Category Archives: Canon Law

Canon Law, Debates

Ex-CIA Agent: Accept the Heretic Pope and shut up!

14 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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 But that it is a disciplinary document from nearly 475 years ago, does not mean it is no longer in force, as I have explained in my two essays on this bull from back in 2015, here, and here.

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

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

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

+++

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

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

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

Here is my English translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which in English, according to my translation is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You quote Bellarmine? Come on …!

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

Ratio iuris divinae et ecclesiasticae perpetuae

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

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

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

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

How Apostolic Right and Papal Right differ tremendously

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon Law, Videos

Prevost’s Election invalidated by John Paul II — Part 2 (v. 2)

35 Comments

This is the updated and condensed version of Part 2

In this second part, Br. Bugnolo explains to lawyers, both civil and ecclesiastical, the many reasons why the Conclave of 2025 ended without any canonically valid result, and thus why Cardinal Prevost is not Leo XIV, and why the Apostolic See remains in sede vacante, until the error is corrected.

You can find the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, in Latin here, where the Vatican website also offers and English translation, if you select that one.

Br. Bugnolo challenges ALL Canon Lawyers in the Church, and ALL Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church to refute the argument for nullity advanced in this video.

Please share this video with all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Canon Lawyers, Laymen and Women and Religious, because we all deserve to have a valid election of the Roman Pontiff.

If you find anyone attempting to refute the above argument, please post a link to their video or link to the text of their pleadings in the Comments below! Thank you.

Clicking the download arrow above, you can download a copy and share on all social media channels!

You will find Part I, here.

You can find Part II in Italian here.

You can find Part II (v. 2) in English on YouTube here:

ADDENDUM:

Cardinals have no authority to obtain dispensations from Papal Laws by  their own interpretations of the actions of a dead Roman Pontiff

Finally, one thing becomes more clear from the argumentation of Mike Lofton, namely, that the Cardinals are implicitly claiming the right to interpret the actions of Pope Francis so as to obtain a dispensation from the norm of n. 33 in the Papal Law on Conclaves.

But though Canon 85 admits that every superior can grant a dispensation, but only superiors, no where in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, is there any allowance for a subject to claim a dispensation from a superior merely by interpreting the actions of his superior, especially because canon 86 declares that dispensations cannot be issued against those parts of a law which are essentially constitutive to the legislative dispositions, which the rule on 120 Cardinals appears to be in n. 33 of UDG.

Wherefore, canon 16 § 1, restricts the power of interpreting the law to the legislator of the law, or to the one to whom it has been granted. But in n. 5 of the Papal Law on Conclaves, no authority to interpret papal actions is granted: rather only the right to interpret doubtful or controverted passages of UDG, an authority which the Cardinals never even claimed to use in their press release of April 30, 2025.

Moreover, the claim by the Cardinals to have a dispensation runs directly contrary to the Papal Law, UDG, n. 4, which reads:

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

In English,

With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit to correct and/or change the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, nor to detract anything from them or add to them and/or be dispensed from any parts of them, most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus.

All this should be obvious to everyone, even if they have no training in law. Because if a subject can after the death of his superior make a claim that some action of the superior was equivalent to granting a dispensation, all hell would break out in the legal system that adopted such a principle. In fact, the very notion runs counter to canon 335, which forbids to all persons, the authority to change the laws of the Church during a sede vacante. The universality of that negative provision in 335 extends to all claimed privileges, dispensations and legal acts whose existence is alleged, without any written documentation.

Canon Law

BREAKING Prevost’s Election invalidated by John Paul II — Part 1

23 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In my recent interview in Italian, I remarked that there were three violations of the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II in the recent conclave.  I also remarked that none of these violations would nullify the validity of the election.

However, upon closer inspection of the Papal Law, I want to withdraw what I said, and speak more precisely, and say, that one of these violations does in fact invalidate the recent election.

First, let me quote the Polish Pope’s official promulgatory clause in his Papal Law on Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis, from the Vatican’s English translation (click image here below to enlarge)

As can be seen from the second paragraph, which says,

As determined above, … I declare completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.

The Latin here is even stronger, as it says that any act is declared “irritus”, that is, to be regarded as never done. Thus any illicit interpretation is to be regarded as never promulgated, ineffective.

Yet, in the recent Conclave of May 2025, the Cardinals allowed 133 Cardinal Electors to vote at the same time, a thing which is expressly forbidden by the Papal Law, in n. 33 (click image here below to enlarge):

The language is strictly binding:

The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty.

The Latin here says, “ne excedeat”, which is a negative hortatory subjunctive command, which according to the Apostolic See is always to be understood as a negative equipollent precept of comment (cf. Papal Bulls on the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi). A better translation in English would be, “Let the maximum … not exceed …” therefore.

Yet, the Cardinals violated this directly, claiming to use their authority to interpret ambiguous sections, granted then in n. 5 of the Papal Law. But there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this rule limiting the electorate to 120. And as I said in my Italian interview with EmmoNews on YouTube, instead of violating the law, they could have chosen lots and have had 13 Cardinal Electors abstain from voting during each round of balloting.

Thus, their interpretation of an unambiguous rule is itself NULL and VOID by the promulgatory censure cited above. It is also null and voided by Canon 335, which forbids any change in the laws of the Church during a sede vacante for by attempting to nullify a formal command, they are in effect attempting to change the law.

That they did not have only 120 vote at any one time, causes the election to be doubtful, on account of the Promulgatory Clause by Pope John Paul II which causes any action contrary to the rules of the law to be NULL AND VOID.

That means 13 votes AT LEAST in each balloting were NULL and VOID and could NOT be counted.

But according to the Papal Law, in n. 68 (click image here below to expand):

Where it reads:

If the number of ballots does not correspond to the number of electors, the ballots must be all burned and a second vote taken at once; …

Now, the plain context of this rule has to do with the maximum number of 120 cardinals. So when 133 voted, it was juridically impossible that the number of votes counted not exceed the number of 120 cardinal electors permitted to vote in a conclave. In fact, 133 votes were counted in each ballot, 13 of which could not legally be counted.

In addition, if the 13 votes which were null and voided were mixed in, it would have become impossible to validly count the ballots. Rendering the count null and void.

This means, in every balloting session, to follow the Papal Law, the Scrutiners had to burn the votes before counting them, and thus no vote during that session was valid. But this was done in every of the 4 Ballots, at the end of which it was declared that Cardinal Prevost was elected.

That means that all the votes were juridically null and void!

And that means Cardinal Prevost was NOT elected validly, even if he is not a manifest heretic, whose election would be invalidated by the Bull of Paul IV, “Cum ex apostolatus officio”!

Once again, as in the case of the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, it is to Pope John Paul II and his wisdom as a legislator, that we can say with 100% certainty that the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025 are null and void, and in each no one was elected the Roman Pontiff.

Addendum:

The rationale given by the Cardinals for their “interpretation” shows that it is not reasonably motivated and unauthentic in its justification. Because it takes the claim of “active and passive voice” for the Cardinals in the Conclave and re-reads it as if it applies to all Cardinal electors in the world. That is simply dishonest. Then  it quotes Pope Francis’ unpublished “intentions” as interpreting the law, which is simply false, again, since a law is interpreted by the Pope who promulgated it, and this law was not promulgated by Pope Francis, but by Pope John Paul II. So there is no objective controversy or doubt about either passage. Therefore their claim to use their authority in n. 5, to interpret the fake conflict they claim exists, is fraudulent and declared irritus by John Paul II, and thus violates the election process in n. 68, over which they have no authority to interpret as stated in n. 5, thus rendering every vote in which 133 cardinals participated null and void, without the need for any authority in the Church to declare it.

For Part II, see here.

+ + +

En Español:

Call to Action, Canon Law, Editorials

Catholics have the right to demand the immediate Abdication of Leo XIV

9 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The College of Cardinals has not only committed the most grave sacrilege against God, the Church, and 1.4 Billion Catholics by electing a formal manifest heretic to the Apostolic Throne, they have defamed 1.4 Billion Catholics and every Bishop, Priest, Deacon and Religious, by electing a notorious serial cover-up artist of sexual predators of boys and girls.

For this reason, EVERY CATHOLIC HAS THE RIGHT AND DUTY to immediate denounce him to their own local Bishop, on the grounds that his election is a NOTORIOUS and HORRIBLE scandal, which can only be repaired by his immediate Abdication from Office.

In virtue of canon 212, every Catholic has the right to express to his local Bishop those concerns he feels touch upon the good of the entire Church and the salvation of the Faithful.

As such, I urge you to write to your local Bishop, telling him that so long as he recognizes this perp-protector as Pope, you will not donate anything to any Diocesan organization and will boycott all his fundraisers and denounce him to the local press for supporting a cover-up artist for pedophiles. Demand, also, that your Bishop insist that Prevost abdicate immediately to remove this horrible scandal to the entire Catholic world and to all of humanity which will greatly discourage evangelization, conversion, as well as increase considerably the financial judgements in court against the Diocese, when it becomes know to Judges that the Cardinals elected a serial cover-up artists of sexual abuse cases.

