 10 years.

Here I will share some significant citations taken from Valerio Gigliotti’s, La Tiara Deposta, (Leo S. Olsckhi Editore, Firenze, 2013).  Gigliotti is a professor of the History of European Law, at the University of Turin, Italy. And his book is an encyclopedic jurisprudential review of the concept of papal abdication through the 20 centuries of Church History. A truly monumental work and treatment.

In Gigliotti’s final chapter 8, entitled, “The Mystical Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI” he sound loudly out for the fact that the renunciation had no juridical value, but was a spiritual decision to withdraw into a life of prayer for the good of the people of God.

And here it is that on p. 401, he cites weighty experts in Canon Law.

There is no abdication without renunciation of dignity

The first is Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, II, De personis,  Rome 1928, §452, p. 436, who writes:

Quare sicut Romanus Pontifex per acceptationem liberam electionis primatum iurisdictionis actu consecutus est, ita per liberam et publice declaratam dimissionem dignitatis suae iurisdictionem papalem amittit.

Which in English would be:

Wherefore, just as the Roman Pontiff through a free acceptance of election acquires the primacy of jurisdiction in an act, so through a free and publicly declared laying-down of his own dignity does he lose the papal jurisdiction.

This is the first cruise missile against those who claim the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI effected an abdication. Because it is clear to everyone, that neither in the text of his Declaratio of 2013, nor in his comportment after that through 10 years, nor even at his funeral, did he lack, forsake or was recognized by the Catholic world to have lost the Papal Dignity.  Hence, he never lost the papal jurisdiction. This is a conclusion of law, which is derived from the truth which has nothing to do with intentions or opinions, but facts of history.

But as ecclesiastical dignity is a consequence of holding a title, office, or munus, let us proceed to the next authority

The renunciation of munus is the very essence of an act of renunciation of office

The next authority cited, is G. Chelodi, Ius de personis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, praemisso tractatu De principiis et fontibus, Tridenti, 1922, §155, p. 256.

For the liceity of a renunciation of the papacy, there is required:

Romanum Pontificem se munere abdicari posse, valide etiam sine causa, certum est, licite tamen nonnise ex causa gravissima.

Which in English would be:

That the Roman Pontiff can by himself abdicate (his) munus, validly, even without a cause, is certain, however, licitly not but on account of the most gravest cause.

This is the second cruise missile totally destroying the claim of Bergoglian advocates, that the renunciation of Benedict XVI was effective of or equivalent to an abdication. Not because there is doubt about the gravest of causes, but because by definition an abdication requires the renunciation of his munus.

Both these sources were written in the Pontificate of Pope Pius IX, nearly 90 years before the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI. So it is impossible to impugn their objectivity and authority as regards the canonical tradition.

I have previously definitively demonstrated that the Code of Canon Law of 1983, read according to canon 17 therein, does not permit anyone to read munus as ministerium, here. My academic paper given in a public conference here at Rome in October of 2019 has been published on the internet for 3 years and has never been refuted in any of its assertions or claims. Canon 17 requires that canon 332 be read first in the light of the Code itself, then in that of canonical tradition. By this present article, which you have just read, I believe there is sufficiently demonstrated that both sources of authority are in total agreement.

Finally, for those who wish to dispute about words, here is my note on Munus and Ministerium in the Latin Language. My analysis of the Latin text of the Declaratio, can be found here. My Canonical Critique of it here. And My Scholastic Disputed question dealing with its interpretation here. And the weighty reasons, drawn from the treatise of St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, on the interpretation of law, why no one can interpret the Declaratio in any other way, here.

CREDITS: The featured image is from Gigliotti’s book, which can be ordered online here.


L’Ammonimento solenne al Collegio dei Cardinali — Perché è stato necessario?

Per carità, diffonderlo con tutti i tuoi conoscenti, parenti ed amici nelle Diocesi di Roma, Albano, Osta, Velletri-Segni, Palestrina, Frascati, Sabina Poggio Mireto, e Porta Santa Rufina.

Summary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In this video, I explain in Italian, why it was juridically wise and useful for Roman Catholics at Rome to give the College of Cardinals a solemn public rebuke for not yet taking any move convening in Conclave. For just as in every legal dispute, one first notifies the transgressing party, that one’s rights are being transgressed, to warn them of impending legal action if they fail to cease in the transgression, so in this dispute, the College of Cardinals cannot simply omit their duty in silence, but must give a juridical explanation of why they are deciding to act or not to act. This is especially true, because since March 13, 2013 A. D., when they pretended to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff, they have never responded as a body, nor even as individuals, with a canonical explanation of their position now that all the evidence for their fault has been published to all the world for 10 years, and especially here in Italy during the last 2 years.

Thus, the Solemn Admonishment (Text here in Italian and English translation) had to be given, just as in a disagreement among knights, one throws one’s glove down in front of the opponent to challenge him to a fight, to prove which party is in the right, so now, the College of Cardinals has been put on notice. They must respond verbally and they must take action. If they fail at both, then they have juridically conceded, that the Roman Catholic Faithful of the Church of Rome, that is, of the Dioceses of Roma, Albano, Osta, Velletri-Segni, Palestrina, Frascati, Sabina Poggio Mireto, and Porta Santa Rufina do in fact have the rights claimed in the Solemn Admonishment. Cardinal Re, Dean of the College, now has in hand 3 copies of the text.

The ball is now in his court.

He has been presented to a juridical fait accompli, as it were, he is now checkmated and failing to act, he loses the most important battle, and will concede the juridical legitimacy to us who are Catholics in communion with Pope Benedict XVI till the end.

APPENDIX:  True Devotion to Saints Peter and Paul

Canonical Norms which touch upon the validity of the Election of the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Right

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the Catholic Faithful of the Church of Rome consider the election of the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Right, there are some canonical norms which should be kept in mind to avoid that any doubt arise to the validity of the election. (Cf. previous articles on this matter, here, here and here)

While an election conducted by Apostolic Right, could be argued to be free from the requirement to observe all canonical norms per se, yet the better opinion is that since a papa dubius is a papal nullius, that those norms which pertain to natural law must be observed, and that those norms which pertain to ecclesiastical law should be taken into account.

Let’s review, then the norms of Canon Law regarding elections, and gather together the principles which should be observed for the election of the Roman Pontiff, in the extraordinary circumstance in which no Cardinal Elector enters into conclave to elect the Roman Pontiff, after the death of a validly elected, legitimate Roman Pontiff, that is, one who is elected to receive the petrine munus and who did in fact receive it.

First, it must be noted that no one can receive the petrine munus, if there is someone already holding it. And no one can cease holding it unless he dies or has in a juridical act expressly renounced it. Also, no one can be elected to receive it, while someone holds it, and after his death or renunciation of it, claim is prior election is sufficient to obtain it. Elections must be posterior in time to the conditions adapt for the validity of an election. Thus Jorge Mario Bergoglio has never held the petrine munus and by his 10 year pretense has no claim to it.

Second, the election of the Roman Pontiff in such extraordinary circumstances, requires that the electors be convoked to a specific place and time by the president of the college of electors, when that president is physically present in the place of convocation (cf. canon 166). This Pope Benedict XVI already did in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, when he declared an election of his successor it to take place by those who are competent.

Third, all the electors must be summoned to a public place.  The election would be invalid, unless there is at least an attempt to do that. Thus, if some electors, without informing others, would meet together, in secret or public, the election will be invalid. Nor can they exclude any others by reason of any argument, since by the norms of law, no one is presumed to be ineligible unless they are so by failure to meet some canonical norm. Thus, any cleric incardinated in any diocese of the Roman Church (Rome or any of its suburbican dioceses), any religious of an institute of diocesan rite founded by any of these bishops in any of these dioceses and residing within them, and any layman. And this without regard as to any previous opinion they may have held, because, it is sufficient that in the present assembly they declare that Benedict XVI was the one and only Roman Pontiff until his death, because we all have been victims in some way or another of the false narrative, and there are very few among us, who from Feb. 11, 2013 were not fooled.

Fourth, the election will not be valid, if a non elector is allowed to vote (canon 169). Thus in the present case being considered, no one outside of the Church of Rome can be admitted to the assembly (those who are not members of the Church of Rome by at least 1 year of residency within the territory of the Diocese of Rome or a suburbican Diocese). But reasonably, since the gathering will be a large one, this restriction has to do with those who speak during the assembly and those who vote, since it would be neigh impossible humanly speaking to assure that no one in the assembly is a non-elector. But due diligence should be undertaken to exclude them, even though, no sane person would discount the election by a multitude on account of a small number of invalid votes.

Fifth, those assembling in the place of convocation cannot be under any coercion (canon 170), otherwise the election would be invalid. Among the causes invalidating the election are those which effectively impede their deliberation of action, that is, in my opinion, also inclusive of any psychological control of persons outside of the Church of Rome.*

Sixth, according to canon 171, the following cannot vote:

  1. Those who are incapable of a human act (that is, without the use of reason), by reason of age or infirmity.
  2. Those who are not electors.
  3. Those who have been excommunicated by reason of a judicial, decretal sentences, that is one which is inflicted or announced.
  4. Those who have notoriously separated themselves from the Catholic Church (by joining a group which refuses communion in principle with the Church or Her members)

The election of any particular candidate would be invalid, if as canon 171 states, the electors were induced beforehand, by fear or guile, directly or indirectly applied, to vote for a particular candidate, though natural law does not require the vote to be secret, by two thirds majority. I do believe the vote should be counted, and the manner of voting be determinate, that is, by personal votes being tallied.

Canon 173, thus, states that the first act of the electorate should be to designate the counters of the vote and the modality for presenting a vote, that is, where the voters are to present themselves, to declare their vote. I think that it would be best that each voter present himself before the counters and declare his candidate. Votes should not exceed electors, and thus, I think it would be necessary to only allow those who can vote,, withing a certain barrier, to prevent at the time of voting, extraneous persons from entering.

Canon 174, allows by natural law, that electors appoint one of their number to vote in their stead during the assembly. But this is problematic, because how could that be judicially verified without written documentation, which could be forged? For that reason, it would cause a doubt to arise and make the election invalid.

Canon 177 requires the one elected to be notified within 8 days of the election. If he does not accept, the assembly must meet again.

Canon 178, the one elected, who accepts, receives immediately the petrine munus. He must accept by means of words which naturally, clearly and customarily are used, such as, by saying, “I accept my election to the office of Roman Pontiff” etc..

Finally, the candidate to be elected, must be a man, a Catholic, and of at least the age of reason, having received the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. He must be celibate, that is, not currently bound by sacramental or civil marriage to any other person. He must have the free use of reason. Doubt about this, such as would occur from a person who has allowed nano-tech to be injected into his body, should exclude such candidates.


** That is moral coercion of the kind by which one would be told whom to vote for by someone who cannot vote, under threats of spiritual damnation. This would be the worst kind of spiritual abuse. Electors, that is those who can vote, are completely free and should not exercise their vote under constraint. If the cannot freely make a choice on their own, they are not eligible to vote, as per canon 171.

My Letter to Cardinal Re


By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.

Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:

Sua Eminentia,

Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.

In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.

Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.

Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.

Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.

Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.

Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.

Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.

Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.

Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XVI faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.

Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,

In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,

Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info

Your Eminence,

I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.

First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.

Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.

Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.

Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.

Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.

Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.

Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.

Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throughout the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.

For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.

Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,

– – –

I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.

As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..

+ + +

If the Anti-Pope is not named during a Mass in Suffrage of Pope Benedict….

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since Saturday things have changed in the Catholic Church. Now priests can and should say the Mass in suffrage of the Roman Pontiff, during which, instead of naming the Pope, one names the deceased Roman Pontiff.

At such masses, regardless of which priests offer, if they do not name Pope Francis, Catholics can licitly receive the Sacrament, because the priest has withdrawn from public schism.

And according to the rubrics, they should not name Francis, at such masses.

The priest may personally still think Francis is the Pope, but by omitting his name in the Canon, he publicly asserts the contrary. And that is sufficient in the sight of God to exculpate any Catholic from attending his mass.

I say this regarding priests who are not heretics, idolators and in regard to those who have publicly criticized the Antipope for these things.

Those priests who wanted to stop naming Francis in the canon, but were afraid to do that, can now use this present circumstance to do that. In fact, they can continue to do so for the rest of the illegitimate pontificate of Bergoglio.

If however, there are priests in your region who named Pope Benedict XVI as pope in recent days, weeks, years, continue to attend their masses, because it would be a scandal to do otherwise, and because in the next 21 days, we should gather together even more in prayer for Pope Benedict XVI with the best of clergy and laity, since their prayers are more effective in the sight of God.

Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction Française — Versione Italiana

The passing of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter, has started the clock which countdowns the time set by the Papal Law Universi dominici gregis, for the election of a new Roman Pontiff.

This process is an unavoidable and necessary legal requirement for the College of Cardinals, who are given no special authority in the Church to elect the Roman Pontiff apart from this law.

In accord with n. 37 of that law, modified by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 22, 2013 A. D., the Cardinals must convene to elect a new pope of the Catholic Church within 21 days, for a valid election. This validity is granted by the Papal Law only under the most stringent and exclusive condition, of n. 77 of that law:

77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the renunciation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

(Please note that the official English translation, has “resignation” in place of “renunciation” in the passage above, where as the only binding text, the Latin original reads, “renunciation”.)

Thus, since Pope Benedict XVI never in fact renounced the petrine munus, which he was elected to receive in accord with express obligation of the Cardinals, in a conclave, specified in n. 53 of that same papal law,*  the College must convene.

In this regard, there is now an attempt by some to impose an entirely false narrative upon the present circumstances, not only as regards the completely non-factual assertions that Pope Benedict XVI has abdicated, or the attempt to signify that with the word “resignation” which does not exist in the Church’s juridical norms currently in force, but also to insist that this Papal Law be interpreted according to English common law, where the mere holding of power gives one a right.

Contrariwise, in Church Law, which is based on Roman Law, the merely holding of power confers no right. Thus, the Cardinal electors, by the mere fact that they are the electors, have no right to alter the observance of the Law or chose not to fulfill it.

If they do, they would lose all right to elect the Roman Pontiff, and the Church would enter into an exception juridical situation, as regards the current norms, and the Apostolic Right of the faithful of the Church of Rome (Dioceses of Rome and the Suburbican Dioceses bordering it) revives, since as the prefatory letter of Pope John Paul II, affixed to the Papal Law, expressly affirms that the institution of the Conclave “is not necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff.”

Immediately following the burial of Pope Benedict XVI we should not be surprised if we see the Dean of the College invoke a Conclave. This is because, by the very nature of the requirement in n. 37, the Cardinals must convene within 21 days of the death of the Roman Pontiff:

No. 37. “I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, fifteen full days must elapse before the Conclave begins, in order to await those who are absent; nonetheless, the College of Cardinals is granted the faculty to move forward the start of the Conclave if it is clear that all the Cardinal electors are present; they can also defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.”

(This is the modified version of n. 37, as changed by Pope Benedict XVI).

They can meet earlier if they are all assembled, but they cannot defer more than 21 days.

Also, though they have discretion to interpret vague obligations of this law, as per n. 5 of this law, they cannot interpret 21 to be any other number.

In addition, they cannot exercise the discretion of n. 5, unless they hold a meeting and vote upon it, since votes of a juridical nature specified in the Code of Canon Law, must be in person.

The dominant narrative is attempting, however, to pre-program the expectation that the Cardinals will not convene in Conclave. Though it is impossible to know the future, one can however outline how imprudent that would be for the rights and privileges of the College.

First, because the Cardinals have no exclusive right and only have a right to elect a pope, according to this law, if they exercise their rights, the situation is not like English Common Law where they have the discretionary right not to exercise their statutory duty.

Second, because the Cardinals cannot decide to do anything except by vote, that vote not to enter into Conclave would have to be unanimous, for it it were not, then the Cardinals dissenting against the decision could publish pronounce the others in schism, and convene on their own a Conclave, after having elected their own Dean and vice Dean etc.. And thus the minority could proceed to a legal and valid election. And since the risk that a minority chose the Pope would most certainly be against the pleasure of the majority, the only prudent thing would be for the entire College to enter into Conclave.

Nor is there any real risk to the College to enter into Conclave, because whether they want Bergoglio to be the Pope or not, they could always elect him a second time, so that henceforth he hold the Petrine Munus and there be no doubt anymore to his legitimacy.

So any failure to convene, would set up the situation I have already written about here.

Thus, it is absolutely certain that within the next 30 days will be will have a new legitimate Roman Pontiff, for even if Bergoglio would be elected again, his first pontificate was never legitimate, and he was never a Pope.


* 53. In conformity with the provisions of No. 52, the Cardinal Dean or the Cardinal who has precedence by order and seniority, will read aloud the following formula of the oath:

We, the Cardinal electors present in this election of the Supreme Pontiff promise, pledge and swear, as individuals and as a group, to observe faithfully and scrupulously the prescriptions contained in the Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, published on 22 February 1996. We likewise promise, pledge and swear that whichever of us by divine disposition is elected Roman Pontiff will commit himself faithfully to carrying out the munus Petrinum of Pastor of the Universal Church and will not fail to affirm and defend strenuously the spiritual and temporal rights and the liberty of the Holy See. In a particular way, we promise and swear to observe with the greatest fidelity and with all persons, clerical or lay, secrecy regarding everything that in any way relates to the election of the Roman Pontiff and regarding what occurs in the place of the election, directly or indirectly related to the results of the voting; we promise and swear not to break this secret in any way, either during or after the election of the new Pontiff, unless explicit authorization is granted by the same Pontiff; and never to lend support or favour to any interference, opposition or any other form of intervention, whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree or any group of people or individuals might wish to intervene in the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Anyone who has received the Covid-19 Vaccine is ineligible to be elected Pope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Physical integrity has long been considered a requirement for holding office in the Church. So much so that in ancient times, in certain cases, it was required that the candidate prove he was a man.

The liberty from coercion is also legally required, because someone who is not free in mind, cannot be held to have freely accepted an office to which he was elected.

This is all the more a concern in the case of anyone who has nanotech injected into their bodies. Since this grows circuits and optical cables, it is not only a threat to their personal heath and liberty, it also puts in grave doubt their ability to make free acts or to do so in the privacy of their minds’ thoughts.

Since all these concerns are on the table, as it were, in the case of someone who has been DeathVaxxed, the election of such a person would be put in canonical doubt.

A pope must serve Jesus Christ. Someone who has taken what appears to be the mock up or roll out of the Mark of the Beast is clearly doubtfully a servant of Christ or a member of the Mystical Body.

It is my opinion, therefore, that such a person cannot lawfully be elected Roman Pontiff. He would always be a papa dubius, which according to jurisprudence, is a papa nullius, that is, a non-pope.

The election of anyone who will not disclose his vaxx status, should not be accepted, therefore, in any way whatsoever.

Likewise, as regards the Cardinal Electors in a Conclave.

The papal law on conclaves forbids absolutely that any electronic devices be admitted into the proceedings. If any Cardinal elector, validly nominated by Pope Benedict XVI or John Paul II — there are no others — has been deathvaxxed with nano-tech that is growing electronic circuits which can be used for remote sensing, then it is doubtful that the Conclave would be valid, if they were permitted to enter. Likewise for all those allowed entrance who are not Cardinals, for purposes of assisting in the ceremonies. This is a serious matter, but perhaps only those who are emitting MAC addresses must be refused entrance, since these alone are communicating with the outside world on bluetooth wavelengths.

Necessary Precautions in the Ministry of the Sacraments after the Pandemic

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


Since the Scamdemic, Catholics, clergy and laity, need to take heed to practice caution in the distribution of the Sacraments on account of the fact that those who have taken Covid-19 “Vaccines” have been injected with artificial and unnatural agents which are causing their bodies to grow unnatural and dangerous compounds which can injure others.

This is the very sad and apocalyptic reality which we must all confront.  For as Our Lord forewarned us, but the clergy failed to preach, a great deception would be sprung like a trap upon everyone in the whole world, and there would be demanded of all, as St. John, His beloved disciple forewarned us, that they receive the mark of the Beast, so as to be able to conduct their affairs in public.

And all those who listened to the false prophet, who calls himself by the name of one of Christ’s most beloved Saints, but who is himself a devil and globalist agent, who worships idols and engages in esoteric ritual pratices, all these who have listen to this preacher of abominations, have taken the mark.

