Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 12:34:10 PM

Title: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 12:34:10 PM
On the Solemnity of Christ the King, the Faithful of the Church at Rome, in order to exercise the right granted to them by  (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/24/the-apostolic-election-has-been-held/)Pope Nicholas II (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/12/1058-the-year-saint-hildebrand-saved-the-catholic-church-forever/), in his Bull, In Nomine Domini (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/31/pope-nicholas-iis-bull-in-nomine-domini-papal-version/), convened in an apostolic assembly (https://www.fromrome.info/2019/01/19/whether-with-all-cardinal-electors-defecting-the-roman-church-has-the-right-to-elect-the-pope/) to elect the true and legitimate successor of Saint Peter,

Further details about the results  of this assembly this will be published at SedesApostolica.info, once that site goes on line.

For all of the reasons above, if there are any who would like to contribute to the expenses of the new Holy Father, considering donating through the PayPal buttons below, to the Charitable Dedicated “Help the Catholic Pope” fund, maintained by “Save Old St. Mary’s Inc.”, the U.S. 501(c)(3) registered private charitable foundation, which will transfer all funds received to the new Catholic pope.

https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/24/the-apostolic-election-has-been-held/ (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/24/the-apostolic-election-has-been-held/)

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbmY4Nzk1ZXMzOGJ3ZDRybnF3ZzFzbjBheGlraDNudWQwc3hxbWQ3bSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/y29KUWjvwKEk2R7OdJ/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 01:36:18 PM
No, you're jumping the gun here.  It just said they held an assembly to elect a pope.  Says the results will be published later at some website.  Could be that the decided not to elect anyone at this time.

If you recall, last time, the simply ended up re-electing Bergoglio ... I guess because he had been invalid due to the non-resignation of Ratzinger, so they effectively believed that they "sanated" his election with this effort.

I will be curious to see who they elected.  If +Vigano, then I think they might find more supporters than you think.

As for whether they're full SV (after Pius XII) or just since the death of Ratzinger ... in either case, the See is vacant.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 01:41:28 PM
No, you're jumping the gun here.  It just said they held an assembly to elect a pope.  Says the results will be published later at some website.  Could be that the decided not to elect anyone at this time.
(https://i.imgur.com/FKZtWmX.png)

Sounds like they picked one to me...
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 01:42:28 PM
If you recall, last time, the simply ended up re-electing Bergoglio ... I guess because he had been invalid due to the non-resignation of Ratzinger, so they effectively believed that they "sanated" his election with this effort.
Yeah, for the "good of the Church." ::)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 01:51:50 PM
I will be curious to see who they elected.  If +Vigano, then I think they might find more supporters than you think.
Well, just like a few weeks ago Bugnolo said he couldn't even get 2 other Romans together in the same room to vote, so I don't know if I would hold my breath on +Vigano.

All shall be revealed in due time, I predict...

(https://i.imgur.com/K34SZAu.png)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: JeanBaptistedeCouetus on November 25, 2025, 02:31:56 PM
So they elected a real AntiPope, since we have a Pope already.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 02:32:39 PM
Well, just like a few weeks ago Bugnolo said he couldn't even get 2 other Romans together in the same room to vote, so I don't know if I would hold my breath on +Vigano.

All shall be revealed in due time, I predict...

(https://i.imgur.com/K34SZAu.png)

Well, if they elected SOMEBODY, then it could have been +Vigano.  Of course, one small problem is that the electee would have to accept.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Simeon on November 25, 2025, 02:34:29 PM
On the Solemnity of Christ the King, the Faithful of the Church at Rome, in order to exercise the right granted to them by  (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/24/the-apostolic-election-has-been-held/)Pope Nicholas II (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/12/1058-the-year-saint-hildebrand-saved-the-catholic-church-forever/), in his Bull, In Nomine Domini (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/31/pope-nicholas-iis-bull-in-nomine-domini-papal-version/), convened in an apostolic assembly (https://www.fromrome.info/2019/01/19/whether-with-all-cardinal-electors-defecting-the-roman-church-has-the-right-to-elect-the-pope/) to elect the true and legitimate successor of Saint Peter,

Further details about the results  of this assembly this will be published at SedesApostolica.info, once that site goes on line.

For all of the reasons above, if there are any who would like to contribute to the expenses of the new Holy Father, considering donating through the PayPal buttons below, to the Charitable Dedicated “Help the Catholic Pope” fund, maintained by “Save Old St. Mary’s Inc.”, the U.S. 501(c)(3) registered private charitable foundation, which will transfer all funds received to the new Catholic pope.

https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/24/the-apostolic-election-has-been-held/ (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/24/the-apostolic-election-has-been-held/)

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbmY4Nzk1ZXMzOGJ3ZDRybnF3ZzFzbjBheGlraDNudWQwc3hxbWQ3bSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/y29KUWjvwKEk2R7OdJ/giphy.gif)

I'm glad somebody posted this news! :clown::laugh2::laugh2::clown: 

Can't wait for the unveiling!
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 02:37:58 PM
So, while I can see maybe one or two show up and vote, I'd have a hard time seeing who would accept the election.

Unlike with the Pope Michael scenario, he does at least base it in principle on the right of the clergy of Rome to elect a Pope when other means are absent.  We did see quite a few Italian priests going sedevacantist during the Bergoglio era, so perhaps if enough Roman clergy got together, something like that could gain some traction.

But the bigger problem is that you'd have to exclude even the Traditional Catholics who don't believe the See to be vacant, or the sedeprivationists who believe that it's occupied materially ... and thus you'd never achieve any kind of Universal Acceptance.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 02:45:41 PM
Well, if they elected SOMEBODY, then it could have been +Vigano. 
Yes, it would be interesting for sure...
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 02:47:43 PM
Unlike with the Pope Michael scenario, he does at least base it in principle on the right of the clergy of Rome to elect a Pope when other means are absent.  
What do you think of the merits of his argument using the Bull In Nomini Domini (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/31/pope-nicholas-iis-bull-in-nomine-domini-papal-version/) ?
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 02:49:15 PM
So they elected a real AntiPope, since we have a Pope already.
Well, that is a matter of perspective.

From their viewpoint, "Leo" was not canonically elected - therefore Bobby Prevost is the actual Antipope.

Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: JeanBaptistedeCouetus on November 25, 2025, 02:51:51 PM
What do you think of the merits of his argument using the Bull In Nomini Domini (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/31/pope-nicholas-iis-bull-in-nomine-domini-papal-version/) ?
Any election claimed today on this basis is almost certainly invalid by traditional Catholic doctrine, not because the text is false, but because the canonical and hierarchical context has changed and was never designed for such extraordinary modern use.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 02:58:36 PM

Any election claimed today on this basis is almost certainly invalid by traditional Catholic doctrine, not because the text is false, but because the canonical and hierarchical context has changed and was never designed for such extraordinary modern use.
Please elaborate,

What "canonical and hiearchical contextual changes" do you refer to?

"Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, let the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where they might judge it to be more fitting. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, let the elect obtain as Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration."

How does this not apply to our time or any other past or future?


I would be careful not to be too sure about the applicability or non-applicability of the text,

"if anyone shows himself to be a violator of this sentence of Our Holy Decree, and has tried to confound the Roman Church by his presumption, and to raise disturbance against this Statute, let him be damned by perpetual anathema and excommunication, and let him be reputed among “the impious“, who “shall not rise again in judgement” (Psalm 1:5), let him know the wrath of the Omnipotent One against him, and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, whose Church he has presumed to fool, let him know a ravaging madness in this life and in the future; “Let his dwelling become deserted, and let there be no one who dwells in his tents” (cf. Psalm 69:26): “Let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow” (Psalm 108:9), “Let him be shaken completely” (cf. Psalm 108:10) to madness, and “may his sons go about begging, and be cast out of their dwellings” (Psalm 108:10). “May the money-lender ravage all his substance, and may the foreigner lay waste all his labors” (Psalm 108:11); “Let the whole world fight against” (cf. Wisdom 5:21) him, and let all the other elements be against him, and may the merits of all the Saints, at rest, confound him and in this life may they show open vengeance upon him."