You have the right. And the more of you who send such letters, the more pressure will be applied.

If you write your letter and post copies on social media, sharing with your friends, you will also defend your own reputation against having anything to do in complicity with this election of such a fiend, who deserves rather to be burnt alive at the stake than raised to the Apostolic Dignity!

I urge you also to write to every Catholic Charity in your diocese, to bring to their attention the danger of their losing supporters and fund-raising capacity, when it becomes known that the Cardinals have elected a notorious cover-up artist for sexual abusers who preyed on boys and girls, an election which, these Charities will be consenting to if they do not also join in demanding his abdication by publicly published press releases.

+ + +

Dear Readers, if you can find news articles, in your own language, about the cases of sexual abuse covered up by Prevost, please share them in your own language below, so that those who are writing such letters can include these links in their own letters to demonstrate the fact of the scandal.

You can start your research here, “All the Dirt on Cardinal Prevost”

Update: The Globe runs the story on the Dirt in Prevost’s record and how influencers and clergy are gaslighting the faithful.

Canon Law, News, Videos

Cardinal Prevost is an Anti-Pope, his election is invalidated by Paul IV

43 Comments

Editor’s Note: Many will want to know my position on the election of Cardinal Prevost. Here I have explained it in 21 minutes, with a detailed canonical explanation. Please share this to save the Church.

For my new English translation of Pope Paul IV’s  Bull, see HERE. For why this bull is undoubtedly still in force, in regard to its prescription against the election of a heretic as pope, see here.

Above is the YouTube version, which I predict the deep state will cancel within a short time, but here is the version from FromRome.info:

Canon Law, Editorials

How the Catholic Cardinals can 100% guarantee a Catholic be elected Pope

4 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently Cardinal Burke said the situation becoming apparent among the Cardinal Electors is very grave. Translation: Most of the Cardinals who give interventions are open heretics and the majority of the College applaud them.

Even Cardinal Mueller said “It would be a catastrophe for the Church to elect someone like Pope Francis”.

The only Cardinal I know of who has asked for prayers is Cardinal Burke. Henry Sire, author of the expose’, “The Dictator Pope”, says that Burke is not in danger of being elected.

I do not know one sane Catholic commentator who is not concerned about there heretical majority among the College of Cardinals.

So is there nothing they can do about it, but mumble, whine and ask for us to pray for them?

No, of course not; for there is a strategy to ensure a Catholic pope, and it is based on two things, first a juridical principle and second a legal maneuver in the Conclave.

The Juridical Principe

Declare that if a heretic is elected, that the Catholic Cardinals will publicly denounce his election as juridically invalid

On the grounds of Pope Pau lV’s papal Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, which declared that the election by the College of Cardinals of a man who professed heresy before his election, IS totally NULL and VOID and no Catholic is bound to accept it. — Click the link to see my discussion of this papal bull from 2015.

Such a declaration, signed by Cardinal Electors, of howsoever few in number, has the ability to force the election of a Catholic, by inducing the Cardinals whose consciences are not so clear, that such a great scandal should be avoided.*

The Legal Maneuver in Conclave

Plan A:  Phase 1 — Form a block of 33%+1 of the Cardinal Electors to permanently block the election of everyone but a Catholic

Cardinal Burke, being an expert on Canon Law should be able to explain to the entire College the extent to which the Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV is still in force in such extraordinary conditions such as exist presently in the College of Cardinals.

That explanation supported by a number of Cardinal Electors of the most prominent pedigree and accomplishments, should rally at least 45+ Cardinals to the side of the Catholics, and form a block to any election of any candidate, permanently, since the Papal Law for elections during conclave has no provision to relax the requirement of 66%+1 for a valid election of the next pope. So with such a block, resolved to make no compromise, they have invincible leverage

And this is very doable, and is not a canonical crime, nor does it espouse a canonical opinion which is wild or crazy or made up by grifters on social media.

If they cannot get a Catholic Elected, this legal maneuver can at least prevent any pope from being elected.

Plan A:  Phase 2–Conclave Compromise

The election of a candidate by compromise is not allow in the Conclave. However, the Cardinals can resolve by a vote NOT to elect anyone in accord with the Papal Law, and resolve to leave the election to the Clergy and Laity of the Roman Church, in accord with their Apostolic Rite, a right which would automatically revive on account of the refusal of the entire College to elect a Pope.

The College of Electors then can summon all the clergy of the Church of Rome (Diocese of Rome and suburbican dioceses) to the Paul VI hall and introduce them to the candidates that both groups of Cardinals want, and explain the disagreement which led to their decision to not elect anyone but remit that election to the clergy and faithful. The clergy then will have the grace to chose the Catholic candidate, because in the history of the Church from St. Peter to this day, the faithful of Rome have never elected a heretic. And then both Cardinals and clergy can present the candidate to the Roman Faithful in the Piazza S. Pietro for their acclamation. Thus we would get a Catholic pope.

Thus, though we should be praying, we should not despair, but communicate this information to the Catholic Electors who will vote next week, since this is a nearly fail safe way of saving the Church. You can share this article with Cardinal Burke here.

Plan B — A Catholic Conclave

The fail safe or last resort is, if they cannot form a 46 vote bloc to prevent the election of a heretic indefinitely, that they follow through with their warning to denounce the election of the non-Catholic in accord with the rule of the Papal Bull of Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio. Following this public denunciation which should be made before the election of the heretic is announced, the Catholic Cardinals should gather in a safe place and begin the Conclave again, following the Papal Law, and as soon as they elect a man with 66%+1 votes of the Catholic Cardinals, proclaim him to the world as the true Catholic Pope.

This fail safe is much better than a heretical pope, because entrusting the Church to a heretic is worse than a schism where one side has a worthy Catholic pope and the other has a heretic. And with all or a majority of the Catholic electors supporting the Catholic pope, and the heretical electors supporting the heretic, it will become obvious to Catholics all over the world which is the true pope.

Then the battle will begin, but at least such a battle is winnable, since they would have the Holy Spirit on their side, since they did what is right, within the limits of their own juridical rights, and followed a procedure declared valid in perpetuity by Pope Paul IV, a true Vicar of Christ, which has not been abolished by any subsequent legislation, which deals such such circumstances.

* As Electors, during a sede vacante, they hold the natural right to issue such a declaration, because seeing that the right to elect a pope encompasses naturally the duty to judge candidates, the Cardinal Electors during a valid Conclave, held during a sede vacante, do not usurp the rights of anyone nor damage them. — Remember, whereas no one but a Pope can judge a Cardinal a heretic, when there is a pope, yet when there is no pope, Cardinal Electors have the natural right to manifest which candidates are ineligible on account of prior manifest heresy. In this they do not violate the papal law which guarantees that no un-excommunicated Cardinal can be refused the right to vote and to be elected, they simply respond to the error of electing a manifest heretic as pope, which is a result and condition not addressed in the Papal Law, and therefore, which reasonably can be responded to by appealing to Pope Paul IV’s Bull.

Note, however, I am not saying that laymen or clergy who are not Cardinals can declare whomsoever they do not like as Pope a heretic, and then hold their own Assembly of Apostolic Right, because the ancient right of the whole Church of Rome cannot be appealed to, so long as there are Cardinal Electors willing to elect a pope. And if they won’t call him a heretic, his errors might be great, but that is not sufficient reason to claim, on one’s own authority, the right to judge him. In such a case, Catholics would have to appeal to a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome, to ask the Bishops to remonstrate with the newly elected Pope, once he starts spouting error or heresy. Because outside of a Conclave, no one has canonical authority to discern the pope to be a formal pertinacious heretic, except the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome.

Canon Law

Can 133 Cardinal Electors participate in a Conclave?

2 Comments

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Conclave is barely a week away, and already there has arisen a juridical doubt as to its validity. Archbishop Viganò, in his recent criticism, has publicly decried the illegitimacy of a Conclave containing more than 120 Electors.

In an apparent response to the challenge from the Archbishop, the Cardinals today, in the 7th General Congregation declared that all 133 Electors have the right to vote. Their claim runs directly against n. 33 of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis (This is the link to the English version, for the other versions, see the top right corner of the linked page. Note, however, that only the LATIN is legally binding).

Here is what the Latin version of that document says in that paragraph:

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

Here is my English translation:

33. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff pertains exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, excepting those who have already completed the 80th year of age before the day of the death of the Roman Pontiff and/or before the day on which the Apostolic See is vacated. Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed 120.  Furthermore, therefore, there is entirely excluded any right of active election of anyone of another ecclesiastical dignity or the intervening of lay authority of any grade or order.