And so it has happened that the tail of the Beast has swept nearly all the stars of heaven — the clergy — out of the sky. And the laity who followed them, along with them.

And now their bodies produce the spike protein, which was modeled on 50+ venoms, just like a snake produces venom in its own body. And thus is fulfilled the word of scripture.

But the Apostle warns us further, to flee the cities so as not to partake of the plagues which God will visit upon those who have taken the mark.

And scientists the world over are discovering, that those who took these DeathVaxxes, as I am wont to call them here at FromRome, are now growing things unnatural and abominable in their own bodies, from optical cables, microchips, tin-based white coagulations in their veins and arteries, etc.., not to mention suffering from all sorts of medical problems which result in permanent disability or sudden death syndrome.

But that which merits the attention of us all is that some of these dangers can result from proximity to those who have taken these jabs, whether through droplets spread in the air, or saliva which is unwittingly transferred though things touched.

For this reason, we need to recognize that now, certain sanitary precautions should be taken. And that to fail to take them would but some persons in risk of death or permanent bodily injury or at least grave medical situations.

Thus it is a moral imperative arising from true charity, that such precautions be taken.

Who needs to take precautions?

I invite medical professionals who read FromRome.Info to comment below, but it is clear even to the laymen, that both those who took one or more of these jabs as well as those who have not taken them, should take precaution.

Those who took these jabs have the formal duty to take precaution at all times, whether they are in the presence of someone jabbed or not.

While those who did not take any of these jabs, have the duty of prudence, to take precautions when they are in the presence of anyone jabbed.

There may be some medical research which can determine how dangerous it is to enter into contact or into the presence of someone who is jabbed. I ask those who know of this to report that below.

How this affects the sacramental ministry…

It is clear that in the distribution of the Sacraments, human touch and close proximity is required. Therefore, for the minister of the Sacrament who touches, extreme caution must be taken if he has been jabbed. In good conscience he should have his saliva and sweat and breath medically tested to see if he is shedding anything unnatural, such as spike proteins or nanotechnology.

If he is shedding, he should refrain from the Sacramental ministry, in my opinion. And I think a Bishop would have the right to suspend him a divinis from all public functions, on account of his danger to the public.

For those who are jabbed, they should be especially careful to avoid shedding upon other Catholics at Church or upon clergy while receiving the sacraments. Perhaps this risk is less if they are among only those who are jabbed.

For those who are not jabbed, it is obvious that one takes extreme risks if one is receiving the Sacraments in a church filled with jabbed Catholics or from a priest who has been jabbed.

And I believe the risk for the unjabbed is so great, that they have no canonical obligation to attend on Sunday, any mass said by a priest who is jabbed or celebrated in a Church with Catholics who are jabbed, as there are just too many objects in a church which might be contaminated with the sweat or saliva of others, not to mention the air itself, normally now well ventilated.

All of these risks must be weighed in conjunction with what is known about the jab-campaign in your country, whether it is still ongoing or not.  We need to have the humility, sincerity and honesty to admit this reality, about which no one is talking in the Church.

As for the clergy who obeyed their superiors and took the jab, they should not by that grow angry at us who are unjabbed, but realize  that their sin is so great that their false obedience was the punishment for their sin.

I do not know any priest in communion with Pope Benedict XVI who is jabbed, nor any of the faithful who are in communion with him who were jabbed.  Perhaps this has to do with the apocalyptic scenario which I described above. If so, then we are truly at a great parting, and Pope Benedict XVI may have been inspired by Christ to renounce the ministry, precisely to prepare for this greats division.

Practical solutions

Priests who are jabbed should wear something distinctive to show that they are. I would recommend white cloth gloves, which can be laundered in water, as all altar cloths are. All signs of peace which require touching should be abolished. The Eucharist should not be touched by the jabbed. Ministers who are jabbed should not distribute it to the unjabbed. And those who are jabbed, should receive from those who are jabbed. Best of all would be to assign churches and liturgies for the jabbed and others for the unjabbed.

Canonical effects

So far the nanotech in the jabbs does not seem to definitely impair reason or free will, but once such evidence is scientifically obtained, I would say that all Popes, Bishops and Clergy who hold offices who have this tech inside them, should be considered ipso facto deposed from office, on the grounds that they are no longer members of the body of Christ, but of the body of the Antichrist, and their loyalty to the Church is in doubt. Likewise, when this occurs, such persons could not be eligible to hold any office in the Church. As has been demonstrated already, the winter flu shots, and indeed all vaccines, are now possibly being loaded with nanotech. So one should be careful to inquire if your local clergy are taking these shots.


The Sutri Initiative: Why I support it

This Appeal is directed to every Catholic Influencer on Social Media who realizes that Bergoglio is destroying the Church

Everyone in favor of this appeal is invited to make their own video-appeal in their own language, and it will be posted here:

Here is Br. Bugnolo’s Contribution, from Dec. 9. 2022:

The contributions of other influencers, will be published on this page, with the most recent, at the top.


Boniface VIII’s teaching on fraudulent Renunciations explains Gänswein’s denial of a Pretext

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

At present, in the Vatican, there are two persons whose followers call, “the Pope.” I will leave aside the fact that one of them ordered the Annuario Pontificio to no longer call him the pope, but that’s too great a fact to convince one party that something is awry in the Vatican City State.

For this reason, FromRome.Info has been featuring news about the Vatican since it was launched more than 8 years ago. And in that time I have published a good number of articles about the controversies over the Conclave of March 2013 and the Renunciation of February 2013. You can find extensive collections of articles about each, under the rubric, Team Bergoglio and The Renunciation of Pope Benedict.

Now, as regards the latter, FromRome.Info was the first and only site to publish an English translation of the Rescript of Pope Boniface VIII about papal renunciation, which is the foundational historic document in the tradition of Canon Law. In that article, I briefly mentioned the crucial textual problem which led the Code of Canon Law of 1917 and that of 1983 to use the verb, “renuntiare”, to renounce, rather than “resignare”, to resign.

But in the source for this Rescript, one finds a lot more, and that is what I will now publish, because those who sustain Bergoglio is the pope often make wild unsubstantiated claims that the tradition of Canon Law is in their favor. And this is clearly not so.


First, as regards questions of law, one cannot appeal to traditions of law, unless they regard the same legal concept. Now, when concepts regard legal acts, one must have recourse to the rules of verbal signification first of all to clarify the nature or essence of the legal act about which one is speaking. One classifies things according to genus and species. The genus is the common notion of all the things which are of the same formal reckoning, but the species is the notion which applies only to more restricted classifications of those things. So the genus is dog, but the species is a German Shepherd. Notice, that here I am not speaking according to biology, but according to logic. Because biologically both German Shepherds and dogs are both of the same species.

As regards legal actions, then, since these are expressed in words, one divides them according to verbs and objects, because when speaking of walking your dog, “to walk” as a transitive verb speaks of the genus of the action, whereas “dog” as the object of the transitive verb speaks of the species of the action.

So as regards, Papal Renunciations, “to renounce the papacy”, is studied under the generic notion of renunciations, and under the specific notion of renunciations of the papal office.  Now textually this may not be evident in a document, since if the chapter deals with the papal office, the section on renunciation does not need to specify the object of the act, since the context supplies that tacitly.

Thus, in the Sixth Book of Decretals, published by Pope Boniface VIII, papal renunciation is found under Book I, Title VII, “De Renunciatione”, that is, “On Renunciation”, without any specification.


Above I offer you the opportunity to read or download the 225 MB PDF which contains the entire Sixth Book of Decretals. In this way, you can follow the discussion below, where I will transcribe and translate the sections I refer to. I will be quoting from PDF pages 108-9, or columns 197-200 in the original work.

As I have already published Chapter I, here, I will proceed to transcribe and translate Chapter II, which is very interesting in regard to the present controversy.

Si te praebendam vel dignitatem, in aliqua ecclesia proximo vacaturam auctoritate Apostolica expectante, aliquis praebendam seu dignitatem tenuem obtinens in eadem, fraudulenter ei renunciet, ut illa prima sic vacante, praecludatur tibi via per consequens ad obtinendum praebendam, vel dignitatem aliam pinguiorem, quae per mortem alicuius, vel alias in ipsa ecclesia creditur verisimiliter in proximo vacatura: per renunicationem huiusmodi (dummodo de praemissa fraude appareat, saltem per aliquas probabiles coniecturars: ut quia dictae renunciationis tempore, is qui praebendam vel dignitatem pinguiorem habebat, infirmitate gravi detinebatur: vel aliquid aliud imminebat, propter quod illius praebenda, seu dignitas vacare in proximo probabiliter credebatur) nullum tibi volumus obstaculum interponi, quo minus (praebenda vel dignitate praedicta sic fraudulenter renunciata, omissa) possis dictam pinguiorem, cum eam vel aliam si prius ipsam vacare contigeret, auctoritate praefata libere petere veluti tibi debitam, & habere.

Caeterum si praedicto renuncianti huiusmodi praebenda vel dignitas pinguior forsitan confereatur: eo ipso dicta fraus in / telligatur esse probata: & idem renuncians habita omnino careat, & ambita.


If, you when expecting a prebend and/or dignity, to be vacated in any church on Apostolic authority, anyone holder of a lesser prebend or dignity in that regard,  fraudulently renounces it, so that the first thus vacated, precludes you by way of per consequens to obtain another greater prebend, and/or dignity, which through the death of someone, and/or otherwise in the church itself is believed verisimilarly to be about to be soon vacated: through a renunciation of this kind (so long as it appears under the aforementioned fraud, at least through some probably conjectures: that according to the time of the said renunciation, the one who held the greater prebend and/or dignity, was held back by grave infirmity: and/or something else was pressing, on account of which the vacating of his prebend, or dignity was probably believed to be imminent) We will that no obstacle interpose itself, by which you under the aforesaid (Apostolic) authority (when a prebend and/or aforesaid dignity be thus fraudulently renounced), may freely seek, as due to you, and have, the aforesaid greater one, when it has happened that it and/or the other has been vacated beforehand.

Otherwise, if there be conferred upon the aforesaid renouncer a prebend and/or dignity of this kind perhaps greater: by this very fact the said fraud is to be understood to be proven: and the same one renouncing lacks entirely the one had, and its appurtenances.

First, note that a prebend, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “the portion of the revenues of a cathedral or collegiate church formerly granted to a canon or member of the chapter as his stipend”, though here I believe it is intended in a wider sense of any benefice, that is, office held out of authorized grant from a superior. A dignity is another word for title.

As is clear from this passage, then, when the Holy Father grants an office to a cleric, as a successor to one who is about to or is to be expected soon to renounce that office, to make it available to the new nominee, if the renunciation of the office by the previous holder be fraudulently done, then the new nominee can still take possession of it.

What is fraud in a legal act?

And here, let us keep in mind, that “fraudulently done” means that the juridical act, in its doing or positing, has been intentionally done invalidly. It is called “fraud” because in jurisprudence, a legal act ought to be an act which is valid according to the law. To craft an act, which appears to be juridical, but which is invalid in of itself, because of its non conformity with the law, AND do to this intentionally, is thus a fraud.

Why did Gänswein’s deny that the Declaratio is a pretext?

This may seem to be a very unimportant legal concept, but actually, it explains the will behind the illegal usurpation of the Papacy by Bergoglio, because his supporters regard the renunciation of ministerium rather than munus, as done by Pope Benedict XVI, to be merely a fraudulent way of renouncing, and on the basis of that groundless assertion, are holding that Bergoglio has the right to take possession regardless of the legal error in the Declaratio.

But they never speak of this, in my opinion, because if they did cite such a legal reasoning they would have to admit that a renunciation of ministerium is not legally appropriate or valid.

I believe that Archbishop Gänswein referred to this theory of theirs when, in his phone call to the brother of Father Gebhard, in September, he expressly denied that the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI was a “pretext”.  Because a pretext is a fraudulent reasoning or explanation for one’s actions. Thus by denying that it was a pretext, the Archbishop, who holds a doctorate in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, is affirming that the act is a valid act, not done to pretend to be something other than what it is.

Andrea Cionci, thus, in interpreting everything else in the phone conversation as Ratzinger Code for approbation of what the priests, especially Don Minutella, were doing, in asserting Benedict XVI was still the pope, happily also interpreted this phrase correctly. But the meaning was even more profound, as I hope the above exposition now shows.

Also, in the often quoted statements of Pope Benedict XVI, where he gives great emphasis to the validity of his act, he likewise attests that he did what he did freely. The legal consequence of such testimony — which Bergoglians claim means he validly resigned the papacy (changing the object of the verb like con artists) — is to safeguard against the claim that the act was invalid, and thus a subterfuge, and thus fraudulent.

The Legal Strategy behind claiming the status of “Pope emeritus”

Not to be overlooked here is that Pope Boniface VIII says above that the claim of another office by the one renouncing is ipso facto proof of fraud in an apparently invalid renunciation (cf. 2nd paragraph in translated text: “Otherwise ….”). This explains, in my view, why the Bergoglian canonists are so feverish over establishing the canonical status of a Pope emeritus.  They need to make it an actual office, so that they can claim that Benedict XVI de facto resigned the papacy!

And thus we see the absolute legal brilliance behind what Pope Benedict XVI did, because his renunciation of ministerium is perfectly valid, and by claiming the status of Pope emeritus, which is a non existent office, and can only mean that he remains the pope, he prevents anyone conferring upon him another office or dignity, by which conferral they could claim he has renounced the papacy!

This is the legal equivalent of castling your King in a game of fourth dimension chess!

Way to go, Pope Benedict !!!

