+ + +

Editor’s Note: To read the original, in Italian, click HERE. — The article contains a letter sent to all the clergy of Rome containing the canonical arguments which demonstrate that Cardinal Prevost has not a shred of a legal claim to present himself as the Bishop of Rome, Pope, or Roman Pontiff.

UPDATE: June 13, 2025, 3 AM Rome TIME: Google Translation has begun to block that page, so you have to use the translation option in a Chrome or Firefox browser to read it in your native language. — I have rarely seen this kind of Google Censorship since the Plandemic. It means that not only is this news explosive, it is very damaging to the interests of Globalists. — As can be seen from the screenshot above, I was able to use Google translated when I published this article 9 hours ago.

UPDATE: JUNE 13, 2025: 7:00 A.M.:  Here below is a PDF with an English translation of the Italian text. You can use this pdf as a handout or include it in a letter to every Cardinal, Bishop, Priest and Deacon, and Monastery, in the Church. Below the PDF is the same English translation, which text you can translated into your own language (Try using Deepl).

Open Letter to all the Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church

Editor’s Note — If you find any errors in this English translation, please comment below, so that the Editor can correct them.

Dear Reverend Fathers of the Roman Church,

I am writing to you to express my concerns, in accordance with the right granted me by canon 212 of the Codex Iuris Canonicis published by Pope John Paul II on January 25, 1983, regarding a matter that is very concerning to all Catholics, particularly those in the Church of Rome: it is about the serious irregularities concerning the election of Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as Roman Pontiff.

As you may know, on April 30, 2025, the Vatican Press Office published a statement by the Cardinals regarding their claim to have a dispensation in order to violate the formal precept set forth in No. 33 of the Pontifical Law on Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, on February 22, 1996, which reads as follows:

“Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerus centum viginti ne excedat.”

That is, “Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed 120.”

This precept is one of the essential legal provisions of that papal law, because it enshrines the intention of the legislator, Pope John Paul II, who decided in it that the number of 120 Cardinal electors participating in a Conclave is sufficient (See the 7th paragraph of the introduction to the same papal law).

In the above press release of April 30, however, the Cardinals made the claim that they have the right to interpret Pope Francis’ act inherent in the appointment of Cardinals as equivalent to granting a dispensation from this precept. In their claim, they cite no document or verbal statement of the late Roman Pontiff to justify or document their claim.

For this reason, it seems legally improbable that their claim is valid, since, according to canon 16, the right of interpretation capable of dispensing from a law belongs only to superiors and individuals to whom it has been granted in a legal act. Moreover, canon 86 prohibits dispensations against the essential legal provisions of papal laws; again, canon 335 prohibits any innovation of law during the sede vacante. Moreover, verbal concessions expressed by a superior, which are not promulgated, cannot have the force of law after his death, otherwise the whole legal system of the Church would become doubtful after the death of any superior. And indeed, the right of a Cardinal to vote in Conclave is not granted by the act of appointment, nor by the Code of Canon Law, but only by the particular law on Conclaves and in any case only under the restriction of the number of 120 of them.

Similarly, the argument advanced by the Cardinals in their April 30 statement does not invoke their authority in No. 5 of the Pontifical Law regarding interpretations of doubtful or controversial passages: from this it is well understood how they have tacitly admitted that their claim has no basis in the rights granted to them in that paragraph of Universi Dominici Gregis.

Moreover, that they appeal to the right to vote granted to certain Cardinals in No. 36, of that same Papal Law, and use this an argument against the above-mentioned restriction in No. 33 of the same law, is incoherent with the authentic interpretation of that law, since according to the universal norms of jurisprudence the initial definitions and restrictions of a law take precedence in reading the authentic meaning of a law in all the paragraphs following them. Therefore, it is not authentic to appeal to No. 36 against No. 33, especially since in No. 36 the statement of law is explicitly placed under the restriction of No. 33.

Consequently, their spurious claim of having a dispensation cannot avoid the censure which Pope John Paul II, placed in the penultimate paragraph of the promulgation of this papal law on conclaves-where he declares irritus anything done, knowingly or unknowingly, by any person of any ecclesiastical dignity, contrary to the same papal law; irritus means that the claimed dispensation must be considered as having never been granted.

For all these reasons, I believe that the recent Conclave, held with 133 Cardinal electors in each of the ballot sessions, objectively violated the obligation in No. 68 of the same Pontifical Law, because in each of the ballot sessions 133 votes were counted instead of 120; in so doing they were given a juridical value contrary to the rule of No. 68 in the very act of the ballot, an action which is also legally irritus in itself and which caused the nullity of the election of Cardinal Prevost as per the censure in No. 76 of the same Law, decreed by Pope John Paul II; this is further confirmed by the fact that n. 68 regards the very act of the election over which the Cardinals have no authority to use the rights granted them by No. 5 of the same Law, as the same expressly states.