I have bold-faced the key phrase in my English translation.

The Cardinals, however, make their claim citing n. 36, of the papal law:

36. A Cardinal of Holy Roman Church who has been created and published before the College of Cardinals thereby has the right to elect the Pope, in accordance with the norm of No. 33 of the present Constitution. …

In that paragraph, which reads in the official Latin:

36. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalis, dummodo creatus renuntiatusque in Consistorio sit, hac ipsa de causa ius eligendi Pontificis possidet secundum huius Constitutionis praescriptum in n. 33. ….

The key word is “secundum”, “according to”, which the Vatican English renders badly as “in accordance with”.

They evidently are claiming that n. 36 means that the numer 130 in paragraph n. 33 as allowing more Cardinals is not fundamentally binding.

What is the problem?

The Papal Law does not allow more than 120 Cardinal Electors to participate in the Conclave at the same time. The Latin construction is much more fixed and mandatory than the Vatican official Italian translation which reads:

Il numero massimo di Cardinali elettori non deve superare i centoventi.

Which I translate thus into English:

The maxim number of Cardinal electors ought not to exceed 120.

The Vatican official English translation, however, reads more strongly, but wrongly on that account.

The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty.

Are the Cardinals within their right to decide that 133 can participate?

They can only be within their right, if the text of the Papal Law allows them the discretion to interpret the requirement of 120. In the above press release, it appears that they do not claim such a right, but rather quote another paragraph (n. 36) which does not address the problem directly. In addition they found their claim on the mere fact that Pope Francis created more Cardinal electors than would keep their total number under 121 means that the rule is dispensed from.

They do not even claim the right to interpret the rule of 120 on the basis of the right granted them in n. 5 of the same papal law, because obviously the number of 120 is neither a doubtful nor controverted reading:

5. Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect, I decree that all power of issuing a judgment in this regard belongs to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points. I also establish that should it be necessary to discuss these or other similar questions, except the act of election, it suffices that the majority of the Cardinals present should concur in the same opinion.

The Latin found in n. 33, uses the hortatory subjunctive: this signifies in Latin the obligation of an equipollent precept, that is, the level of obligation equal to a formal command. Without explicit dispensation, therefore, no subject can claim that that requirement can be transgressed.

However, the problem is, that in 2013, in the document, Normas Non Nullas, Pope Benedict XVI, specified a contradictory obligation in n. 35:

35.n No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext, with due regard for the provisions of Nos. 40 and 75 of this Constitution.

However, n. 35 speaks only of reasons and pretexts, and not requirements of the Papal Law.

Thus, if the Dean of the College of Cardinals does not or cannot produce a document signed by Pope Francis and published into the Acta Apostolica Sedes, it would appear that we must presume that the Cardinals have violated the law by the above declaration that more than 120 can vote. Furthermore, because this problem was known since December 8, when Pope Francis exceeded the limit of 120 Cardinal Electors, and since he failed to correct the papal law before his death, his non-action must be interpreted to mean that he had no intention that more than 120 would vote, since, as I have reminded the world many times, YOU CANNOT PRESUME THE CESSATION OF A RIGHT OR LAW.

John Paul II was quite explicit that the Cardinals cannot do what they just did

In fact, the Papal Law ends with these words:

Wherefore, after mature reflection and following the example of my Predecessors, I lay down and prescribe these norms and I order that no one shall presume to contest the present Constitution and anything contained herein for any reason whatsoever. This Constitution is to be completely observed by all, notwithstanding any disposition to the contrary, even if worthy of special mention. It is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide for all to whom it refers.

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.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 22 February, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle, in the year 1996, the eighteenth of my Pontificate.

Does this affect the validity of the Election?

UPDATE of July 5, 2025:

In this original article, I responded to this question before reading UDG 1, 4, and 68, and therefore I said rightly that 133 Cardinals voting in the Conclave cannot be presumed to violate the Papal Law, unless some part of the Papal Law says so. So after having read the Law in the Latin, and discovered that the Law itself refuted my opinion, I changed my opinion, and published that in detail, HERE, on June 26, 2025, nearly two months later.

UPDATE of May 1, 2025:

This controversy over exceeding the 120 Cardinal Electors is growing in Italy, and in reply Vatican News has issued an article in Italian citing cases in the past when outside of Conclaves, previous Popes appointed more than 120 cardinals, and argument which does not really address the core issue, as the article admits, saying this upcoming Conclave will be the first to have more Electors present than the number specified by law, though in the past, before Paul VI there was no such law.

Canon Law, Debates

Mark Docherty forgets his principles, says Conclave will be valid

6 Comments

History and Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It has been two years and nearly 5 months since the death of Pope Benedict XVI.

Back then, those who claimed he was the valid pope had to confront the reality that the See was vacant and there had to be a new election. Cardinal Re was duly informed by letter in the Vatican Post, and by two channels in Italy, one on YouTube and another a TV station at Rome. The latter aired 4 programs: one interviewing me on the problems in the renunciation, one interviewing me warning the Cardinals from the steps of the Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Chains, one listening to the press release issued on behalf of the Catholics calling for an election by Apostolic Right, and another which was an infomercial aired for nearly an entire week, to everyone in Lazio, announcing the time and place of the Election. All paid for by the readers of FromRome.info and perhaps a half-dozen of my Italian supporters.

Back then Mark Docherty and Ann Barnhardt would have none of it. And when the election results were in, they joined in a vicious bout of ridicule of those who attended. For Ann, I was the green frog like Friar who should have croaked, rather than participated in the Assembly.

But now Mark forgets his principles, and says the next Conclave will be valid

How did that happen, Mark? Seeing that some 80% of the cardinal electors were nominated by Pope Francis, and perhaps 60% of them while Pope Benedict XVI was the pope.

Two years ago, did you not sustain that a Conclave with fake Cardinals could not validly elect the pope?

Or do you now see that you and Ann were wrong to oppose those Catholics (readers of FromRome.Info) who actually worked to restore the juridical order in the Church by organizing and supporting the Catholics at Rome to elect their own Pope, a right they have from the Apostle, and a right they still enjoy when the entire College of Cardinals refuses to act?

How soon you have forgotten. But at FromRome.Info we document everything and have long memories.

On January 18, 2023: “An Antipope has no jurisdiction”, you said, Therefore, he could not appoint valid Cardinals to have a valid Conclave to elect his successor. Remember that?

Then on January 28, 2023: “Br. Bugnolo now threatening Eternal Helfire on anyone not supporting his Monday Marriot faux Conclave”, you said, Remember that? You said that faithful Catholics who held that Pope Benedict XVI never validly abdicated would hold a “faux Conclave”? Where did you get the “Conclave” accusation from, remember? Yes, it was Steve O’Reilley, the ex-CIA agent who dished up that slur, to prevent the public, psychologically, from even looking into the facts. In that article, you said, “As an act of fraternal charity, I want to alert the readership that this is hogwash.” — A very strange notion of “fraternal charity”, if I must say so.

How is it you disagreed with Stevie for 7 years, since he insisted the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was valid, but now you agree to use his slur of a “Conclave”, knowing well what a Conclave is and is not, and knowing well that I never used that term in reference to the Assembly on January 30th?

Well then, how is the Conclave of 2025 not a “faux Conclave” according to what you have said in the past?

It is not a faux conclave? because all the Cardinal electors are valid cardinal electors precisely because Pope Francis was elected in a juridically valid manner on January 30, 2023? As Br. Hogwash said?

Or have you invented a new presto-magico juridical clause? where a Conclave is valid when Mark says it is, and not valid when Mark says it is not. And Mark can even say that a Conclave of faux Cardinals can be valid? And that an Assembly of the Faithful is a “Conclave”, when it is not; and that all popes in history were elected in Conclaves, which is actually false?

And as for your assertion that the election of Pope Martin V, at the end of the Great Western Schism (September 20, 1378 to November 11, 1417 A. D.), took place with valid and invalid cardinals, that is totally false: because, before the death of the true Pope, the Roman claimant, he came to an agreement with the other popes to accept their cardinals, while they agreed to elect no one else as pope until after his death. So all the Cardinals were valid electors.

Thus, this your recent post, this year, proves that one of us a blatant calumniator and libeler, and the other is at least consistent in what he claims, whether you like it or not.

So read that scripture again, about “Desire the rational milk”, because your position is totally irrational, and the rational milk you rejected 2 years and 2 months ago.

I have published this critique, because as I said two years ago: those who held that Pope Benedict XVI was pope until his death, will either have to become sedevacantists or accept that the election on January 30, 2023 was juridically valid, unless of course they dump their principles and pretend that invalid Cardinals can validly attend a Conclave, which is absurd. So either they have to lose their souls as sedevacantists, or lose their souls for dishonesty, or they can accept that election on January 30th.

And those are the facts, not a threat or even idle threat from anyone on earth.

All the Catholics who attended or supported that election did this for the love of all the Faithful, since without being communion with a valid successor of Saint Peter, we would all wander away from the saving truth of the Gospel. Pope Francis being validly and juridically elected thus, at least all the Faithful returned to communion with a validly elected Successor of Saint Peter, and all the Cardinals of whom were by that election, convalidated, as I explained on February 1, 2023 A. D. in my article: Canonical questions regarding the election of an antipope to the Papacy.

For more information see, “The Triumph of the Lamb of God“, which recounts the entire history regarding the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, and which was published on Feb. 5, 2023 A. D..

Canon Law, Church History, Debates

The Article which launched “Sutri” as THE solution to the Crisis in the Church

1 Comment

Editor’s Note: The fake opposition of grifters who just want your likes, favs, shares, email subscriptions and money, have been lamenting the scandals perpetrated by Pope Francis for years, but never proposing solutions, because (1) they don’t have the courage, (2) and its counter-productive to grifting.

But FromRome.Info, in its aim to inform its readers not only of the problems and scandals in the Church, but of the solutions, was one of the first to make known in the West the article by Dr. Grzegorz Kucharczyk (a noted historian who writes for the Polish Magazine, “Polonia Christiana”), published in English, on September 7, 2018, entitled, “Waiting for the Gregorian Reform 2.0“, which reminded Christendom of the First Council of Sutri, which deposed 3 unworthy claimants to the Apostolic Throne.

Back in 2018, even Church Militant had the guts to make the article known to its readers. But now, no one is left standing, except FromRome.Info.  Back in 2018, even some Traditionalists mentioned it. But now they won’t touch it from the distance of a light year, a thing which shows that they are not about Tradition at all, but are in truth an operation which wants a side chapel, all to themselves, in a one world-religion.

I am reprinting this article by this noted Polish historian, because the previous links to it, from FromRome.Info are being flagged as “dangerous” by some security programs.  And to me, that means, that I should shout it out all the louder.

It is needless, to say, to the readers of FromRome.Info, who it is, who not only heard out what this Polish academic said, but investigated, researched, and studied canon law, to show how it can be done again today, and under what precise canonical and juridical conditions: The Sutri Initiative. For, many of you have joined and participated and already wrote the Bishops of the Roman Province asking for this.

So if anyone says, that Br. Bugnolo cooked up the whole “Sutri” idea on his own, share with them this article from Polonia Christiana, which even Church Militant no longer has the courage to share. And ask yourselves, why is it that 7 years ago, they could talk about it, but now it is forbidden by their handlers? And who are their handlers, after all?

And as for my readers who are Polish, I ask you to contact this Professor of History and send him the information about the Sutri Initiative, and ask him to endorse it and popularize it in Poland, because so far, the few letters received by the Bishops of the Roman Province have not yet been enough to convince them to act.

Canon Law, Editorials

Will the College of Cardinals elect the next Pope? Maybe not!

3 Comments

Or How the Catholic Cardinals can definitely prevent a Bergoglian from being elected as the next Pope, no matter what.

Editorial by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

With the serious decline in health of Pope Francis, there have begun to be published numerous articles regarding his resignation, death, and what kind of man the Church needs to be elected as the next Pope. Noteworthy Catholics, laymen and clerics, are also beginning to express their doubts that the College of Cardinals is going to elect someone to correct the many heresies, apostasies, idolatries, blasphemies, errors and the promotion of perversity pushed and promoted by Pope Francis.

In all of these discussions, the presumption is that the College of Cardinals will elect the next Pope. However, those who are expert in jurisprudence and all who spend the time to read the Papal Law on Conclaves, and how the election must proceed, know that it is quite possible this will not be the case, if there are two voting blocs of intransigent parties in the College of Cardinals.

And this is because of the rules laid down by Pope John Paul II, in the papal law for papal elections: Universi Dominici Gregis, the English translation of which is linked above in the image above. Note however, that the English translation is not the authoritative version. Only the Latin original is.

In that papal law, to be elected, one has to receive the absolute majority of votes from the Cardinal voters who are present for the Conclave (UDG, Chapter V, n. 62). This means, 2/3rds of the votes, and if the number of Cardinals is not divisible by three into a whole integer, 2/3 +1 extra vote.

So in the case that there are two blocs, neither of which will consent to the election of any candidate proposed by the other, and if each of these blocs contain at least 1/3 of all the Cardinal Electors, plus one, then even just one of these blocs can prevent a valid election of the Roman Pontiff by the College of Cardinals, indefinitely.

In such a case, there would remain only one other way for the valid election of a Roman Pontiff: namely an election by Apostolic Right, which would allow the clergy of the Church of Rome (Diocese of Rome and the Suburbican Dioceses) along with the faithful of this Church to elect the next Pope by acclamation, inspiration, compromise or simply majority (50% +1) of those present for such an election.

This might seem a fanciful thought, but since Pope Francis was elected pope in this manner, and since what is at risk for the whole Church is another heresy-promoting man like Pope Francis, it may be the safest course of action for the Catholic bloc if it can muster 46 votes, while not being able to recruit for its candidate at least 92 votes.

I say 46 votes, because presently there are 137 Cardinals who are eligible to vote. IF we presume that all are present for the Election, then 33% of them, plus one is 46 votes.

But for this second modality of election to take place, the Cardinal Electors would have to agree by an absolute majority vote (2/3 +1) to suspend the conclave and concede to the Church of Rome to act by its Apostolic Right.

And if so, they will have to make a public declaration, that on account of the irreconcilable differences among the Cardinal Electors, with no candidate being able to obtain the 92 votes necessary to be elected, that they have resolved to NOT elect the next pope in conclave, but cede their right by the papal law, back to the Church of Rome which has this right by Apostolic Ordinance.

But the advantages of this course of action are many, the chief of which is the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church: because there are vast numbers of Catholics who hold that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never the true Pope, or is an antipope, or at least was one of these when he appointed a majority of Cardinal Electors. Hence, no matter whom the Cardinal Electors might elect in conclave, all these will hold the election invalid and irregular by reason of the participation of men who were named Cardinal Electors by Pope Francis, while not having the canonical mandate to do so, or at least while a manifest pertinacious heretic in schism from Christ and His Church.

Whereas, the clergy and faithful of the Roman Church, having not professed these heresies, blasphemies, errors, nor participated in Pope Francis’ idolatries and crimes against God and the local Churches and religious institutes, do and will have the moral reputation to elect a Pope acceptable to the whole Church, by reason of the unassailable right to elect the Roman Pontiff, which they exercised for 10 centuries before Nicholas II, in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, created the College of Cardinals, on April 13, 1059 A. D..

That the College of Cardinals can take such action is clear from the Code of Canon Law, canon 332 §1, which requires a legitimate election, not an election by the College, and canon 349, which merely states that the College is competent to elect the pope, not that they alone can, while making it clear that they can only elect the Pope if they do so in accord with the papal laws on these matters. This enshrines the historical fact that the College has a ministerial duty, which when impossible to fulfill can be fulled by the electorate which holds this right, not by custom, papal law, or even canon law, but by Apostolic Tradition: the entire Church at Rome.

As for the rumors that Pope Francis might change the Papal Law to allow in the first balloting or in subsequent ballotings after a dead-lock, an election by a simple majority, I think this is highly unlikely, because Pope Francis is a clever politicking manipulator, and he knows that while it is possible the Catholic faction obtain a 50% +1 majority, it is definitely impossible that they obtain a 66%+1 majority. And his purpose in destroying the Church will be served, but not so well, but a compromise candidate.

Thus, if the Catholic Faction stand united and strong, they can prevent a manifest heretic or Bergoglian from ever being elected, by following the stratagem I have outlined above.

However, if there is any other result, in the next Conclave, than a truly Catholic Pope, it is these Catholic Cardinals who are to blame. And their names should go down in infamy for having ceded to the enemies of Jesus Christ the entire flock of His lambs, for whom He shed His Most Precious Blood and endured so much infamy and shame and suffering.

Canon Law

What does Pope Francis have to do, to validly Abdicate?

5 Comments

A Canonical Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Having written more about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI than perhaps any other author in any language, and having spent 6 years in its study, having spoken with some of the top legal experts at Rome, I will here lay out what is required to validly renounce the papacy, and what are the problems Pope Francis has to avoid, to do this without creating a new controversy over who is really the pope and who is not.

Canon 332 §2

Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestatur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

IF IT HAPPEN THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFEX RENOUNCE HIS MUNUS, FOR VALIDITY THERE IS REQUIRED THAT THE RENUNCIATION BE MADE FREELY AND THAT IT BE MANIFESTED RIGHTLY, BUT NOT THAT IT BE ACCEPTED BY ANYONE.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW

Canon 332, section 2, in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on January 25, 1983, is the only law of the Roman Church which governs the abdication of the Pope. While it is brief in its verbal formulations, its signification is profound, and great attention must be placed upon the rules it lays down for a valid renunciation.