Don Minutella and Br. Bugnolo discuss the canonical problems at the Vatican

 Summary and further explanations by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I had the pleasure and honor to be interviewed via telephone last night in Italian (see video above) by the renowned Don Alessandro Minutella, Catholic Priest and Pastor of the Parish of Saint Don Bosco, Palermo, who since 2016 has been leading a social media and preaching crusade against the arch-heretic who has usurped the Apostolic Throne and seized control of the Vatican City State.

We talked at length about the canonical aspects and juridical problems had by the party of criminal accomplices in the upper clergy and among social media personalities in demonstrating that his claim to the Roman Papacy is legitimate.

In this broadcast, I said nothing that I have not said previously, except for our discussion about what might happen at the death of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. Though I mentioned the recent autogol of Don Tullio Rotondo, in his online skirmishing war with Andrea Cionci, which I reported on here.

First, I pointed out that we cannot be sure about any of the circumstances of that future event, because, Bergoglio could pass to his eternal recompense before the Holy Father, or even resign. As to Don Minutella’s question on this, I emphatically stated that I do not, as an anthropologist, see anything in his character which would lead me to think that he would ever resign, nay, I think he will be giving orders to the last moments of his death bed — though, if he was DeathVaxxed, he may just drop suddenly.

Second, we do not know if the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has discretely already made arrangements for the election of a legitimate successor, seeing that in the past, during the final days of Pope Honorius II, the faithful Cardinals gathered around the dying Pontiff and expressed to him their concern that, after his death, the faction led by Pietro Pierleoni, of a very bad reputation for simony and the theft of sacred objects (Pierleoni was from a family of Jews converted to the Catholic Faith) would seize control, since he had bought a large number of followers in the city.  So on February 13, 1130 A. D., Pope Honorius II signed a brief which restricted the number of electors for the election of his successor to a commission of Cardinals, the members of which were attending him in his death. Thus, was Pope Innocent II legitimately and validly, but not canonically in the strictest sense, elected.

So it is possible, that Pope Benedict XVI has already promulgated or will promulgate a special law governing the election of his successor. And indeed, he can do so at any moment, and those named as Electors will be the witnesses to it. Juridically it must be signed before his death, before witnesses whose number at least contains 2 Bishops.

Hence, though it appears to everyone in Italy, that there are no Cardinal Electors who want to recognize that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope, it may be possible that he will arrange for the election of his successor.

And for that reason, I mentioned last night, that it remains to be seen what Archbishop Gänswein will do, following the death of the Holy Father, in the situation where no Cardinal Electors have returned to him publicly or privately. For if the Archbishop, at the funeral mass names Bergoglio in the canon of the Mass, then we can presume reasonably that he was not faithful to Pope Benedict XVI and served as a prison guard of the Holy Father, all these long years. But that if he offers that Mass or those Masses in sede vacante, then he is signifying that he stood with the Holy Father as a faithful ally and servant all those years.

Don Minutella asked me, then, if I think the Archbishop is a faithful ally or a prison guard. And I told him that I first assumed the latter, but now incline to the former, though I cannot be certain, because it could be, that to serve the Holy Father faithfully he has had to dissimulate loyalty to both claimants to the Apostolic Throne, or that even Pope Benedict XVI has instructed him to use mental reservation to achieve this.

Failing any special law and in the case of the apostasy of all the Cardinal Electors, then I affirmed that there remains a way to validly elect the Roman Pontiff, as Pope John Paul II implied in his promulgatory act of the new code of Canon Law in 1983, where he said, that the institution of the Conclave is NOT necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff!  When I first read that years ago, I presumed he was speaking about the long course of centuries, but after discovering that Pope Benedict XVI uses amphibologies, and that the renunciation of the Roman Pontiff in canon law was altered in the code of 1983, to allow a fake abdication to fool the Freemasons in the upper clergy who have been working for 2 centuries to seize the papacy, I hypothesized that this statement by Pope John Paul II was a hint, an indication, that his papal law for the election of the Roman Pontiff contained some sort of pressure valve or condition where the law would abolish itself.

In fact, it is a very widespread error, that the Cardinals alone have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. I thought so myself, for most of my life, until I read canons 335, 349 and 359, which clearly state that after the death and/or valid abdication of the Roman Pontiff, the Cardinals enjoy only those rights which are according to them by special law. That is, they have no canonical or apostolic right to elect the Roman Pontiff!  This present system differs from that established during the Third Lateran Council, canon 1, for example. Thus if the special law had any condition which would prevent the present method from being implemented, the Cardinal Electors would lose all right per se to participate in the election.

For in the course of the centuries the Roman Pontiffs have been elected by papal laws, canons, or apostolic tradition, as I have discussed here. And in thus, since the current law abolished all previous laws and canons, there could be no recourse to these if no Cardinal Electors remained faithful. Hence, the condition in the present law itself, that Cardinal Electors lose their right to elect the Roman Pontiff if they do not appear in conclave by the 22nd day, would result in the law itself losing all force after that date, or rather, to the abolition of the institution of the Conclave for that specific election, since obviously, there can be no Conclave if no one has the right to vote in it.

Thus, in such an eventuality the faithful of the Church of Rome (Dioceses of Rome and its suburbican Dioceses), whether clergy, religious, or lay, can and must convene to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI according to the Apostolic Right of that Church to do so, which right was established by St. Peter and recognized by St. Paul the Apostle. Obviously, this refers only to the number of the faithful who were in communion with the Roman Pontiff, at his death, and who belonged to the Church of Rome. This could include Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignori, Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, Religious and laity, who are either incardinated in these dioceses (in the case of clergy), or who hold ecclesiastical residence in these territories (laity and religious of pontifical institutes or diocesan institutes established by such ordinaries).



And hence it is, that it is important that the faithful gather together and show themselves prior to such a necessity. Indeed, the more frequently we gather together to proclaim Pope Benedict XVI is THE POPE, the more strength will we show to convince the weak to return to communion with him.

To this end, Don Minutella and the 7 priests collaborating with him have organized a public meeting at Rome, on December 11th.  And at my suggestion, last night, he has extended his invitation to participate and be present at this gathering to ALL the faithful wherever they may live, to come and join us.

THUS, I extend my personal and cordial invitation TO ALL CLERGY, RELIGIOUS AND LAITY wheresoever they be in the world, who recognize Benedict XVI is still the Pope, the sole Vicar of Jesus Christ, to come to Rome for Dec. 11th, of this year, and join me and the clergy, religious and faithful of Italy in this first event of its kind.

And at my suggestion, Don Minutella will plan such events every three months or so.

So far 1300 Catholics have preregistered for this free event open to all.

I will be there, and it will be my pleasure to meet all who come and make your acquaintance.

(For reasons of security, if you wish to attend, give me your contact information in a comment — which I will not publish — and I will put you on a private mailing list for updates about this and the details  of time and place at Rome)

Rules, Regulations and Proceedures for the Election of Pope Benedict XVI’s Successor

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


The Successor of Saint Peter’s Role in God’s Plan of Salvation

God alone knows the times and places wherein we will each be called to stand before the throne of Christ and receive judgement for our lives. And it will be inexorable and infinitely just in every detail. But until that time, we should live as His humble servants, confessing our sins and working for the good of His Church, which is His Mystical Bride on Earth.

Down through the Centuries, the Church has made pilgrimage from the Pentecost wherein She was born among men and manifested Herself for the first time to unbelievers, toward the Eternal and Final Heavenly Marriage Banquet wherein She shall celebrate Her Nuptials with Christ the King.

And to ensure that She arrives safe at that Day of days, Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ entrusted Her to Saint Peter and His Successors, in time. so that from generation to generation in this long pilgrimage, She might have a faithful hand to guide Her without error unto that magnificent feast.

A Short History of the Election of the Roman Pontiffs

List of all the Pope s buried in St. Peter’s Basilica

Each pope in the Apostolic Succession at Rome accepts that duty when he accepts his election as the Bishop of Rome. But down the course of the ages, that election has been conducted under different procedures.

At first, with the death of Saint Peter, it is most probably that Saint Paul the Apostle presided over the first election of a pope, Saint Linus, where, out of fear of persecution, the Church of Rome met in secret to elect their own Bishop, faithful and clergy and consecrated alike. In those days the Church of Rome presided over the entire valley of the Tiber, extending from the hills of Tuscania to those of Albanus, and from the hinterlands of the Tiber to the shores of the Tyrrhenian sea.

We do not know anything more precise about the first election of a pope. It was not a conclave, because that term arises from the first elections in the 13th century (1216?, 1241 and especially that of 1269 at Viterbo) conducted under lock and key, to prevent the Cardinals from delaying too long in their decision.

Throughout the ages, the elections of the Roman Pontiffs were usually held in the Roman Province, in some location, not always at Rome, but always where those who has the right of election gathered. In the first ages, the right of election pertained to every member of the Church, but in later ages it was restricted to the Bishops of the city and suburbican dioceses (satellite dioceses around Rome).

Pope Nicholas III wrote one of the first laws for Papal Elections in 1059 — In Nomine Domini, April 13, 1059 — and FromRome.Info has published the only available English translation on the internet, here.

There is now available a long historical explanation of papal elections at Wikipedia, which has further information on elections of the pope throughout the ages, though this is found under the anachronistic term, Conclave.

At first, papal elections were conducted under Apostolic Tradition, that is, the precedent set by Saint Paul the Apostle when he presided over the election of St. Linus. Saint Peter, having set up his See at Rome, bequeathed it to the Church of Rome with his death. It is important to note that the Church of Rome is not a Diocese separated from the other dioceses of the Church, but is the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter, from which all the other dioceses have been separated.

Thus the Church of Rome has ever followed her own particular traditions and rules for the election of Bishops and has never respected those rules which were established elsewhere, even in General councils, for other dioceses.

Until there was a papal law for electing a Roman Pontiff, elections were said to be valid or not. Once a papal law was promulgated, they were said to be legitimate or not.  Once popes laid down canons to govern the process, they were said to be canonical or not. In the Rule of Saint Francis of Assisi, promulgated in 1223 by Pope Honorius III, we find that St. Francis promises “to show reverence and obedience to the lord Pope Honorius III and his canonically elected successors”.

The Limitation contained in the current Papal Law on Papal Elections

Nowadays, Popes are elected according to the Papal Law, Universi Dominici gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, on Feb. 22, 1996. (1) But since the Code of Canon Law of 1983 specifies that elections are to be by special law, this special law, such elections can be said to be both canonical and legitimate, though it is better to say that they are lawful or not.

Reading the Papal Law on elections attentively, however, reveals that this Papal Law has a provisional character, since it forbids the Cardinal Electors to elect a Roman Pontiff by any other means other than following all the prescriptions of this law. Thus, since this law requires that they meet in Conclave before the 21st day after the death of the Roman Pontiff, if they fail to do so, they lose all right to elect the Roman Pontiff (Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 37). And if such an event should happen without a force majeur intervening, then the Law would no longer be in force. (2)

What then would the Church of Rome do? Since this Law in its promulgated explicitly annulled all prior laws, such an election would have to be conducted according to Apostolic Tradition, since this is the only rule which cannot be abolished by a Roman Pontiff. In fact, every Papal Law and canon about papal elections has merely been an application of this right according to one or more arrangements for the specification and reduction of electors to certain conditions.

I have touched upon this before, on Aug. 31, 2020 A. D., but it will be useful to discuss the matter again.

Without a papal law, then all these specifications and reductions of electors pass out of force.

The rejection of Pope Benedict XVI by the Cardinals will trigger a Unique Situation

As I have said before, this view regarding the election of a Roman Pontiff with all the Cardinal Electors failing to do their duty, is not merely a hypothetical or a useless speculation, since now the Church of Rome risks confronting such a situation head on.

This is because, Pope Benedict XVI has not renounced the papacy. And yet, all the Cardinal Electors publicly recognize the anti-pope and usurper, who is a manifest heretic and not even a Christian in his personal beliefs, as he has manifested on numerous public occasions.

Thus the Cardinals may not convene in conclave to elect a successor of Pope Benedict XVI. And that failure would then trigger the recourse to Apostolic Tradition, on the grounds that the Papal Law would then make it illegal for them to elect any pope at a later date.

The only way this could be avoided is if at least one Cardinal Elector publicly declares for Pope Benedict XVI and is reconciled to him before his death. Both the public declaration and reconciliation is required, because, on account of their public communion with a heretical anti-pope, they are involved in the public crime of schism, whereby they lose all right to elect a pope, because they lose all right to the dignity of the Cardinalate.

Electing a Roman Pontiff according to Apostolic Tradition

The Election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor then might be the first election of a pope according to Apostolic Tradition since 769 A. D., when the Synod of the Lateran abolished the right of the laity to participate in the election. This abolition was itself abolished by the general clause in the present papal law, which abolished all previous laws.

Thus, there will be no papal law, most likely, to govern the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, which is perhaps what he signified in his Declaratio when he spoke of the Cardinals being cut off (vobis decisionem) and of a future election by those who are competent (ab his quibus competit).

Here it is important to note that if Pope Benedict XVI in his Testament, of which he has occasionally spoken, lays down anything in this regard, if it not be published in his life time, it has no juridical force, since a papal law must be promulgated during the life of the Pope, since he has no authority after his death. Likewise, if in secret he has reconciled any Cardinal, such a reconciliation cannot be retained to be authentic unless it is accompanied by a document signed by trustworthy witnesses and sealed with his seal, during his lifetime.

The Role of Canon Law in such an election according to Apostolic right

This does not mean that the general principles of Canon Law are to be ignored.  While all the Faithful will be able to participate, they must at least according to the norm of Canon Law be able to participate: they must be baptized in the Roman Rite and of the age of reason; they must have received the Sacrament of Confirmation, which makes one an adult in the Church; they must be free of ecclesiastical censures imposed by true Popes; and they must be resident according to ecclesiastical law in the Diocese of Rome or one of the Suburbican Dioceses, all of which are parts of the Church of Rome according to ecclesiastical custom.

