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: