Category Archives: Canon Law

Canon Law, Editorials, Videos

Are Catholics required to accept Cardinal Prevost as Leo XIV?

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo:  English Language Transcript

Traduzione Italiana

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

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

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

No, because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if a priest persist, add:

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

+ + +

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

Canon Law, News

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

5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

Which in English is:

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM

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

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

Canon Law, Videos

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

11 Comments

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

Documents or Videos cited in the above video:

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

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

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

Canon Law

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

2 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which in English translation would be:

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

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

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

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

Canon 1364 imposes ipso facto excommunication on all heretics

This canon reads in the Latin,

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

Which in English reads:

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

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

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

Controversy over undeclared excommunications

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

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

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

Which in English would be:

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

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

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

Canon 1331, the juridical effects of being a heretic

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

Canon 1331 §1. Excommunicatus vetatur:

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

2° sacramenta vel ssacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;

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

Which in English is:

Canon 1331 §1. The one excommunicated is forbidden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Items, Apostolates, Asking for Help, Canon Law

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

13 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

37 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.