This number of the Faithful, all of whom are electors, includes all the Catholics who declare that Pope Benedict XVI was the true pope. This number includes the Cardinals of the Roman Church, whether electors or not, the Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignors, Pastors, Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and all religious who are members of Congregations of Diocesan Rite in any of the dioceses, I have mentioned, who are residents at Rome or therein. This includes the laity of all station and rank in life, from the house wife to the head of Roman Noble Families.

Clergy incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, regardless of their location of residence, and Cardinals whether electors or not, repenting of their schism in a public act before or at the start of such an election, can also participate, regardless of their residence, since by their dignity of Cardinal they are princes of the Church of Rome.

No members of the Masonic Lodges of any rite or observance can participate, since these are excommunicated by Canon Law, as Cardinal Ratzinger reminded everyone more than 40 years ago.

Archbishops and Bishops from other dioceses can attend merely as witnesses, but they cannot speak without permission, nor can they be given a right to vote.

To be a resident, you have to have made your dwelling at Rome or in one of these dioceses at least 1 year before the election and have done so by abandoning your physical residence in all other places, without the intention to return.

Conditions of Time and Place and Convocation of the Electors

There is no precise requirement as to when the election take place, though I am of the opinion, to remove all canonical doubt, that it be held no sooner than the 22nd day after the death of the Roman Pontiff, to exclude any claim by Cardinal Electors that they retained the sole right to elect him.

It can be held in any place in the territory of the Church of Rome, as I have already mentioned.

I believe there is a solid argument to say that the convocation of the Faithful of the Church of Rome must be made by the clergy of Rome, if any are in communion with Pope Benedict XVI — and to my knowledge there are. In fact, I know of two, at least, and there are probably many more than that.

The Election can be held by popular acclaim or by public or secret vote, but the method of election must be agreed upon by the electors. Whether a vote is considered valid by a majority or by two-thirds must also be decided upon.

Whether the election is to be moderated is also a decision that needs to be made.

If any simony be involved it would invalidate the election of one elected in virtue of the influence of it, according to the general norms of Canon Law. This is the one point, where the canons of the Church imposes a more strict rule than the current Papal Law, which explicitly allows for a valid simonaical election, due to the fact that a Conclave being held in secret, makes the determination of whether simony was involved impossible by the rest of the Church.

I do believe, however, that the time and place of the election should be publicized before hand, to remove all doubt that it is the Church of Rome and not some private group, which acts.

Who can be elected the Successor of Pope Benedict XVI?

As to the one elected, Canon Law remains in force, that such a one must be a Catholic, regardless of which rite in which he was baptized, male, of the age of reason, free of ecclesiastical censure under Pope Benedict XVI or his predecessors. But he does not have to be a Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Deacon or even a seminarian or religious. But he does have to be a celibate male, that is, not currently in a Sacramental Marriage, nor a civil marriage, and free from the moral obligation to care for children. He should be of good moral reputation and capable of leadership. He does not have to be the citizen of any particular nation, nor a resident of the Vatican City or a member of the Roman Curia. He must be a biological male from birth, and cannot be mutilated or have had a sex reassignment. (Alas, this needs to be clarified due to the evil world we live in).

But he does have to be a person who is publicly known to have not participated in the schism and betrayals against Pope Benedict XVI, or else grave doubt as to the legitimacy of his election will arise, for surely many would say, that the enemies of Pope Benedict XVI took control of the assembly — and since schismatics and heretics cannot be elected Pope, doubt would arise as to the validity of the election process.

However, in my judgement, I think he should at least know Latin and have studied theology, for how else can he govern the Church?

The one to be elected does not have to be present at the convocation, he can be in any place in the world. However, if not present, his consent to accept his election needs to be certified by at least 3 witnesses who speak with him by phone or video conference. The convocation would have to deputize the individuals to do this.

And if such an election has to take place, then the one elected should be prepared to be crucified, because, without a doubt, all Hell will raise its voice against him, and he shall be persecuted from one end of the earth to another.

The Powers and Rights of the Elected come into effect as soon as he accepts his election

The election will be valid if it is held according to the above general canonical norms and facts. As soon as the one elected accepts his election, he becomes the Successor of Saint Peter, even if he has not yet been consecrated a Bishop or is not even a priest. (3) From that moment on, he has the full power of Christ’s Vicar to rule and legislate and can reconcile any Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, priest, deacon or seminarian, who is in schism or under censure. He can also begin to put the Church back in order by formally excommunicating the rebels and by reconciling the repentant. It is the better opinion, in my judgement, however, that the Pope only has the right to exercise the power of teaching after his episcopal ordination, but this is a question open to dispute. I hold this opinion, because the munus to teach the faithful is contained only in the Sacrament of Episcopal Consecration, which even if it is distinct from the petrine munus, has a necessary relation to it, since the one elected is elected to be the Bishop of Rome, not merely or solely the Vicar of Christ or the Successor of St. Peter.

According to canon 355 §1, the episcopal consecration of the Pope, if he not be a bishop, pertains by right to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, and if he is impeded, to the most senior Cardinal. — This presumes that there is at least one Cardinal not in schism from Pope Benedict XVI. Arguably, if there is not, then his first act should be to appoint at least a few Cardinal Bishops, who are to elect their own Dean, who will preside at his consecration. These newly created Cardinals can be given any one of the 13 historical titles, which are not assigned to anyone in the College at present.



(1) Note, that in his Motu Proprio, publishing this Papal Law, Pope John Paul II states, “Precisely for this reason, while recognizing that theologians and canonists of all times agree that this institution is not of its nature necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff, “ — Hence, he recognizes that there is another way to elect the Roman Pontiff. This is part of his secret provision — in my opinion — of the Papal renunciation which required that of the munus (canon 332 §2) — which if it went unnoticed by all the Cardinal Electors, in an attempted coup d’état against the reigning Pope, would enable an election by Apostolic Right, concerning which is this article of mine.

(2) Because it can be reasonably argued, in the case of extreme necessity induced by outside threats (e.g. occupation of Rome by a hostile military force or government) or impossible situations (e.g. Rome being destroyed by nuclear attack), that the Cardinals have the authority granted to them in the Papal Law to arrange for a Conclave at later date. This cannot be done, if they are in schism with an antipope, however, since in such a case they cannot exercise their rights to elect the Successor of the true Roman Pontiff.

(3) Cf. the First Canon of the Third Lateran Council, canon 1. This is the teaching of St. Gregory VII (Dictatus, XXIII), which was put into effect in the election of Pope Adrian V, even though Canon 332 §1 states that “full and supreme power”  (terms which it does not define) is had after episcopal consecration. Cf. Commentary here, from Juan Ignazio Arrieta, ed., Codice di Diritto Canonico, on canon 332 §1.