TERMS

To understand this, it is first necessary to understand that in the Roman Church, the supreme earthly hierarch, is called in law, the Roman Pontiff, according to the dignity of the office. That is, the man who is the pope is called “Roman Pontiff”, as his official title. This title pertains according to ecclesiastical tradition to the Bishop of Rome. Consequent to this title are his other titles such as “Vicar of Christ” and “the Pope”. These latter titles are theological and popular, respectively speaking. “Pope” can be used also in regard to other Patriarchs, such as the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt. And “vicar of Christ” is a generic term for any bishop or priest acting in the name of Christ, though in English, as a proper title, “the Pope”, is used by Catholics to refer solely to the Bishop of Rome.

Secondly, the papal office (officium papalis) is signified in Canon Law by one term only, the petrine munus (munus petrinum: cf. Canons 331-334), with “petrine” (petrinum) being only an adjective of clarification in theological discourse or popular writing. That is, to say “the Pope’s munus”, simply speaking, using the definitive article in English to name the singular special attribution signified by the expression which follows, refers to the petrine munus, to the munus of the Roman Pontiff, the reception or renunciation of which either makes a man the pope or causes him to abdicate, respectively speaking. “Munus” is used in the New Code of Canon Law because it correctly and precisely signifies as a term, a gift of grace received (munus) from Christ Jesus Our Lord, when the one who accepts his election to be the Roman Pontiff, receives this grace from Christ in that very same moment, if he already be a Bishop, or in the moment of his episcopal consecration, if he not already be a bishop. No other term completely and entirely signifies this grace immediately and directly. However, other terms can cosignify this by completely and entirely signifying the canonical or legal effects of receiving such a grace: these are officium, onus, and dignitas, each of which would require an adjective or phrase to precisely signify solely and only that of the Roman Pontiff, such as papalis, petrinus -a -um, or episcopi Romae (“of the Bishop of Rome”). “Ministerium” cannot do this, since “ministerium” in Latin implies its co-relative, “magisterium”, both of which would have to be mentioned along with one of the other three, since they are juridical consequences of holding the petrine munus, they do not co-signify that munus in its entirety. “Onus” in Latin means “the burden”, that is the full weight of the duty, and “dignitas” refers to the full importance or dignity or preeminence obtained by accepting that duty. The use of these latter two terms is sanctioned in the act of renunciation of Pope Saint Celestine V (see below). “Officium” means office, and thus completely signifies the juridical authority and title obtained in receiving this duty.

This, the abdication of the Roman Pontiff in canonical tradition is called a “renunciation”. This term is a highly technical one and has a precise meaning. “To renounce” (renuntiare) means ‘to announce backwards’, that is, to withdraw completely the act of acceptance posited when the duty was accepted, after a juridically valid election. ‘To renounce’, therefore, logically, etymologically and juridically, as well as legally, requires a verbal statement personally made by the one who claims the munus received and names the munus received.

Thus, according to Canon 332 section 2, the entire juridical fact and notion of a papal abdication is signified by the terms “renounce” and “munus”. In Latin the verb “to renounce” (renuntiare) takes an indirect object, unlike in English, where it takes a direct object. Thus “to renounce an office” in Latin requires one to say “renuntiare officio”. “Muneri” is the dative in Latin for this construction of “munus”.

REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACT OF THE RENUNCIATION BY A ROMAN PONTIFF

Thus, Canon 332, section 2, requires that the man who claims the office, dignity, ministry of or the grace to be the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus. This is the person who alone can make the renunciation. If he be in a coma or impeded, he cannot make this renunciation through legal representative. He is the juridical subject of the act.

This renunciation is the renunciation which is spoken of immediately afterwards in the second clause of the Canon. Canon 332 section 2 only becomes operative when it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus. If he renounce anything that does not signify or co-signify completely or simply that munus, Canon 332 section 2 does not apply, and the juridical act has only an administrative and temporary value, if any at all. Thus, the Roman Pontiff must verbally say that he renounces his munus or use a completely equivalent expression which signifies the totality of what munus signifies. This is the juridical form (renunciation) and matter (petrine munus) of the act of the juridical act of renunciation.

Next, for the validity of such a renunciation, besides the words needed to be said, “I renounce my munus”, or the equivalent, this renunciation of munus must be made freely. This first condition is that the Roman Pontiff speak only out of a deliberate personal act not under the duress or violent coercion of anyone else. By duress, there is meant a constraint against his own will. By violent coercion, an urging which contains threats to be imposed, not simply warnings of future evils. — Thus, if the Pope’s confessor urge him to renounce because he, the confessor, judges that there is no other way the man who is the Pope can observe the moral law necessary for the salvation of the man who is the pope, such a counsel is not a violent coercion. But if the counsel be given with a person accompanied by weapons or threats of physical violence, for example, whether to himself or others, the liberty of the act can be doubted.

For more on what the text of a valid abdication looks like, see the Renunciation by Pope Saint Celestine V, in Latin and English, here.

This verbal announcement of a renunciation of the petrine munus must be made in the presence of at least 2 other Catholic Bishops, who are not under ecclesiastical penalties of any kind. This is what the Canon means by “rightly” (rite), that is, according to the ritual requirements. It cannot be made electronically or telematically, via television, without such qualified witnesses present. These witnesses should be the 2 or 3 officers of the College of Cardinals, at the very least, who know the Pope personally and can certify that it is truly him, and by conversing with him BEFORE the act can ascertain that he is acting without duress or violent coercion. At least one Apostolic Notary should also be present to witness the signing of a document containing a valid text of renunciation, since if the verbal expression spoken is in any way faulty, the signed and witnessed document containing a valid formula for resignation would suffice to make the act juridically valid.*

Finally, if all such conditions are met, the act must be considered valid in law by all Catholics, and no amount of persons of whatsoever dignity who refuse it causes it to be doubtful or invalid. Contrariwise, if any one of these conditions are not met, no amount of persons of whatsoever dignity who accept it, cause it to be made valid or certain.

However, in accord with the norms of Canon Law, every Catholic is obliged not to accept the renunciation until he sees the act or knows by certain communications that it has been accomplished. Thus, a Catholic who neglects this, and years later comes to know that it was not done correctly, can licitly and lawfully hold that it is doubtful or invalid, and cannot be sanctioned for speaking about it.

Thus, in summary, if Pope Francis renounces, he must say so; in the presence of at least the officers of the College of Cardinals or two Catholic Bishops, and he must document the act with a signed document, witnessed by the same witnesses. He can televise his renunciation.

OTHER CONDITIONS OF JURISPRUDENCE

The renunciation must be made in simple syntax, it cannot be made in indirect discourse, such as when one says, “I declare that I renounce”. Also, it must be made without any sort of delimiting or limiting factors such as time or place or condition, such as would happen if a pope verbally said that he would renounce in the future, or at a certain place other than he is, or on the condition of any future event or fact. Nor can he renounce on the condition that he receive any benefit, such as would appear to be a sale of the office. Nor can he renounce by expressing a motivation for his action which objectively speaking appears to be irrational, untrue, unfounded, fictional, such as if he were to say, “I renounce the petrine munus, because an alien abducted me last night”.

Also, he ought NOT put any subordinate clauses in his act of renunciation, by which the terms he uses might be understood to be constrained in their signification, as would happen if he said, “I renounce the munus which the Cardinals gave me” etc.., or “I renounce the office which is” of a kind not precisely that of the petrine munus, such as if the Pope said, “I renounce the office which is the most important in the eyes of all Christians and world leaders etc..”.

RULE FOR DETERMINING VALIDITY

According to the ancient dictum, “Papa dubius, papa nullius” which is often written as “Papa dubius, papa nullus”, a doubtfully elected pope is the pope of no one, or, rather, a doubtfully elected pope is no pope, respectively. But as the acceptance of an election is the contrary of the renunciation of one’s election, the act of renunciation follows the contrary dictum: Papa dubie renuntiatus, iam papa omnium, that is, “A pope who has doubtfully renounced, is still the Pope of everyone.”

Therefore, if a Roman Pontiff in renouncing transgress any of the conditions or restrictions of Canon 332 section two, such that a reasonable doubt as to the signification of the act, or of its conformity to the requirements of that Canon arise, the act must be considered doubtful and thus the renunciation must be considered invalid, and it would be morally right and even a duty for Catholics to say so and demand that it be redone, if the Roman Pontiff actually and freely want to renounce. — If he fail to do either of these things, rightly, it must be assumed that he never had the intention or liberty to renounce and that he remains the Pope, regardless of whether the Cardinals think it is valid and regardless if he acts as if it is valid, or even assert that it is valid, in a non canonical way. Finally, he cannot after such an act attempt to repair it by any annexed document or verbal statement: he must redo it properly in its correct entire form and matter.