(as far as ecclesiastical curses go, this one is in my top 10 favs)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: JeanBaptistedeCouetus on November 25, 2025, 03:01:14 PM
Well, that is a matter of perspective.

From their viewpoint, "Leo" was not canonically elected - therefore Bobby Prevost is the actual Antipope.
Yes we are aware of what the Sedevacantist sect believes, in this case, selective sedevacantists.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on November 25, 2025, 03:04:43 PM
Yes we are aware of what the Sedevacantist sect believes, in this case, selective sedevacantists.
Please tell us how the sedes "reject Christ". 
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 03:10:36 PM
Yes, it would be interesting for sure...

But ... given the fact that they appear to be setting up a Curia, this would imply that the "elected" (sic) has accepted the election, and I'd be shocked if +Vigano would.

We actually had a Byzantine/Ukrainian Greek Catholic group elect +Vigano once ... though there's no word that he responded in any way to that.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 03:20:14 PM
Quote
Clergy and Religious and other talented professionals who would like to assist in this work of restoring the Church can leave a comment below with their contact information, beginning with the message: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. Include your full contact information and a link to your resume on LinkedIn.

I might apply for a position there ....

Perhaps the Holy See requires an ambassador to Hungary, for instance ... and I'd be teach Greek/Latin/Philosophy at the new Pontifical University.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 03:23:14 PM
What do you think of the merits of his argument using the Bull In Nomini Domini (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/31/pope-nicholas-iis-bull-in-nomine-domini-papal-version/) ?

Well, this makes it sound like they conducted their election outside of Rome, since that's really all that this Bull states.

I think that initially they had a hard time finding a credible number of "Roman clergy", and one might read the Bull as expanding the pool of electors.  I don't see this particular Bull as having any other application to his operations there.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 03:26:07 PM
Any election claimed today on this basis is almost certainly invalid by traditional Catholic doctrine, not because the text is false, but because the canonical and hierarchical context has changed and was never designed for such extraordinary modern use.

No, this Bull could easily apply to a modern situation where there was a need to elect a Pope but something was going on in Rome that prevented a Conclave from conducting an election there.  Question is whether by itself this Bull would legitimize what Br. B ended up doing (which we don't now what it was yet ... who were the electors, etc.)  Of course, depending on how they believe they met the criteria required to conduct a papal election, it could be that there are already several claimants who met the same criteria already and therefore are ahead of them in line to be the new pope.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 25, 2025, 03:29:16 PM
https://sedesapostolica.info/
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Simeon on November 25, 2025, 03:36:57 PM
https://sedesapostolica.info/

He's really making us croak for it! LOL!!!!!

Madman, but still a paisano!

May God accept insanity pleas!
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on November 25, 2025, 06:35:26 PM
Maybe they simply elected (will elect?) Prevost, just as they elected Bergoglio last time around.  As another poster puts it, basically "sanating" the election by the conclave.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimonJude on November 25, 2025, 07:37:23 PM
Didn't Fr. Hewko come out as  Bennyvacantist at one point?
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Chevalier on November 25, 2025, 07:50:24 PM
Didn't Fr. Hewko come out as  Bennyvacantist at one point?
Lol. He rebukes any form of Sedevacantism at least once a month.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimonJude on November 25, 2025, 08:00:06 PM
Lol. He rebukes any form of Sedevacantism at least once a month.
Doesn't answer my question...
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Chevalier on November 25, 2025, 08:04:14 PM
Doesn't answer my question...
Do the research yourself lazy bones, the answer is pretty obvious though,  he has a sermon almost every single day for the past 10 years on  his youtube channel, and he is all over the internet with writings etc. he is not exactly quiet.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimonJude on November 25, 2025, 08:13:32 PM
Do the research yourself lazy bones, the answer is pretty obvious though,  he has a sermon almost every single day for the past 10 years on  his youtube channel, and he is all over the internet with writings etc. he is not exactly quiet.

I asked a simple question:
"Didn't Fr. Hewko come out as  Bennyvacantist at one point?"

If you don't know the answer, then shut up, because I distinctly recall reading he had come out as benevecantist at one point. 
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimonJude on November 25, 2025, 08:19:30 PM
Slow your roll, and know your role woman.
:laugh1::laugh2::jester::fryingpan::facepalm::popcorn:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: MWCnABQ on November 26, 2025, 05:24:24 AM
Ladislaus for Pope ! 😃
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 26, 2025, 07:36:12 AM
Ladislaus for Pope ! 😃

Thanks.  I accept ... just so I could take a day or two to excommunicate a few people by name, then spend a few weeks condemning a bunch of errors, including those held by many Trads, and then I would resign and go to a monastery.  Of course, the excommunications would be unprecedented, where they would take the form of "... that poster on CathInfo using the screen name [fill in the blank], let him be anathema."
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Simeon on November 26, 2025, 03:27:31 PM
Vlad Sarto (let him who reads understand) asked Bug a question on his own website and the exchange is worthy of being placed on the record here.

VLAD SARTO: Dear Brother, So, I understand the import of the Bull to be that it empowers the election of a Pope by electors outside the city of Rome itself. Do you take that to mean alternate electors, or just the usual electors in a different place, due to circuмstances in the city? If alternate electors and outside the city, what would make this election different from the others that have produced other papal claimants before this current one?

BRO BUG: Thank you for asking your questions, the answer to which will shed light on the teaching of Pope Nicholas II.

First, what is important is what the Bull says, not what private interpretation wants it to say. Thus, we must look closely at the original text. You use the word, “alternate” in regard to electorate, I do not use this word, because alternate implies “the other of two”, from the Latin meaning of the adjective, “alter”, and what we have here is a discussion of the same electorate defined or restricted by a positive law, and the same electorate not defined or restricted by positive law.

Much of your question is answered in this article
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/11/12/1058-the-year-saint-hildebrand-saved-the-catholic-church-forever/

But your specific question, from a textual point of view is found in the original Latin of the Bull, where in n. 1, Nicholas II, restricting the electorate writes, “cardinales episcopi… clericos cardinales … reliquus clerus et populus “, but in n. 3 he writes “cardinales episcopi cuм religosis clericis catholicisque laicis”.

From this difference, whereby he excludes mention of all the other grades of the Cardinalate, among the second group — grades which had existed, as far as the historical record tells, since the time of Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century:

https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/conclaves/brief-history-of-the-cardinalate/

And whereby he adds religious clergy — that is all the clergy who live rightly — and specifies the laity in a more restricted sense as “Catholic laity”, indicating their membership in the Church of Rome by Faith and communion, he is clearly abolishing the norm he himself established in n. 1 of the same Bull.

As for the adjectives, “religious” and “Catholic”, philosophically we can reduce them to the category of “honest” or “upright”. In this sense, they are not juridical since juridically we cannot determined categories of honest and upright, religious or Catholic, except by specific examination, and the Church has never subjected individuals prior to an election to such a process of qualification, though it be true that you only have the right to participate in an election if you are in communion with the Church and not under the sentence of excommunication or exclusion from active and passive voice in elections. — For this reason, knowing what we know now about the Gregorian Reform these terms, “religious” and “Catholic” are inserted here to emphasize that if there is to be an election to correct an invalid election that it must be motivated for honest purposes and not involve violations of other canons nor things like simony. And that makes sense, because if one heard of a second election, which took place in a brothel, who would consider it valid?

