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:
-
- The Petrine Munus,
- The Petrine Ministry,
- 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,
- All and any power or act of jurisdiction pertaining to the same as Monarch of the Vatican City State.
- 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.