** A renunciation, being like jumping off a cliff, once it is done, it cannot be undone: a renunciation is valid whether it be by spoken word or written word: thus which ever of the two is valid, the renunciation is valid. This is because if the spoken renunciation is valid, the man who was the pope is no longer the pope and cannot take his renunciation back. And if the spoken renunciation is not valid, signing a written document which contains a valid formula, becomes of itself the act of a valid renunciation.

Canon Law, Church History, Debates

Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio: A ‘Munus’ which keeps on giving

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française  — Traduzione italiana

Nearly 12 years ago, Pope Benedict XVI read aloud in the Clementine Hall, before the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, assembled for the approbation of 3 groups of Saints, his now famous “Declaratio”, an administrative act which announced that he was to renounce the “ministry … which he received through the hands of the Cardinals …” as of Feb. 28, of that year. The document, rife with errors in Latin and juridical concepts, was immediately recognized by even the most main stream publications as the BBC (see Feb. 28, 2013 report here) to risk splitting the Church in two and making the man to be elected in the upcoming Conclave an anti-pope.

His conscious, free decision to renounce the ministerium rather than the munus of the Roman Pontiff was the cause and origin of the controversy, which is mocked by those-still-in-denial after 12 years, as “Benevacantism”, a term coined by Steve Skojec, founder of 1 Peter 5.

But ironically, Pope Benedict XVI’s Great Error — unlike Pope Celestine V’s “Great Refusal” — is a gift, that is, a munus, which keeps on giving, because whatsoever was his intention, and whatsoever is the opinion of any observer, Pope Benedict XVI’s action began a great divorce in the Church, between the juridical order and the church of appearances.

For from the moment that he neglected or failed to actually renounce the Petrine Munus (as he had apparently announced he would do) on Feb. 28, 2013, the Apostolic See has been in a state equivalent to an impeded see, with the entire Roman Curia and Courts deprived of all legal right to act and issue any decisions or judgements, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who came out of the illegal and uncanonical Conclave of 2013, as Pope Francis, of all right to govern the Church. This is because, the entire Roman Curia operates licitly and validly only inasmuch as they assist the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his Petrine Ministry. When he refuses to do this, they cease to have any legitimacy.

This has made all of Pope Francis’ acts, statements, documents, letters etc. and treaties since March 13, 2013, until the death of Pope Benedict XVI on Dec. 31, 2022, null and void, without effect.

But that is not only their only effect.

For because so many unfaithful and cowardly men, followed by so many uninformed and lazy Catholics, have recognized Pope Francis as a legitimate pope throughout this time, they have accepted his illicit alterations of the Code of Canon Law and reorganization of the Roman Curia, such that, now, even after the death of Pope Benedict XVI, every act of the Roman Curia and every judgement of the Apostolic Signatura and Roman Rota, as well as every penal process, in tribunal or by administrative decree, throughout the whole Church, which is based on those changes, is legally null in void, that is irritus, because it has not cited the correct and authentic canons of the Church, or has emanated from justices which hold no canonical mandate issued by a Roman Pontiff holding the Petrine Munus, or is issued by an office of the Roman Curia which has never legally existed, being created by Pope Francis during his antipapacy.

This gift of Pope Benedict XVI keeps on giving, also, because of the faithful and courageous action of the Roman Catholics at Rome, who resorting to their Apostolic Right to elect the Roman Pontiff, granted them by Saint Peter the Apostle themselves, elected Pope Francis the Roman Pontiff to satisfy canon 331 and to reestablish the basics of juridical order in the Church, while yet omitting to inform him of his election,* so that he would not reissue by valid decree those documents which he issued invalidly without legal right as antipope.

Now, the next Conclave can give the Church a valid Successor of Saint Peter, who can begin the Great Catholic Reset. The Great Reset which Pope Benedict XVI, unwittingly or consciously, prepared with his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once remarked, that the day would come when the laity would save the Church, and that day came two years ago, on January 30, 2023, at the Assembly held to elect Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, just as Pope Benedict XVI — may he rest in peace — indicated in his Declaratio, an election “by those who were competent” to act.

** An election by Apostolic Right, since the Apostle laid down no written law concerning it, operates under the terms of Natural Law, where if one already claims to hold an office, his acceptance of any election to it is tacitly assumed de facto and de jure. So there is no need that the one elected explicitly and verbally indicate his acceptance of that election, his acceptance is automatic by reason of his habitual prior claim to the office.

Canon Law, News

ITALY: Bishop of Palestrina “excommunicates” Don Santonocito for saying “Bergoglio is not the Pope”

3 Comments

Canonical commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduzione italiana

Don Natale Santonocito, a priest of the suburbican diocese of Palestrina, was excommunicated yesterday by Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani (yes, the same name as the cheese*), the Bishop of Palestrina-Tivoli, who declared an excommunication in virtue of canon 1364 for “heretical and schismatic” teachings.

The official Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Italy newspaper, L’Avvenire, says in the article above, that the priest was given an opportunity of legal defense with a lawyer assigned to him, ex officio. — In previous public statements, Don Santonocito said he would not oppose the extra-juridical process (a canonical process undertaken by a superior without the presence of a tribunal) because he did not recognize the appointment of Msgr. Parmeggiani as valid, it having been made by Pope Francis and not Pope Benedict XVI.

Father Santonocito holds that the Apostolic See is vacant after the death of Benedict and that Pope Francis by reason of his manifest heresy is ipso facto excommunicated and thus not the pope.

The excommunication was declared not imposed, since the announcement of the Diocesan Chancery cites canon 1364’s provision for latae sententiae excommunication.

This excommunication is null and void, in my opinion, for its error in ascribing Don Santonocito’s views to a crime punishable under canon 1364 for “heresy” or “schism”, since holding that a papal renunciation was invalid, when it was invalid, and hence that a conclave was invalid when it was invalid, are neither heretical nor schismatic acts, punishable by the Code of Canon Law. Don Santonocito has made clear in his many videos that he refuses communion with those he holds to be in manifest heresy (Pope Francis etc.) and thus cannot be held to be either a heretic or schismatic by intention. And without the intention to violate Canon 1364, a person cannot be punished.

The notice in the above news article tries to make it appear that Don Santonocito was sufficiently and duly notified of his errors and given a chance to retract them, but it is clear that Bishop Parmeggiani proceeded with a very shallow and incorrect view of the precise position of Don Santonocito.

Bishop Parmeggiani cannot, in my view, be excused of gravely violating the rights an good name of Don Natale Santonocito, because he has already received dozens if not hundreds of petitions to convoke a Provincial Council to hear the charges that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not hold a valid claim to the Apostolic Throne. This makes Bishop Parmeggiani legally presumed to be in a state of bad will, precisely because he should have referred the case of Don Natale Santonocito to the Provincial Council, since what Don Natale is saying directly pertains to the charges in the Sutri Initiative. Bad will must also be presumed because the charges of heresy and schism to not apply to Don Natale Santonocito’s publicly affirmed positions.

By proceeding against Don Santonocito himself, and without bringing the matter before his diocesan tribunal, where the judges are supposed to be both learned in ecclesiastical jurisprudence and impartial, the Bishop has furthermore shown prejudice of aforethought against Don Santonocito.

In fact, I do not believe jurists trained in ecclesiastical right would have held Don Natale’s statements configurable under the delicts of heresy or schism, since all the classical sources of ecclesiastical right, expressly say such disagreements of opinion about papal elections and abdications are not such delicts.

Finally, the malice of Msgr. Parmeggiani is made most evident by the terms of his penal decree against Don Natale, which forbids him “to receive the Sacraments”. That blanket statement means that poor Don Natale, even if penitent, cannot go to confession again for the rest of his life. How is this in any way pastoral? Nay, it is clear that his bishop has an ideological-political motivation contrary to the entire Catholic Faith. — Even Heretics and Schismatics are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Penance, as this is the required means for them to be received back into the Church.

In short, Don Natale’s Bishop has shut the door in his face and nailed it shut. And for what?

Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani is the first Bishop in the Roman Province to take public action which shows that he is an adherent to the heresies, blasphemies and apostasies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. There are 14 other such Bishops in the province who have also been petitioned.

Supporters of the Sutri Initiative or of Don Santonocito can now appeal to the other 14 bishops and demand an immediate convocation of the Provincial Council to address the grave crimes committed against Don Santonocito and his serious allegations against Pope Francis. This is the true Catholic and juridical approach, it is also the true Synodal approach the Church has always used in the past in such grave matters pertaining to the Apostolic See, impeded by dubious claims of pretenders to the Throne of Saint Peter.