To summarize what I have said so far, Pope Nicholas II, in restricting the right of the election to Cardinal Bishops, while conceding that the electorate included other grades of Cardinals and all the faithful of Rome, even the laity, says in cases of an illegal or invalid election that not only can there be a legitimate election outside of the city, but that the electorate participating is not restricted, though it should be honest, and that it can include even as small as a few (pauci) which in Latin means 3 ore more — if we are to hold to a more certain reading of the Latin term, rather than merely 2 or three, as the word generally means today.

But the Bull is momentous in the history of the election of the Pope, because it is the first Papal law which restricts the electorate as a principle, though a Synod at Rome in the 6th century is said to have urged the clergy to take the lead in the nomination of a candidate.

So it is clear textually that Pope Nicholas II is saying in emergency cases that the restriction of the electorate is abolished.

But Pope John Paul II and Pius XII both abolished all previous papal legislation and custom

Pius XII did this in his Vacntis Apostolicae Sedis, n. 108

https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19451208_vacantis-apostolicae-sedis.html

Where he writes,

“Non obstantibus, quatenus opus sit, per Romanos Pontifices Praedecessores Nostros editis Constitutionibus et Ordinationibus Apostolicis, quas omnes et singulas abrogatas, ut supra, declaramus, ceterisque etiam individua ac specialissima mentione et derogatione dignis, contrariis quibuslibet. ”

And John Paul II did this in Universi Dominici Gregis, where he writes in the final Promulgatio:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html

“Ea quidem ab omnibus religiose servetur, contrariis quibusvis nihil obstantibus, etiam specialissima mentione dignis.”

That all previous Papal, Conciliar, and Synodal laws about Papal elections are abolished.

But both Pius XII and John Paul II restrict the electorate to the Cardinals.

Thus, the magisterial teaching in n. 3 of the Bull of Nicholas II, which says that the larger electorate obtains the right of power (ius potestatis), that is the ability to elect, includes not only in another place but also with all restrictions on the electorate abolished, and by saying “even few”, teaches that this right of the Church of Rome to elect her own bishop, is present in even a few of the wider electorate. What is this wider electorate? It is the Church before any positive law restricted it. And from the history of the Church we know that that is all the Faithful.

(Side note: the Church at Rome included from ancient times all the territory withing 100 Roman Miles, which zone was calls the suburbican territory. In the first century this included all of the Province of Rome plus some, but as the years passed and other dioceses were founded, that territory was reduced. Still, even today, there are the 7 suburbican dioceses, each which has its own bishop, who once was a Cardinal ex officio, and now is not so. And this is why the Church at Rome can have Bishops, during a sede vacante of the Roman Pontiff. Though admittedly, already in the age of Nicholas II Cardinal Bishops were being named for specific Churches at Rome, as is done today, with titular sees, to guarantee juridically that they are members of the Church at Rome and capable of being elector. If being a Cardinal of itself made you an elector, then that would not be necessary. What is necessary for clergy is that they be incardinated in the territory of the Church at Rome, including her suburbican regions. In this way, even the present tradition of Cardinal Electors testifies to the original extension of the electorate.)

I have already demonstrated this in my disputed question here

https://www.fromrome.info/2019/01/19/whether-with-all-cardinal-electors-defecting-the-roman-church-has-the-right-to-elect-the-pope/

Where I show, if the Church at Rome is to remain until the end of time as the same juridical entity which Christ Founded with Saint Peter, it must have the right in extraordinary cases to elect validly his successor, even if there be but a few Faithful left, otherwise the enemies of Christ could extinguish the Church by simply eradicating all the Cardinals, that is, the restricted electorate.

This is theological explanation of the teaching of Nicholas II.

The contrary position leads to an absurdity, for if all the Cardinals were to participate in an illegally held election by mutual pact and conspiracy, the legitimacy of the Papacy would come to an end and the Apostolic Succession, in the juridical sense, which that papacy guarantees, would fail.

Thus there must be some mechanism by which even if the entire restricted electorate ceases to exist or conspires against the laws of Christ’s Vicar, that the Church at Rome can repair for the lack of a valid election.

And in my scholastic question I cite the Code of Justinian for the juridical principle of the Natural Law which explains the relationship among positive laws which restrict an electorate to fontal laws which grant a general or non restricted right.

And thus we return to the same argument, as mentioned in my article on the year 1058 A. D.. which I cite at the beginning of this reply.

INDEED IT IS COMMON SENSE, that if an electorate which has a right for all its members, is restricted, there arises immediately the necessity of an emergency measure to guarantee a valid election, since, when the electorate is not so restricted, a valid election can simply be had by that part of the electorate which did not participate in the illegal act. — For this reason, the fact that Pius XII and John Paul II restricted the electorate to Cardinals, causes the necessity of recourse to an emergency principle in extraordinary cases. This is even more COGENT in the case of electing illegally or invalidly a Pope, since by such an election all those Electors who participate adhere to this man, who is not the pope in Christ’s eyes, as if he is the pope, and therefore become SCHISMATICS in the most formal way possible, since that act separates them from communion with Christ’s true Vicar. And since Schismatics lose all right to vote in all ecclesiastical elections, they cannot repair the act, only those not involved in that criminal act can legitimately act. Thus, if all the Cardinals sin in such a crime, then there are juridically speaking, no more Cardinal electors who can vote. And this sin of schism is what Pope Nicholas II says occurs in n. 4 of his Bull, for the antipope and all his supporters. Thus, if one should argue that Nicholas II in writing, “the Cardinal Bishops, with the religious clery and the catholic laity, though few” requires any specific class, such as at least one Bishop, or one cleric, even when all Bishops and cleric publicly adhere to the antipope or refuse to vote, then such an argument would run counter to the whole purpose of the emergency rule; by means of an arbitrary imposition of another restrition: a reading which the order of the Latin words confutes, since the “licet pauci” is placed after “catholic laity” not before “cardinal bishops — a thing, which is otherwise grammatically possible if you want to emphasize that the election requires at least a few Cardinal Bishops. For the record, the election of Pope Nicholas II was done by two cardinal Bishops one Cardinal Deacon, and we know not whether or if there were religious clergy or catholic laity. But we do know there were two other Cardinal Bishops who refused the election of Benedict X but who did not go to Siena and elect Nicholas II. So we can presume there were many other cardinal clergy of lesser orders not present. But we do know that at least 3 persons were present to vote for Nicholas II, and this is what “licet pauci” requires, but NOT a few Cardinal Bishops, since there was only two, NOR a few catholic clergy (if this category does not include Cardinals), NOR a few catholic laity.

However, your Questions presuppose another problem, which is that today, we live in such a corrupt society, that Catholics do not consider as important the juridical validity of an institution. Indeed, we see this in the post-conciliar era, where even Sedevacantists normally only consider the sacramental continuity of the Church, not the juridical continuity. However, if the Church is to continue forever She must have immunity from failing sacramentally and from failing juridically. She must have both continuities. This is what Saint Hildebrand was so sensitive to in the year 1058, even though the antipope Benedict X was validly consecrated a Bishop, validly nominated a Cardinal, and professed the whole and entire Catholic Faith. Indeed, Nicholas II in his bull calls the action of illegally electing a pope a sign of “simonaical heresy”, that is a denial of the Catholic Faith regarding treating the election of the Papacy: a heresy which regards it as a merely temporal right which could be bought and sold. Most Catholics do not think of ecclesial elections with this high regard for juridical correctness, however, precisely because we live in an age of such corruption in the Church, that unless you look to the Saints of Old, you have not the light to see it. And certainly crooks involved in crime and their allies will never admit it. That is why Catholics must imitate the Saints and cite their example to contradict the crooks of our age.

The Church of Vatican II has claimed juridical continuity and sacramental continuity. But the Bishops in union with Leo XIV can no longer claim juridical continuity. Now Catholics have the right to chose between two entities: one with juridical continuity and one without it. Each has its own pope. The choice is yours to make, as I explained to Italians in this page:

https://www.chiesaromana.info/2025/05/23/appello-a-tutti-i-cattolici-della-chiesa-romana/

And, fine, I will leave out this crumb, to spark further interest: that the new Pope told me that he will restore the Sacraments to their pre Vatican II forms, since he regards the aggiornamento to run counter to the will of the Holy Spirit and in contravention to the anathemas of the Second Council of Nicea and Trent.


VLAD SARTO: Thank you for the thorough response. That is in fact why I asked the question, though perhaps poorly worded regarding an “alternate” electorate. I believe I read the Bull as you had explained, where the electors needed not be limited to Cardinals, so what I meant by “alternate” was “as an alternative to the usual electorate consisting only of Cardinals”. Thank you again.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: AnthonyPadua on November 26, 2025, 04:50:12 PM
sting only of Cardinals”. Thank you again.
Yeah I don't fully understand what this means regarding the changed made by Piis 12 and JP2. 


So they've already elected a new Pope? How exciting. :popcorn:, i wonder how the sspx will react as they love their faculties they got from Francis.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ridgefield on November 26, 2025, 05:59:31 PM
Has Br. Bugnolo been selected? Is it Prévost? Vigano? Mel Gibson?
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: MiracleOfTheSun on November 26, 2025, 08:53:17 PM
Mel Gibson!  Now that would be something.  Nice touch.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimonJude on November 28, 2025, 07:40:01 AM
Thanks.  I accept ... just so I could take a day or two to excommunicate a few people by name, then spend a few weeks condemning a bunch of errors, including those held by many Trads, and then I would resign and go to a monastery.  Of course, the excommunications would be unprecedented, where they would take the form of "... that poster on CathInfo using the screen name [fill in the blank], let him be anathema."
Why anyone would want to be pope is beyond me.  I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on November 28, 2025, 08:20:59 AM
Why anyone would want to be pope is beyond me.  I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Just tongue-in-cheek to excommunicate a few CathInfo posters, like this Gubbins guy, and Michael Matt, Taylor Marshall, Salza, Siscoe, and some others.  After which, I would resign and retire.  Oh, might be good to excommunicate Croix too ... just for fun.

:laugh1:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on November 28, 2025, 03:46:55 PM
Oh, might be good to excommunicate Croix too ... just for fun.

.

Oh, no! If I were pope, I would make him the head of my Inquisition! :trollface:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimonJude on November 28, 2025, 10:46:18 PM
Just tongue-in-cheek to excommunicate a few CathInfo posters, like this Gubbins guy, and Michael Matt, Taylor Marshall, Salza, Siscoe, and some others.  After which, I would resign and retire.  Oh, might be good to excommunicate Croix too ... just for fun.

:laugh1:
I wouldn't even think about being pope tongue-in-cheek.

But, if I ran the zoo, things would be different!
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on December 09, 2025, 07:29:45 PM
His name is "Hildebrand"

https://sedesapostolica.info/secretaria-apostolica/ (https://sedesapostolica.info/secretaria-apostolica/)

Get ready for the big reveal soon...

(https://i.imgur.com/pbexHx4.png)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 09, 2025, 07:55:01 PM
Well, at least we now know that they didn't "sanate" the election of Leo as they did with Francis.

Don't suppose it could be Viganò, eh?

Stay tuned.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on December 10, 2025, 04:45:19 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/A6k4eVF.png)


Notices to inform about future events
In the early evening of the Nativity of the Savior at 18:00 (UTC +1) the first letters to the Urbi et Orbi of the elected Roman Pontiff will be published in light to present the reasons for the motivations and the agenda of his new pontificate. — There will be a public announcement event on this same occasion via the media ( Zoom / YouTube ) to explain the letter and its place in this moment in the history of the Church.

Publishers and speakers of the notices who wish to raise questions as participants must make a request to the Secretariat of State with an electronic letter in accordance with the rules of this chamber. Those who have been approved will receive the text of the letter 6 hours in advance

On 11 December in the late evening of the following morning at 18:00 (UTC +1), there will be a public announcement event via the media ( Zoom / YouTube ) to shed light on the nature and circuмstances of the requested election.

Publishers and publishers of information who wish to raise issues as participants must submit a request to the Secretariat of State by email in accordance with the rules of this chamber.

PLEASE NOTE: All public notification events via electronic media (e. g. YouTube) will be published for all to see on our page, here, “Video”.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8OubKonRFMPJD8vwxZMZA (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8OubKonRFMPJD8vwxZMZA)

Notice: There are currently only 39 subscribers to the "Pope's" YouTube channel, so hit like and subscribe, if you would like to subscribe!

Also:

(https://i.imgur.com/uzCB7dF.png)

AND

(https://i.imgur.com/IBq0wqw.png)
AND

(https://i.imgur.com/LHEsnUx.png)

AND



For those who really, really, want to help the "Catholic Pope" even way, way more...

Stay tuned...
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: ArmandLouis on December 10, 2025, 06:08:23 PM
This is intrinsically illegitimate.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: MiracleOfTheSun on December 10, 2025, 10:31:52 PM
Can I just deed them the house and give the pope a place to hang his shingle?  :fryingpan: 
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 01:02:03 AM
This is intrinsically illegitimate.

Yeah, yeah ... sure, just because you say so.  You need not actually present any reasons or arguments, but just bloviate by using the word "intrinsically" as in that it's "self-evident".
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 01:03:45 AM
Well, at least we now know that they didn't "sanate" the election of Leo as they did with Francis.

Don't suppose it could be Viganò, eh?

Stay tuned.

I'd be shocked if it were +Vigano, since I doubt the latter would accept, and acceptance of the election would be required even for Brother Bugnolo.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 01:05:54 AM
Of course, other questions that would arise are ...

is the "elected" even a cleric or priest and is he a "bishop"?

If not a "bishop" then who has provided or will provide episcopal consecration?  Would it be valid?

Until he's a bishop, he can't teach or pretend to be the bishop of Rome.

So ... the soap opera continues.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 01:08:15 AM
BTW, they need to find a new secretary to cobble together some decent Latin ... or at least minus the errors.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 01:13:44 AM
Rather strange choice of names also ... Hildebrand.

Hildebrand was the family name, surname, of Pope Gregory VII.

That's the equivalent of if I would take the name "Pope Sarto" ... unusual and strange.

I think that more and more of us are expecting only Peter II and the final consummation of the world at this point.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: ArmandLouis on December 11, 2025, 03:09:34 AM
Rather strange choice of names also ... Hildebrand.

Hildebrand was the family name, surname, of Pope Gregory VII.

That's the equivalent of if I would take the name "Pope Sarto" ... unusual and strange.

I think that more and more of us are expecting only Peter II and the final consummation of the world at this point.
You can rename your living room ‘The Vatican’ and stage a pontificate in your garage, but canon law still sees nothing but schism.



Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: ArmandLouis on December 11, 2025, 12:57:52 PM
Yeah, yeah ... sure, just because you say so.  You need not actually present any reasons or arguments, but just bloviate by using the word "intrinsically" as in that it's "self-evident".
Affirm or deny:

Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on December 11, 2025, 01:07:31 PM
False.

(https://i.imgur.com/gbt1Ayd.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Yz4O4fW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/isTziwl.png)

Now give us your opinion on:

(https://i.imgur.com/O6TYpqB.png)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: ArmandLouis on December 11, 2025, 01:35:22 PM
False.

(https://i.imgur.com/gbt1Ayd.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Yz4O4fW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/isTziwl.png)

Now give us your opinion on:

(https://i.imgur.com/O6TYpqB.png)

“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!“

In Session XVI of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680–681), Honorius I was formally labeled a “heretic”, alongside other Monothelite leaders, yet he remained pope until his death. The council’s acclamation reads verbatim:

“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul, the heretic, anathema!
To Peter, the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen, the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius, the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga, the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema!
To all who side with heretics, anathema!”

— Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV: The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, Session XVI

The council language itself used the word “heretic” in association with his name.

The dogmatic decree itself (as recorded in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637) also states:

“…Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae… haeretico anathema…”

English: “…Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome… anathema to the heretic…”

The Council repeatedly identified Honorius as a heretic, both in the acclamations of the bishops and in the formal dogmatic decree.


Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 11, 2025, 01:40:32 PM
Rather strange choice of names also ... Hildebrand.

Hildebrand was the family name, surname, of Pope Gregory VII.

Indeed.  While it is the secular surname of a pope-saint (Gregory VII), if you're seeking to honor him, why not just take the papal name Gregory?

I fail to understand what all the coyness is about, first teasing that a pope has been elected but not saying who he is, then releasing his chosen papal name but not disclosing his identity.  It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on December 11, 2025, 01:43:25 PM
It is actually really sad...

You NEED the Popes of the pass to be heretics so you can cling to the heretical non-popes now.

You attack the Papacy with the same arguments that Protestants used against the Papacy.

I will stick with Pope Leo II, St. Robert Bellarmine, and all faithful Catholics on this.

Now, why won't you address my question to you about the "CatholicTrumpet" Thoughts?  
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: ArmandLouis on December 11, 2025, 01:54:22 PM
It is actually really sad...

You NEED the Popes of the pass to be heretics so you can cling to the heretical non-popes now.

You attack the Papacy with the same arguments that Protestants used against the Papacy.

I will stick with Pope Leo II, St. Robert Bellarmine, and all faithful Catholics on this.

Now, why won't you address my question to you about the "CatholicTrumpet" Thoughts? 
Affirm or Deny. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/affirm-or-deny-heretic-yet-pope-until-death-(pope-honorius-i-case/msg1010146/?topicseen#msg1010146 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/affirm-or-deny-heretic-yet-pope-until-death-(pope-honorius-i-case/msg1010146/?topicseen#msg1010146)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 05:09:23 PM
You can rename your living room ‘The Vatican’ and stage a pontificate in your garage, but canon law still sees nothing but schism.

Not even close to the same thing.  They're actually basing it on something arguably very real.

He's not wrong that originally papal elelctions were conducted by the clergy of Rome, and Cardinals are in fact merely extensions of that, since every Cardinal receives a titular Church in Rome and is made a clergy of Rome.

So in the event of a total apostasy of Cardinals, or if they were all blown up by a nuke, or they're all illegitimate since we've had a long line of AntiPopes (that's not their argument of coure, but a lot of us believe that to be the case) ...

why couldn't the papal election in such a case revert back to the clergy of Rome?

I think one could actually make some case for this.  While it's rather shaky ... it's a FAR CRY from your absurd (and fallacious) nonense about my renaming my living room and holding an election in my garage ... so your analogy is just stupid.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 05:16:31 PM
Indeed.  While it is the secular surname of a pope-saint (Gregory VII), if you're seeking to honor him, why not just take the papal name Gregory?

I fail to understand what all the coyness is about, first teasing that a pope has been elected but not saying who he is, then releasing his chosen papal name but not disclosing his identity.  It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I can reserve judgment about he "coyness", or the slow release of information, pending the revelation of more facts.  I can see some reasons for drawing it out like this.  Since they hardly have any kind of logistics to conduct even the most rudimentary of operations, if you truly believe that the guy they elected is Pope, you would to have everything ready before the flood of obligations comes in, so set up and define how your'e going to operate, etc.  Even businesses take some time to plan out how their operations would work.  In the current Vatican, when a new Conciliar gets elected, the existing curia tend to remain in place to serve at least as a "transition team", but absent such continuity, I can see that it would take some time to get everything set up, even if it's very simple and rudimentary to start.  Not everyone can just go buy a cassock, continue living in his Mom's basement, and then have her make pancakes for you every morning before you begin your papal duties on the internet like "Pope" Michael did.

Perhaps also they need to get whoever it is consecrated a bishop or perhaps even ordained.  Whether or not this elected is a bishop is one of the things I'm most curious about.  If he's not a bishop, not sure how he can become the Bishop of Rome.

And, if you believe that your guy is legitimate, you might be concerned about the usurpers going after him and taking him out, so there may need to be some security apparatus put in place, or maybe he'll operate in quasi-hiding for some time and that location must be prepped.

So ... I have a "wait and see" about why they need to be so secretive and coy, as you put it.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 11, 2025, 05:22:27 PM
While we can poke some fun at Pope Bawden I, this initiative in Rome actually has some shades of legitimacy about it.  I just wonder who these "clergy of Rome" happen to be.  Are they true clergy of Rome or are they carpet-baggers of one form or another?  If the See of Rome had been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII, who would be legitimate "clergy of Rome" anyway?  Of course, Brother Bugnolo believe that Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were all valid, so he would have different criteria for answering that question, which, neverthless, many Traditional Catholics would disagree with.

Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 12, 2025, 09:24:06 AM
While we can poke some fun at Pope Bawden I, this initiative in Rome actually has some shades of legitimacy about it.  I just wonder who these "clergy of Rome" happen to be.  Are they true clergy of Rome or are they carpet-baggers of one form or another?  If the See of Rome had been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII, who would be legitimate "clergy of Rome" anyway?  Of course, Brother Bugnolo believe that Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were all valid, so he would have different criteria for answering that question, which, neverthless, many Traditional Catholics would disagree with.

Actually, if you ever listened to David Bawden talk, he was really quite reasonable and intelligent.  I'd have taken him as Pope any day of the week over the occupants of the past 60 years.

He wasn't some crazy man.  He simply proceeded as though he had been elected Pope, and did what he could from a Kansas farmhouse.  Peter's circuмstances were similarly humble.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on December 12, 2025, 10:13:22 AM
Not even close to the same thing.  They're actually basing it on something arguably very real.

He's not wrong that originally papal elelctions were conducted by the clergy of Rome, and Cardinals are in fact merely extensions of that, since every Cardinal receives a titular Church in Rome and is made a clergy of Rome.

So in the event of a total apostasy of Cardinals, or if they were all blown up by a nuke, or they're all illegitimate since we've had a long line of AntiPopes (that's not their argument of coure, but a lot of us believe that to be the case) ...

why couldn't the papal election in such a case revert back to the clergy of Rome?

I think one could actually make some case for this.  While it's rather shaky ... it's a FAR CRY from your absurd (and fallacious) nonense about my renaming my living room and holding an election in my garage ... so your analogy is just stupid.
.

Well, in theory this might be arguable, but this guy Bugnolo is just a well-known crank, so I wouldn't entertain the idea of this being valid anyway. A claim like this would have to come from someone who could be considered at least a sane human being before this conversation even gets to first base, in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2025, 10:22:50 AM
.

Well, in theory this might be arguable, but this guy Bugnolo is just a well-known crank, so I wouldn't entertain the idea of this being valid anyway. A claim like this would have to come from someone who could be considered at least a sane human being before this conversation even gets to first base, in my opinion.

Right ... that's all I'm saying is that, unlike me declaring my home the new Vatican because my family voted me in, "in theory this might be arguable".  That is not to say I believe it'll pan out, since there are just too many problems with it, and there may be more when the details come out.  Can there ever be Universal Acceptance?  MAYBE, but only if it's some extremely well-known figure, such as a +Vigano (which I highly doubt), or some other well-known Traditional bishop, or if the newly-"elected" worked miracles or performed some other signs that gave him at least some credibility ... but it would have to be combined with an apostasy from Prevost that's so egregious that even the R&R popesplainers could not longer avoid the conclusion that he's not hte Pope.  Overall, though, naturally speaking, entirely unlikely.  THEN ... who were the electors?  Yes, yes ... the clergy of Rome could elect a Pope given the near-total defection of Cardinals from the faith ... but who ACTUALLY voted and how do they qualify as Roman clergy.  Clergy who just happened to be IN Rome are not Roman clergy.  Who appointed them as Roman clergy ... especially for those who don't limit SV to Bergoglio and Prevost, who believe that the see has been Vacant since 1958/1962?  This just can't fly in practice, but at least it's based on SOME principles that are in and of themsleves not entirely un-credible.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2025, 10:24:43 AM
Overall it's a soap opera, but now that Prevost fatigue has set in, at least it has some entertainment value for otherwise-bored Traditional Catholics ...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTV87SAFlmi_Vmk_yMgVeqdoQq3Mkyfpb8Wig&s)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2025, 08:04:43 PM
I saw a video of a "press conference" that Brother Bugnolo put on yesterday ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEwS67aYbg

First thing I noticed is that the house he's in definitely looks to be of an American style, not Italian ... and he did later confirm that in the video.  So he's now in the US.

Says the election was held somewhere in central Italy, and he does provide an explanation for why they haven't released the name, and it's somewhat plausible.

1) they're waiting until they can find someone to consecrate the electee as a bishop (answering one question we've had)
2) the electee isn't very well off financially, so he can't afford security, and they're afraid that someone might try to take him out

So the big drama will be ... who's going to consecrate this man a bishop?  Will it be a valid bishop or will he take any Novus Ordo "bishop" he can find willing to do it?

Some listener asked if the man was even a priest, and he would not answer, saying that it would be to give too many hints about his identity (though I doubt that would narrow it down at all).

So, they claim Prevost was not legitimately elected due to having too many Cardinals (I would say too few, as in 0 actual Cardinals), but then he appears to contradict his own principles when he says that if there can't be election that meets the rule set down, you can have one that falls outside the normal rules.  But I'm thinking, then, that ... OK, but then why couldn't the current "Cardinals" pulled it off as well?

Just seems way too legalistic, with very little reference to the apostasy, the Crisis, etc.

Says that the Pope Hildebrand will issue his "Urbi et Orbi" letter on Christmas Eve, that Bugnolo will present during a Live Stream.  He says he'll invite various internet personalities onto the stream, and allow them to ask questions, etc.

But what if they can't find someone to consecrate this Hildebrand before then?

He did speak about taking a papal name where the electee didn't want to just use Gregory, but very specifically wanted to honor Pope Gregory VII (family name Hildebrand).

He did make an interesting note about the custom of popes taking on a papal name, that it started with a Pope who'se real name was "Mercurius", but he didn't want priests putting the name of a pagan God into the Mass and praying to "Mercurius", giving the possible impression that they're engaging in idolatry.  So this Mercurius adopted the name John, and the custom went on from there.

So, while he did not give the name of the electee ... it would have been nice had he provided the names of those who participated in the election and who ultimately elected this man pope.  Who these "electors" were is probably more important even than who the electee was.  Are they clergy of Rome in any real sense?
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: ArmandLouis on December 12, 2025, 08:10:39 PM
I saw a video of a "press conference" that Brother Bugnolo put on yesterday ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEwS67aYbg

First thing I noticed is that the house he's in definitely looks to be of an American style, not Italian ... and he did later confirm that in the video.  So he's now in the US.

Says the election was held somewhere in central Italy, and he does provide an explanation for why they haven't released the name, and it's somewhat plausible.

1) they're waiting until they can find someone to consecrate the electee as a bishop (answering one question we've had)
2) the electee isn't very well off financially, so he can't afford security, and they're afraid that someone might try to take him out

So the big drama will be ... who's going to consecrate this man a bishop?  Will it be a valid bishop or will he take any Novus Ordo "bishop" he can find willing to do it?

Some listener asked if the man was even a priest, and he would not answer, saying that it would be to give too many hints about his identity (though I doubt that would narrow it down at all).

So, they claim Prevost was not legitimately elected due to having too many Cardinals (I would say too few, as in 0 actual Cardinals), but then he appears to contradict his own principles when he says that if there can't be election that meets the rule set down, you can have one that falls outside the normal rules.  But I'm thinking, then, that ... OK, but then why couldn't the current "Cardinals" pulled it off as well?

Just seems way too legalistic, with very little reference to the apostasy, the Crisis, etc.

Says that the Pope Hildebrand will issue his "Urbi et Orbi" letter on Christmas Eve, that Bugnolo will present during a Live Stream.  He says he'll invite various internet personalities onto the stream, and allow them to ask questions, etc.

But what if they can't find someone to consecrate this Hildebrand before then?

He did speak about taking a papal name where the electee didn't want to just use Gregory, but very specifically wanted to honor Pope Gregory VII (family name Hildebrand).

He did make an interesting note about the custom of popes taking on a papal name, that it started with a Pope who'se real name was "Mercurius", but he didn't want priests putting the name of a pagan God into the Mass and praying to "Mercurius", giving the possible impression that they're engaging in idolatry.  So this Mercurius adopted the name John, and the custom went on from there.

So, while he did not give the name of the electee ... it would have been nice had he provided the names of those who participated in the election and who ultimately elected this man pope.  Who these "electors" were is probably more important even than who the electee was.  Are they clergy of Rome in any real sense?
Anti-Pope Hildebrand.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2025, 09:16:22 PM
Anti-Pope Hildebrand.

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: ... your position is duly noted, and you seem to be suffering from some kind of neurosis, where you feel the need to spam this junk in every time there's a new post on this thread.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on December 22, 2025, 09:50:38 AM
Updates...

https://sedesapostolica.info/faq/ (https://sedesapostolica.info/faq/)


Can anyone question the right of Hildebrand to be the true Pope?

"No one can legitimately question his right, since his election is legitimate by the teachings of Pope Nicholas and John Paul II, the latter in declaring the conclave of 2025 invalid, and the former declaring who has the right to elect the pope when the Cardinals adhere universally to such a crime."

What is the solemn duty of every Catholic now?

The solemn duty of every Catholic according to the Bull of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, is to submit to the legitimate Roman Pontiff, for without this submission it is impossible to be saved. Hence, every Catholic Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Religious  and layperson has the grave, solemn and immediate duty to inform himself regarding the invalidity of the Conclave and the legitimacy of the election of Hildebrand. The salvation of every individual requires and demands this. To fail in this would be a grave sin. The Bishops, especially, are required to do this and to proceed to the consecration of Hildebrand with due reverence and alacrity.

Does each Catholic have the right to adhere to Hildebrand, even if his immediate superior or superiors adhere to the antipope Leo XIV?

Yes, each Catholic by his baptism has the divine right to adhere to the true Pope, without regard to any other obligation and even against or contrary to the wishes of his immediate human or ecclesiastical superiors. If the exercise of this right in liberty, free from persecution, requires or necessitates physical separation, Bishops, priests, deacons, seminarians and religious have the right to separate from their superiors or communities. However, spouses should not separate from one another over such disagreements, but allow each to worship in peace without abuse or persecution. Families, religious communities and dioceses also should strive to keep that peace in Christ which allows Catholics to adhere to the true Pope. All such communities governed by charity and good will will show themselves such by striving to preserve such a peace, since the sin here regards the Cardinal Electors and we should not persecute one another on their account, but urge them to repentance.

Can a Catholic licitly attend a religious ceremony conducted by clergy who hold that Leo XIV is the true pope?

If they do so, because they adhere to his heresies, no; because such adhesion cannot be presumed to be out of ignorance or good will. If they do so out of ignorance, if scandal should arise, these should be avoided. Until Hildebrand is consecrated Bishop of Rome, he is not able to give binding teaching on these matters and has decided to remain silent, counseling the Faithful to follow the teaching of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori in such matters of practice and conscience.


Get ready for the big reveal Christmas Eve https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8OubKonRFMPJD8vwxZMZA (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8OubKonRFMPJD8vwxZMZA)...



Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 24, 2025, 08:35:07 PM
Okay, here we are just after 9:30 pm on the east coast on Christmas Eve, and still no "reveal", but there's this:

https://sedesapostolica.info/docuмenta/urbi-et-orbi-in-vigiliis-nativitatis-domini-2025/#English (https://sedesapostolica.info/docuмenta/urbi-et-orbi-in-vigiliis-nativitatis-domini-2025/#English)

This whole situation is just bizarre.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 26, 2025, 08:27:57 AM
Two days out now, and still nothing.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on December 26, 2025, 08:49:34 AM
Says the election was held somewhere in central Italy, and he does provide an explanation for why they haven't released the name, and it's somewhat plausible.

1) they're waiting until they can find someone to consecrate the electee as a bishop (answering one question we've had)
2) the electee isn't very well off financially, so he can't afford security, and they're afraid that someone might try to take him out
.

The great thing about both these excuses is that they are potentially indefinite. "Nope, nope, sorry, still haven't found a consecrating bishop yet, and his life is still in danger, so we still can't reveal who he is, sorry ..."

That can go on forever, and I'm kind of suspecting it's supposed to and is going to.

The lack of consecrating bishop excuses makes no sense anyway, since a pope can exercise the papacy even before receiving episcopal consecration, and Bugnolo seems like the kind of person who would know that.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 26, 2025, 09:04:48 AM
.

The great thing about both these excuses is that they are potentially indefinite. "Nope, nope, sorry, still haven't found a consecrating bishop yet, and his life is still in danger, so we still can't reveal who he is, sorry ..."

That can go on forever, and I'm kind of suspecting it's supposed to and is going to.

The lack of consecrating bishop excuses makes no sense anyway, since a pope can exercise the papacy even before receiving episcopal consecration, and Bugnolo seems like the kind of person who would know that.

With all the episcopal lines out there, surely they could find someone to consecrate him.

Just guessing, perhaps a condition of getting a bishop to agree to the consecration, is that they might require that bishop to swear loyalty to Hildebrand, and that could be a sticking point.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on December 26, 2025, 09:18:46 AM
Is there any evidence that any of this is real at all? How do we know there was an election, with electors, and someone elected? How do we know Bugnolo didn't just make up the whole thing, and that he is the real author of these messages from this so-called pope?

"Bugnolo" sounds a lot like "Bergoglio", by the way, especially when you say both of them out loud. :laugh1:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 26, 2025, 01:19:54 PM
The lack of consecrating bishop excuses makes no sense anyway, since a pope can exercise the papacy even before receiving episcopal consecration, and Bugnolo seems like the kind of person who would know that.

No, a Pope becomes Pope immediately upon his acceptance and then at once being to make certain administrative decisions, but he simply cannot exercise anything remotely akin to a plenitude of his authority, such as teaching the Church, since only bishops are even part of the Ecclesia Docens at all, and a Pope must by definition be the Bishop of Rome.  He's in something of a limbo state until consecration.  This is in fact precisely the condition that the "sedeprivationists" would attribute to the Conciliars.  I liken the state to the condition of ratum non consummatum that they apply to marriages that have not yet been consummated.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 26, 2025, 01:23:39 PM
With all the episcopal lines out there, surely they could find someone to consecrate him.

Just guessing, perhaps a condition of getting a bishop to agree to the consecration, is that they might require that bishop to swear loyalty to Hildebrand, and that could be a sticking point.

Yes, this isn't a simple consecration, since here the consecration would entail at leat an implicit recognition of his claims to the papacy, and that's what would narrow the field tremendously.  That Michael II character had to turn to some Duarte-Costa-derived "Catholic Charismatic Church", and Michael I (Bawden) eventually settled for Duarte Costa.

But the lines you could likely get to consecrate anyone with a pulse ... they're usually the same lines that are doubtful.

PLUS ... I don't know that Bugnolo believes the Conciliar Sacraments to be doubtful, and so he might even take a Novus Ordo bishop, provided they could find one that's willing to do it, some like a +Milingo.

+Milingo is in fact still out there, at the age of 95, and he's one who's super-duper-borderline, having been consecrated on August 1 1969 (+Milingo was only 39 when he had been consecrated) ... and I'm sure he'd lay hands on pretty much anyone.  But then one would have to determine whether Milingo was consecrated in the old Rite.  Given the time, it could go either way, since the New Rite was available by then, but not necessarily in use everywhere, and especially would not have been translated yet into various African languages, so it's possible that they would have just stuck with the old Rite there ... except that he had been consecrated by Montini himself, making it highly unlikely that anything other than the Latin of the New Rite would have been used.  Perhaps the fact that Montini consecrated him was the reason he became diabolically possessed down the road.

https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmilingo.html
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on December 26, 2025, 05:07:20 PM
This whole situation is just bizarre.
:laugh1:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 28, 2025, 03:43:38 PM
This just in, from their FAQ page (emphasis mine):

Who is Hildebrand?

Hildebrand is a celibate, male, baptized Roman Catholic, member of the Church at Rome, of adult age and free from all ecclesiastical censure. He is not a Bishop, so must be consecrated before he begins his papal ministry. His identity will be made known at the time of his consecration, so that until that time he can freely speak with Bishops and they with him, without threats of persecution or harassment. While this might not please his enemies or those who are addicted to curiosity, the pope elect has the right to conduct his own affairs and make his own personal decisions regarding his personal security. Anyone who is sane and rational can see that; and, thus, the Faithful are asked to be patient regarding the divulging of this information.


It is ambigious as to whether he is a priest or a layman, though if he is the latter, obviously he would have to be ordained first (note that they say "consecration", only bishops are consecrated).  
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 28, 2025, 07:46:35 PM
Could also be a Brother ... as in Bugnolo.

In his podcast, he refused to answer the question of whether he was a priest, believing that would compromise secrecy regarding his identity.  While there are many at-least-NO priests out there, the pool shrinks dramatically when you consider they would have to be Prevost-vacantists.

Priests?  Possibly "Fr." Kramer or else there were a couple Italian "priests" who went Bergoglio-vacantist.