Therefore, since Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who is the Head of the Church and Divine Lawgiver, declared to St. Peter and his successors, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc.,” it appears theologically and legally impossible that the Conclave had any valid legal result and, thus, that Cardinal Prevost has any valid claim to the office of Roman Pontiff, let alone that he could ever receive the grace of such munus from the hands of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, since Cardinal Prevost prior to the opening of the Conclave was known to have publicly spoken contrary to at least 5 truths whose obligation to be believed has always been upheld by the Church, it appears that, even if otherwise regular, his election is rendered null, inanis and irritus by the censure contained in no. 6 of the Bull of Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, dated Feb. 15, 1559, and confirmed by Pope Pius V in his Motu Proprio, “Inter multiplices curas,” dated Jan. 12, 1567, in this particular censure never abrogated, obrogated, subrogated or derogated: namely, that the election of anyone as Roman Pontiff who has prior to his election been found to have fallen into any heresy or spoken contrary to the Catholic Faith, is declared null, void and irritus, regardless of how many Cardinals or Bishops or heads of state should recognize it as valid.

These 5 truths of the Catholic Faith that Cardinal Prevost denied are as follows: that the State has the authority from God to lawfully and legitimately impose capital punishment on criminals; that the observance of the Second and Sixth Commandments of the Decalogue are foundations of sacramental discipline; that the Apostles had the authority to forever bind the Church to adhere to the same discipline to exclude public sinners from the blessings and reception of the Sacraments of the living, that by his ordination a Catholic priest is bound exclusively to act as a minister of Jesus Christ and to bless things and people only in the Name of the one true and living God, as God’s ambassadors on Earth; not to mention that the Catholic Church is obliged to believe the same things, in the same sense, in every age, place and diocese. These are all issues that Cardinal Prevost has publicly denied, in his public denials of the admissibility of capital punishment in all circumstances and in his public acceptance and adhesion to the heretical documents ‘Fiducia supplicans’ and ‘Amoris laeticia’ (already denounced as such by Cardinals Mueller and Sarah), proposing during the Synod of October 2024, that each diocese be allowed to act differently according to times, places and cultures.

Therefore, I am writing to you, as members of the clergy of the Roman Church, that is, of the Dioceses of Rome and its suburbicarian sees, to express to your ecclesiastical superiors the concern of the faithful due to the reckless action of the Cardinals, which has placed the Church in a serious juridical crisis, by reason of their claim to give to the same Church, as Pope, a man who, because of the irregularities of his election and dissent from these truths of the Catholic Faith, has no claim to the Papal Office.

As a remedy, there seems to be no other honest course of action but the abdication of Cardinal Prevost and his renunciation of the claim to the Papal Office, as well as the return of the Cardinals to Conclave followed, in compliance with papal law, by the election of another person, bearing in mind the censure of Pope Paul IV. Otherwise, given the mere ministerial competence of the Cardinals, in the absence of a privilege, ex canon 349, the right to elect the Roman Pontiff would revert to the original institutional electorate, as the entire body of the faithful of the Church in Rome and its suburbicarian dioceses according to the norm of Apostolic Law and natural law (cf. as confirmed by Pope Niccolo II, In Nomine Domini, no. 3, April 13, 1059). Indeed, should the Cardinals refuse to recognize the invalidity of their actions of May 7 and 8, 2025, such obstinacy in error would totally vitiate, in the present instance, their competence to elect the Roman Pontiff.

As for the rule of 120 Cardinal electors, the latter can easily comply with it if 13 of them voluntarily abstain from voting in each ballot session, renouncing their right or agreeing to be chosen by lot before each aforementioned ballot, leaving the Sistine Chapel. Such a solution would not violate pontifical law and would also be in accord with the ancient legal principle, cited by Gratian, that privileges must yield to general norms (cf. Generale praescriptum beneficio speciali anteferendum est (Theodosian Codex: DEM AAA. VICTORIO P(RO)C(ONSULI) ASIAE).

As far as all Catholic Clergy are concerned, I believe that the above argument raises sufficient legal doubts about the validity of the election of Cardinal Prevost; consequently, any Archbishop, Bishop or Priest has sufficient grounds to resort to the right, granted ex canon 41, to momentarily omit the name of “Leo” in the Canon of the Mass, lest by doing otherwise, one consent to an act of malfeasance on the part of the College of Cardinals.

As a postscript, I am writing this letter only out of love for Jesus Christ and the Roman Church, His Immaculate Bride, which has never recognized an irregular election of the Roman Pontiff as valid, believing as She does, that, as far as the selection of the candidate for the office of the Successor of St. Peter is concerned, the rules and laws established by the Vicar of Christ are observed by Christ Jesus Himself in Heaven; therefore they must be observed with the utmost scrupulousness by His Bride on Earth.