Tag Archives: Cardinal Prevost

News

Cardinal Burke meets with Cardinal Prevost at the Vatican, to repent?

3 Comments

+ + +

Editor’s Note: On August 22, 2025, it was reported that Cardinal Burke met with Prevost at the Vatican. Why they met, however, was not announced.

However, I can report that more than 108 of the Cardinals have received the Open Letter to a Cardinal regarding the irregularities in the recent Conclave of May 2025, which petitioned the Cardinals to meet with Prevost and the entire College and rectify the violation of UDG. n. 33 which took place during the Conclave when the Cardinals presumed to allow 133 Electors vote at the same time, in direct violation of the law, rendering every vote tally irritus and the entire election null and void, without any need for any authority to declare it.

Now, I will not say that I am hopeful that any of the Cardinals has the honesty to confront the problems addressed in the Letter, not because I am cynical, but because there is no forensic evidence from even one of them that they acknowledged the receipt of the letter, let alone that they might take action on it.

However, I do know that clergy at the Vatican have a copy of the letter from multiple sources, and know that the Letter is being distributed online.

Burke might also want Prevost to allow the mass be celebrated in Latin, even though Prevost has no such authority, just like no Bishop after Saint Pius V had and has no such authority to restrict it.

So, if the Open Letter has come to the attention of Prevost and if he wants Burke to explain how it was that the Cardinals acted during the Conclave in such a way as is patently against the norm of law, though canonists such as he said otherwise, it might be that one of the things Cardinal Burke was asked to explain is why the Cardinals claimed to have a dispensation when the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, in n. 4, forbids the use of dispensation in regard to any Papal Laws during a sedevacante.

Because, if Prevost has the least shred of conscience, he will understand that this is a problem going forward.

From what I know about Burke, however, which is nothing to make me admire his character or expertise in explaining the law, he will attempt to demonstrate that a dispensation can be granted without words and that a derogation of UDG n. 4 is implicit in the nomination of Cardinal electors, when their number exceeds 120.

However, Prevost would be advised not to take such bad advice, since, to claim to have a dispensation without any historical record of a grant of a dispensation, is even more problematic when you subsequently claim to have a derogation without any verbal record of the grant of a derogation!

Not to mention the fact that a Pope does not create Cardinal Electors. — Cardinal Electors exist only at the time of a Conclave in virtue of an intersection of rights and duties as defined by the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, in n. 33 of that law, wherein they are limited to a maximum of 120, and where the text explains the criteria upon which 120 Cardinals maximum are to be allowed to vote.

So if Burke suggests such a legal strategy, it will simply admit that they were wrong in claiming a dispensation, since it will admit that they needed a derogation, which they did not have.

Their only other bad strategy would be to excommunicate anyone who denies the validity of the Conclave, as a form of terror tactic to keep Catholics thinking about it. But, that would also fail, since as they say in Italy, “When they deny that it is true, then you know that it is true!”

But if they do not do this, then when a Catholic Pope is elected by Apostolic Right, they will be in a bad position of having tacitly conceded that an election by Apostolic Right is justified.

In other words, they cannot escape from being caught in their gross and heretical malfeasance, without publicly repenting, along with Prevost’s renunciation of all claims to the Apostolic Throne. Their own wantonness has checkmated them in their claim that Prevost is the pope, just as their election of Bergoglio in March of 2013, was a sin which entrapped them and will drag them to eternal damnation as each and every one of them deserve, as Pope Nicholas II declared in the Roman Synod of 1059, in his Bull, In Nomine Domini.

However, none of the Catholics who wrote the Cardinals, least of which myself, want Prevost or Burke or the Cardinals to end up in Hell: rather, we have written and spoken so that they might repent and be saved, and come into the light so that their deeds be seen as invalid and dishonest as they are, repenting of them.

For in this way they would save their souls by giving the entire Church a wonderful example of humility by a humble confession, which is sorely needed at present in the Church, where the malfeasance by members of the Hierarchy is stripping hundreds of thousands of souls from Her communion on a yearly basis, if not damning them to hell by claiming the heretical teachings of Bergoglio are now part of the divinely approved Catholic Religion — a most Satanic deception.

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: