A Historical Note
As has been reported, discussed and commented on, last year, Pope Nicholas II was elected in 1058 A. D., after the unlawful usurpation of the Apostolic See by John Mincius, Bishop of Velletri, who was elected by the whole body of Clergy and Faithful at Rome, after the death of Pope Stephen IX, but against the precept of that Pope, which required the election to be held only after Saint Hildebrand, his Archdeacon, returned from the court of Matilda, the Regent of Germany, at Goslar, in Thuringia.
Pope Nicholas II, according to the sources, was elected at Siena in May of 1058, and then his election was held a second time in December of the same year, after Hildebrand had returned from a second trip to Germany, to secure the consent of Matilda to his election.
How many persons participated in the election of Pope Nicholas II is not clear. Br. Bugnolo last year, following a modern English historian, reported that at the first election there was Hildebrand, and Cardinals Hugo of Candida Selva — the famous Burgundian Cardinal who placed the bull of excommunication up on the high altar of Hagia Sofia in 1054, against the Patriarch of Constantinople — and Peter Damian, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, the author of the famous work, Liber Gomorrhianus, against the sin of sodomy among clergy and monks.
But the Chronicle of the Monastery of Monte Cassino, written by Leo of Ostia and Peter the Deacon, two monks of that famous Benedictine center of holiness and learning, affirm that in December there was only one elector of Pope Nicholas II who cast a vote. Here is the proof, with the Latin of the Chronicle and Br. Bugnolo’s translation in English, of Book III, chapter 12, p. 724, from the Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Tome 173, printed in 1853 A. D..:
Which in English, would be:
12. [Chapter 13] But to return backwards a little (to what I reported before), when after the passing of Pope Stephen of pious memory, the above said Hildebrand, having returned from the Empress, discovered the Church (of Rome) invaded by the worst of men against the interdict of the same Apostolic (Pope), he remained at Florence; and agreeing on this matter by his own letters with the better of the Romans, and receiving their consent to all which he wanted, then with the support of Duke Godfried (Margrave of Tuscany and Imperial Vicar), he elected Bishop Gerard of Florence as the Roman Pope, and together with him and the Duke came to Rome, then, in the month of January (of 1059 A. D.); where the aforesaid Elect was enthroned in the Apostolic See by the Roman Clergy and People, and took the Name of Nicholas. Who then excommunicating the above-said invader with all his supporters, received him thereafter into communion at the intervention of certain of his (supporters), and established him at the Church of Saint Mary Major, as it is called by the Romans, to remain there deprived of the office of priest.
A Legal Question
How could Saint Hildebrand, all alone, elect a pope?
The answer lies in the legal concept of delegation (cf. CIC 1983, canon 138-142), whereby everyone with authority can delegate another to represent himself in the doing of a legal act, which otherwise would require his physical presence to accomplish. Thus just as a soldier off at war can validly and legally marry his wife, who remains at home, via a man legally designated to act in his name and on his behalf, so anyone in an Ecclesiastical election, where this manner of voting is not prohibited, can designate another to vote for him, specifying or not specifying a specific candidate.
Thus, when Peter the Deacon says in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, that the Saint “received the consent” of many Romans of good repute, he is saying juridically that the Saintly Archdeacon was empowered with the delegation to act on their behalf.
Note, also that Hildebrand was not a priest, nor a bishop, nor even a Cardinal, at that time. But he was a resident of Rome, being a Benedictine Monk of the Monastery of Saint Paul outside the walls.
So, yes, the Chronicle affirms that there was only physically present one elector, Saint Hildebrand. But juridically, since he was acting with their consent, all who consented were present and voting.
In Ecclesiastical jurisprudence as in natural law, consent is of two kinds: explicit and implicit; that is, expressed by word or sign or spoken word, and silence in the face of something done by another party, to which the one remaining silent has the right to speak in favor or against, but chooses not to speak at all.
WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTION OF Pope HILDEBRAND, then?
So, for example, in the election of Pope Hildebrand, last year on November 23, 2025, the fact that more than 5000 clergy and religious of the Dioceses of Rome and the 7 Suburbican Dioceses, all of whom had a right to participate in an election according to the Bull of Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, after the uncanonical election of the heretic Robert Prevost, could participate in person, or by explicit or tacit consent — that is by communicating to Br. Bugnolo who was to convoke the election, approval or disapproval, or delegating him or anyone else to vote in their name — made the very fact that ChiesaRomana.info sent them notification of all the matters pertaining to the election and solicited their participation over 7 months, an action which constituted a request for consent from all parties: their silence being juridically equivalent to tacit consent to all details of which they were informed: the manner of the election, the legal right to participate, the motives for the election, and the conditions of it.
As can be seen from ChiesaRomana.Info, the form to vote by delegation was published in October, for all of these clergy and religious to compile. And as seen from the Rogitum (See SedesApostolica.Info for this), some Faithful did participate by delegation.
However, since NONE of the other clergy or religious forbade the Election take place nor did any precept Br. Bugnolo not to convoke or assemble the electors, the election of Hildebrand not only fulfilled all the conditions of Nicholas II’s teaching, but went beyond those which made Nicholas II’s own election legitimate, since it can be sanely presumed that Saint Hildebrand during the 7 months from May to December of 1058, did NOT write to 5000 clergy and religious or send out 30,000 letters, as Br. Bugnolo and those assisting him did.
CONCLUSION
These things, above, having been said, to utterly refute the absurd attacks, based on complete fabrications, that if only a few attended the election, it would not be valid. An objection which is not Catholic at all, since, as can be seen from the above Chronicle, Peter the Deacon, makes no objection and instills no doubt that the election of Nicholas II, by only one person, was juridically invalid.
So, as it stands, either a Catholic must deny all the popes since 1058 A. D., or he must accept that Hildebrand is the Pope, if he is to follow Papal Law. But if he wants to join the Church of the Antichrist, which disrespects Jesus Christ and ignores His words to Saint Peter and His Successors, ignoring the laws of John Paul II and Nicholas II, he can do whatever he wills, like Eve did. It is your choice!