Don Santonocito’s own errors lie in thinking that just because he can discern manifest heresy in another person or superior, that that person is not a member of the Church nor holds an office. But this contradicts canon 194 §2, which says the loss of office for those who abandon the Catholic Faith does not take effect without the decree of the same competent authority which declared the heretical depravity. And this is precisely the reason for the necessity of the Sutri Initiative.

Needless to say, Catholics everywhere should be disappointed that superiors in the Church are acting in this manner. There seems to be a deep and habitual incapacity of so many of the clergy to confront the reality of their own actions and to follow the rules of their own Church. There also seems to be a total lack of fraternal interventions by fellow Clergy and Bishops to prevent mutual violations of ecclesiastical right. — Let us pray for our Bishops and our Priests, and let us do whatever we can to encourage them to be more respectful of one another for the sake of the weak who will be harmed by the scandals, like this, which erupt weekly.

______________

* The famous Italian cheese from Parma, Parmigiano, is the Italian standard for grating cheese over pasta, or eating cheese with green melons and cantaloupes. It’s name refers to the City from which it comes, that is the cheese of Parma, just as the surname of the Bishop means, those men from Parma. Parma is one of the principle cities of the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna, in Northern Italy. It’s more famous sister city is Bologna: and yes, that is where bologna, the cold-cut, originates.

Canon Law, News

Vatican Press Office admits Opus Dei Cardinal Sanctioned, without due process

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: The admission is implied in the Vatican News’ own report, which cites the Cardinal as saying he was placed under a penal sentence without ever having any knowledge of being prosecuted. The tacit admission by Vatican News is tantamount to a declaration that the penal sentences are utterly contrary to the Cardinal’s rights in Canon Law and all notions of jurisprudence.

Generally speaking, an appeal to the Roman Rota for lack of due process would result in an immediate suspension of sentence, except that in this case, if the Cardinal’s case was brought to the Apostolic Signatura or Pope Francis himself, there would be no possibility of an appeal to the Roman Rota. Nevertheless, it appears that the Cardinal was sentenced while Pope Benedict XVI was still alive, and hence the penalty is utterly void and without any effect.

If you are a friend of the Cardinal, you should urge him immediately to appeal to the Provincial Council of the Roman Province demanding that the case regarding Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s claim to hold the pontifical authority from March 13, 2013 to January 30, 2023, be heard without further delay.

Canon Law, Church History, Editorials

Siscoe: The Church can depose a heretical pope in Council

3 Comments

Commentary with a History of the Sutri Initiative by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many Italian Catholics are followers of Andrea Cionci and think that he is outstanding for recommending that they appeal to the Cardinals for a new Conclave to elect a true Pope. As I explained in my critical review of his excellent book, “The Ratzinger Code”, which struck a powerful cord with Italians in Italy, since it was published in Italian, here, to elect another pope is something to be done after removing the heretical pope. Otherwise the Church would schism into two.

So my proposal in October 2023 to remove the heretical pope first, is actually the most Catholic thing to do. But I am not the first to say this. This was said by Robert Siscoe back on September 18, 2014, in the above linked article (Click Image).  Even Rorate Caeli called for a petition in the spring of last year, on May 2, 2024, to remove Pope Francis, though they did not say how this was to be done and even admitted they did not know. Evidently they do not know how to use Google to find the answer.

So Catholics in Italy should not think that the two most famous Italians criticizing Pope Francis, Andrea Cionci and Don Alessandro Minutella, pastor of Saint John Bosco Church, at Palermo, Sicily, are leading lights on this issue: neither chronologically nor canonically. Catholics from the U.S.A. are years a head of them.

Even the idea of petitioning Cardinals, was first launched by myself, using the nom du plum, Gaetano Romano, back in 2016 (see here).  So any idea, that I am opposed to petitions to the Cardinals per se, is simply not true.

The whole dialogue about removing a heretical pope disappeared in 2016, when Ann Barnhardt make her first video about the invalid renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. My own role in that debate, which I joined in 2018, put that controversy to an end on January 30, 2023, with the juridically valid election of a new pope, according to Apostolic Right, which caused an explosion of hate and the most vile insults, calumnies and declarations from so many who sustained that other investigation, all of which were refuted in Italian here, including the calumnious ones of Andrea Cionci, here.

But, I waited patiently after that and prayed with Jesus Christ for His new Vicar. Only after clear signs of heretical depravity, did I propose the Sutri Initiative again on October 19, 2023.

Nor am I the first to suggest that the imperfect Council which has the authority to remove a heretical pope is the Provincial Council of Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome.  This was first pointed out by the Ecclesiastical Historian from Poland, whose spoke about the First Council of Sutri, in 1046, back in August of 2018.  And I followed immediately with an article on  September 11, 2018, since I recognized immediately that this was the correct and historically verified way forward on this issue. Within days, the Remnant followed with its own article about the Council of Sutri, here.

I have stuck to the same opinion and proposed this long before Don Minutella could even explain canonically why the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid, or Cionci had even met me, and thus was spurred to begin his own investigations. I have stuck to the same position even though Robert Siscoe, the author of the top article, turned against those who understood that Pope Benedict XVI remained the true pope until death. I have stuck to the same opinion, even though the Remnant which talked about Sutri in 2018, keeps erasing comments which mention the Sutri Initiative for the last 18 months. I have stuck to the same position, even though Rorate Caeli refuses to say the word, “Sutri”.

Recently many are proposing an “imperfect council” to put Pope Francis on trial. But none speaks of Sutri any more nor speaks of the proper canonical way to do this, explaining the procedure and the canonical justifications for the manner of proceeding without violating the current norms of Canon Law. This is called the Sutri Initiative. — A provincial council at Rome is actually better than an “imperfect council” since it can be convoked in a juridically and canonically valid manner and need not have its acts approved by the Pope, since it is basically a quo warranto action, which is a form of formal communication of facts and testimonies, upon the validity of which alone the Council votes and judges.

And to all those who after 11 years won’t speak of what was spoken about 7 years ago, I can only ask, “Why now, after ‘Fiducia supplicans’ do you ALL insist on getting it wrong? “ Ask yourself whether that makes any other sense or serves any other purpose but keeping the Lavender Mafia in power?

So to all those who think that my apostolate “threatens” or “undermines” the apostolates of other, please be honest with yourselves and take a step back from your idolizing of men and start thinking about how the Church merits your love and your protection. You can go back to your YouTube channels after the problem is solved.

Canon Law, Debates, News

Discussing, in protestant fashion, whether Pope Francis is the Pope…

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: Here Dr. Mazza argues against Father Brian Harrison, on the question of whether a Catholic can personally hold that a heretical pope is no longer the pope, before any judgement of the Church.

This discussion of Dr. Mazza’s I find disingenuous, because I know he knows of the Sutri Initiative, but he prefers to argue against Father Harrison, as a protestant might argue, since he only appeals to private judgement and crafts a rebuttal to Father Harrison, as if the Church did not possess a competent tribunal to judge whether the man who is the pope have a valid claim to be the pope.

Father Harrison, also — though he correctly asserts that Catholics must regard as valid all the canonical but non-heretical acts of a superior, even if he be a heretic, so long as the competent authority has not declared his heresy — neglects any mention of what is the competent authority to make such a declaration.

I scratch my head in seeing two learned men act like protestants argue in such a manner. Protestants could be alleged to not know what is the competent authority to depose a claimant to the Papacy. But I have to publicly rebuke Dr. Mazza and Fr. Harrison for engaging in such a debate while omitting the truth, as they are intentionally manipulating the Faithful who hear them and are intentionally keeping them in the dark about an historically verified truth of the juridic structure of the Church.

To both, I remind them, that to behave in such a manner will merit your eternal damnation, because it is sin to bear false witness against Holy Mother Church and to intentionally deceive your audience by your silence.

Canon Law, Debates, News

Belgium: Andrea Cionci during conference agrees with Br. Bugnolo on 2 points

6 Comments

News with Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
with thanks to Fr. Walter Covens for his summary of the events and his

Traduction française

Here at FromRome.Info, I try to cover all the important news about the Debate over whether Pope Benedict XVI abdicated or not and whether Pope Francis is an anti-pope or not and how he could be removed from office in a canonically valid manner.

I do this for the sake of Christ, my King, to protect His Immaculate Bride from the ravaging hands and tongues of His enemies and of not a few of His friends who say things in ignorance regarding these topics.

Since my interest is in the triumph of truth over error, I am pleased when I see those who have publicly disagreed with me accept the truth, even if it takes them two years and in doing so they do not admit I was right all along. It is not that I have a charism of being right, it is that in humility I try not to ever give my own opinion, but simply repeat what experts, scholars, Doctors of the Church, Saints and Canon Law says.

Andrea Cionci has agreed with Br. Bugnolo on two points

So I am happy to announce that Andrea Cionci has at last accepted that I was right on two important points regarding Papal Elections.

  1.  That the Cardinals must enter into conclave no later than the 20th day after the death of a Roman Pontiff, for their votes to be counted, other wise, if they do not do so, the Cardinals cannot validly elect a Pope.
  2. That it is sufficient that even a small number of electors convene to validly elect a pope.

Andrea Cionci has made these affirmations — my English is not an exact translation — in a conference given at Namur, Belgium to the “Piccolo Resto”, which was held in French, but where he intervened in Italian, with a translator translating live.

The first point is the exact rule from the Papal Law, Universi Domini gregis. The second is derived from the Code of Canon Law, which says that in all ecclesiastical elections, the validity of the election is not destroyed by the paucity of electors who present themselves. So in fact, even 1 Cardinal in a Conclave, or 1 layman in an Assembly of Apostolic Right, could validly elect a pope: presuming there was a proper convocation of the Conclave or Assembly. Cf. the Code of Canon Law for these conditions.

Cionci holds, though, there needs to be at least 3 Cardinals, since he misinterprets the requirement of a majority to validly elect. He evidently does not think a sole vote in a conclave of only 1 cardinal is not a majority. An opinion which shows his entire confusion on how to read the Papal Law!

The Papal Law currently in force, however, does not provide any way for electing a Pope if the Cardinals in charge of convoking a conclave fail to do so, or if none appear before the 21st day. For Cionci, this means there is no other way. But as I have said last week, only someone entirely ignorant in jurisprudence holds that a law remains in force if its fundamental condition is obstructed.

Where Andrea Cionci still is making up things

Andrea Cionci still believes, however, that only Cardinals in a Conclave can elect a pope in a valid manner, because being an opera singer and an instructor in singing, and only a journalist on the side, he has absolutely no training in Canon Law. He cannot even read Latin. I know these things because he told me himself.

He is now, however, claiming that though Pope Francis is an antipope, Cardinals can convene after his death and validly elect a true pope. While it is true that after Pope Francis’ death Cardinals can validly elect his successor, a true pope, certain conditions could invalidate that; however, Cionci is QUITE WRONG in claiming that Cardinals after the death of an ANTI-POPE can enter into conclave, since that is expressly forbidden by the Papal Law, which only allows Conclaves after the death of TRUE POPES. — I use capitals here, to shout, since having said this before, he still seems to be deaf to the truth and refuses to read what is written in the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis.

I will add that during his conference he claimed that Father Ferdinando Cornet agrees with him in his position.

Cionci claims Pope Francis will resign in January of 2025

He is also claiming that “according to his sources”, Pope Francis will resign in January.

Let’s see if Andrea Cionci’s sources are valid or not, by waiting to see what happens.

Cionci wants you to know his position on Conclaves is absurd

I do not think he believes his own reasons are strong enough to convince the Cardinals, though, since he also said, during the response to Questions, that if no valid Cardinal elects a true pope before August 18, 2036, when the third-youngest will become 80 years of age and lose his right to vote, then the Church will never have a pope again. — This expressly contradicts the First Vatican Council which teaches that is the Will of God that Saint Peter have perpetual successors in the See of Rome.

So I am glad he expressed his own opinion ad absurdum, since this will help true Catholics realize that his position on the obligatory nature of always following the Papal Law is not sustainable, reasonable, or a Catholic approach, since it ends in the self-destruction of the Church by the pharasaical observance of a merely positive law.

Evidently Father Cornet also does not believe, however, that he and Cionci have good enough reasons to convince the Cardinals to act, because during the conference he asks the faithful to ask priests to pray for the graces the Cardinals need.

One slight error made by Cionci during his talk is to say that there are 30 Cardinals who can vote in a Conclave who were appointed by Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and that all of these need to be petitioned. But he fails to realize that at least 11 of them are members of the St. Gallen Mafia. So by petitioning them all, he is giving certain knowledge of his operation to the enemy.

For an throughly Catholic solution to how Pope Benedict XVI could and did have a juridically valid successor see the article, The Triump of the Lamb, here at FromRome.Info.

Videos of the Conference are in Italian and French

The conference was held apparently held on November 23, 2024, at Namur, Belgium, and 110 were expected to attend. About half of those attending came from France, some by car from Languedoc. This was the very day after I had publicly rebuked Cionci in the strongest manner for his previous positions.

The French Translator stated that the French Edition of Andrea Cionci’s Book, The Ratzinger Code, has been read by more than 1 million in the French speaking world. But she fails to mention that Father Walter Covens is its translator. — The translation was done while Pope Benedict XVI was still in life.

The conference was transmitted on the YouTube Channel: Hildegarde de Bingen, 5 days ago. See below. The owner of this channel is the woman doing the translations in the videos. So please let her know that she should mention the name of the translator, since he merits that much.

What Father Cornet said …

Father Cornet, for his part, made a grave error, in restricting the obligation of Catholics to the “laws” of the Church. He evidently has never studied jurisprudence, because the correct maxim, is that Catholics are obliged to do what is right and just, which is expressed in Divine Revelation and Apostolic Tradition, and from time to times is applied in canons and laws for particular circumstances of history. Thus he appears to be saying we should follow Canon Law or Papal Laws even if they went contrary to Apostolic or Divine Law. That would be the very heresy of Pharasaism, which Our Lord condemned in the Gospels many times.

He also said that unless a priest say he does not intent to confect a Sacrament, that the Sacrament is considered valid.  The correct Catholic doctrine in such cases, is that the Sacrament IS valid, not merely considered valid, so long as a validly ordained priest using valid matter and saying the correct words, has not explicated such an intention. This difference seems small, but “to consider a thing valid” and for a thing “to be valid” are two different orders of being, the former is a mental judgement, the latter is a reality existing in this world. To attempt to quell the doubts of souls as regards the validity of a Sacrament, one has to speak of reality, not mental judgements of reality. This is the entire basis for the finding of Benedict XVI’s renunciation as non-existent in reality, even though many in their minds think or consider or judge it happened.

He said many other things, but this one strikes me as most worthy of note: that Cardinal Achille Liénart (who consecrated Archbishop Lefebrve a Bishop) before his own death confessed to being a 33rd Degree Freemason; and that he, Father Cornet, knows this personally, because he knew the Cardinal in life. Since the Cardinal died in 1973, however, I wonder how a Argentine in his sixties, like Father Cornet, barely at the age of maturity, would know personally a Cardinal in France? Perhaps I misunderstand how he phrased this. However, the report that the Cardinal confessed to being a Freemason before death has already been published more than 15 years ago, here.

Canon Law, News

Vatican issues decree of supression against Texas Carmel

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: This is another sad chapter in a case which has scandalized the Catholic world for the numerous incidents of malfeasance by the local Bishop and Pope Francis’ canonically non-existent “Dicastery for Consecrated Life” erected during his anti-pontificate.

First the mother superior was accused of a grave violation of her vow of chastity for having engaged in  “phone sex” with a priest, a violation of purity which is not included in any traditional book of morals regarding the observance of the vow of chastity or virginity, which requires an external physical act with another person or in their presence.

Second, the nuns were publicly ridiculed as violating their religious vows for their intemperate use of cannabis as a pain killer, a practice which is also not a crime in canon law, though it is an offense against right morals. Monasteries and Convents throughout the world and especially in the Andes have used herbal healing for centuries. In fact, the whole concept of a pharmacy was invented in Monasteries, since these were the only institutions which for centuries had the wherewithal to grow, collect and prepare herbal remedies in a highly ethical and consistent context.

Third, the public defamation they suffered from the local Bishop, which he uses to justify an attempt to take their property and control their internal affairs, even though he seemingly takes quite a light hand with his own priests who are involved in sexual offense.

Finally, the denial of the Sacraments to these religious women, the denial of their right to keep, take and live their vows to Jesus Christ and the irregular intervention of the Vatican declaring them “defected from the Catholic Faith” for having taken on spiritual care from the clergy of the Society of Saint Pious X, an entity which in which membership has never been characterized by any Papal Law or Act as “defecting from the Catholic Faith”.

Moreover, the attempt to suppress their monastery and declare them no longer Catholic is a most grave attack on their persons, since they have by vows to Our Lord Jesus Christ promises perpetual poverty, whereby they can only live by alms. As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, to publicly vilify a person who lives by alms is equivalent to murder.

I agree with Attorney Bobo, who is leading their defense, along with the president of Gonzaga University (Jesuit founded school), that these Carmelites have had their canonical and civil rights grossly offended by the local Bishop and Pope  Francis’s “Curial Administration”. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that canonically, all the actions taken against them are invalid in the sight of God, since they transgress numerous canons of the Code of Canon Law regarding proper procedures and rights of religious communities.

The correct pastoral procedure, from day one, would  have been to counsel temperance in the use of herbal remedies and forbid the use of the phone to those sisters who are misusing it, while encouraging them to walk more faithfully in their vocation by a life of solitude and penance, not to mention a more strict observance of cloister.