Other than that, Bro B himself or else Ann Barnhardt (found to be actually a man) LOL

Obviously just kidding, but there's a very small pool of Prevovacantists, so indicating yes or no on priest might in fact dox him, and make him a target.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 28, 2025, 07:51:51 PM
I'm just curious about who they could find to do the consecration.  As others had pointed out, it would require finding a bishop who either believed that Hildebrand might have had a legit claim or else didn't care at all, and only a Duarte-Costa line might be among the latter 
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 28, 2025, 07:55:08 PM
Other possibility is that they cancel the whole thing after they feel as though they had solicited enough donations despite not having found a bishop.

Last time they pulled a fast one by just electing Bergoglio again.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on December 28, 2025, 07:58:37 PM
indicating yes or no on priest might in fact dox him, and make him a target.
.

Honestly I don't think anybody would have the slightest desire to shoot whoever this person is, assuming he exists at all, which I don't believe. I think the whole thing is a big hoax. But I also don't think the modernists or globalists or anybody similar would see any reason to shoot whoever is involved in this ridiculous dog and pony show. I mean, nobody ever tried to αssαssιnαtҽ Pope Michael, and that's about on the same level as this one. :laugh1:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 28, 2025, 11:06:21 PM
Could also be a Brother ... as in Bugnolo.

In his podcast, he refused to answer the question of whether he was a priest, believing that would compromise secrecy regarding his identity.  While there are many at-least-NO priests out there, the pool shrinks dramatically when you consider they would have to be Prevost-vacantists.

Priests?  Possibly "Fr." Kramer or else there were a couple Italian "priests" who went Bergoglio-vacantist.

Other than that, Bro B himself or else Ann Barnhardt (found to be actually a man) LOL

Obviously just kidding, but there's a very small pool of Prevovacantists, so indicating yes or no on priest might in fact dox him, and make him a target.

There is also the provision in canon law (Canon 378 §4 1983 CIC) that a priest must have been ordained for five years before being consecrated a bishop (epikeia, anyone?).

Canon 330 in the 1917 CIC, per Woywod/Smith, contains the same requirement.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 29, 2025, 08:44:38 AM
There is also the provision in canon law (Canon 378 §4 1983 CIC) that a priest must have been ordained for five years before being consecrated a bishop (epikeia, anyone?).

Canon 330 in the 1917 CIC, per Woywod/Smith, contains the same requirement.

Canon Law always reflects what's necessary for a well-ordered society under normal conditions, and was routinely dispensed with for any just cause.  Leo X, for instance, had been elected Pope without being a priest (was a Cardinal-deacon), and then quickly ordained, and then consecrated.

Here's a more recent example of a man who had been a priest for less than a year before being consecrated a bishop.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bkorec.html

That would be the least of my concerns regarding this papal "election".
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 29, 2025, 08:46:33 AM
Honestly I don't think anybody would have the slightest desire to shoot whoever this person is, assuming he exists at all, which I don't believe. I think the whole thing is a big hoax. But I also don't think the modernists or globalists or anybody similar would see any reason to shoot whoever is involved in this ridiculous dog and pony show. I mean, nobody ever tried to αssαssιnαtҽ Pope Michael, and that's about on the same level as this one. :laugh1:

Of course ... except ... put yourself in the mindset of someone who actually believes this man is the legitimate Pope after a series of usurpers had stolen the See.  Given that premise, I would be surprised if someone did NOT want to knock off the newly-elected legitimate Pope.

Let's say, for instance, that Prevost got so bad that every Traditional Catholic finally agreed that this man is no pope, denying the Real Presence or something along those lines, and they got together in an Imperfect Council to elect a Pope whom all Traditional Catholics then accepted as the legitimate Pope.  I'd have no doubt but that the infiltrators would go after him.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on December 29, 2025, 09:46:51 AM
Canon Law always reflects what's necessary for a well-ordered society under normal conditions, and was routinely dispensed with for any just cause.  Leo X, for instance, had been elected Pope without being a priest (was a Cardinal-deacon), and then quickly ordained, and then consecrated.

Here's a more recent example of a man who had been a priest for less than a year before being consecrated a bishop.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bkorec.html

That would be the least of my concerns regarding this papal "election".
I am guessing that this was done out of necessity during the period of Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe, and that the canon was dispensed with.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 29, 2025, 11:39:38 AM
I am guessing that this was done out of necessity during the period of Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe, and that the canon was dispensed with.

Of course, but even if they were in violation of Canon Law ... so what?  It wouldn't invalidate the episcopal consecration of such an individual, nor would it invalidate a papal election ... unless a prior Pope had set such a condition in one of those docuмents that lay down the requirements for the next election.  If Pope Pius XII had written ... "if the man elected had not been a priest for at lest 5 years prior to the Conclave, the election is null and void", then it would be a problem.  But there's no such condition, and it would not violate a valid consecration or valid papal election.

IMO, by far the biggest question is ... who were these "electors"?  Now, it is true that papal election has its roots in the clergy (and faithful) of (the diocese of) Rome electing the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope, and that in the event of some breakdown where we have no Cardinals left (let's say they were having a Synod on Synodality and all got nuked), if there were any clergy of Rome left, they could elect a Pope, and that would be legitimate.  Some say it would fall then to an Imperfect Council, but I don't know that I buy this.  I believe it would be first clergy and faithful of Rome and THEN (if those were gone also) an Imperfect Council.

But some of the problems are ... who is a clergy or faithful of the Diocese of Rome?  Is it any priest who happens to live in some (relatively-arbitrary) geographical boundary for the Diocese of Rome?  What's to prevent carpet-baggers from coming in and influencing an election in that case?  No, I would think that at least the clergy of Rome would have to be those who had been made clergy of Rome by the Bishop of Rome, incardinated into the Diocese ... which is actually what happens with Cardinals, where they are incardinated in a sense as "clergy of Rome" and then given titular churches in Rome.  So the fact that the Popes have given them these titular churches suggests that the Tradition of clergy of Rome electing the bishop of Rome is almost certainly of Apostolic Tradition and Origin, and about as close as you could have to being Divine Law.  Now, then, St. Robert Bellarmine hypothesizes that if all these were wiped out, an Imperfect Council could do it, since God would never leave the Church without a means to elect a new pope.  In the early Church, it sometimes happened that the NEIGHBORING bishops of a vacant See would come in to set up a bishop, or else a metropolitan or major archbishop type might ... if there were some problem with the clergy in that area doing it themselves (e.g. they all went Arian or apostate).  So that's where this would come in.

But let's posit that ...

1) the See of Rome is vacant
2) all the Cardinals are gone (either defected, or not legitimately appointed by Anti-Popes, or heretics who are therefore ineligible)
3) and there are 3 orthodox Catholic priests left who were priests of the Diocese

In such a scenario, I believe those 3 priests could elect the Pope validly, legitimately.  If there were no orthodox priest left, I believe the faithful of Rome could then elect a Pope, and have a neighboring bishop come in to ordain/consecrate.  But then the sticky thing there again is who are the faithful of Rome ... those "registered" in some canonical parish prior to the emergency scenario?

So I believe that Brother Bugnolo's principles are not entirely far-fetched.  We're far removed here from Bawden's election in the cornfields of Kansas, with his parents and former girlfriend being the majority of the electors.

Problem ... (as per 1 to 3 above)

1) there's no universal agreement that the See of Rome is actually vacant ... as we have many R&R types and conservative Novus Ordites clinging to Prevost as legitimate Pope
2) it's likewise disputed whether all the Cardinals are non-Cardinals ... not only by R&R / conservative Novus Ordites, but you could add Sedeprivationists into the mix, where perhaps at least some of these Cardinals are legitimate and are not pertinacious heretics (such as, e.g., the Eastern Rite Cardinals)
3) if the See is vacant and the Cardinals illegitimate (which would clear the way for an election) ... then there would be no more priests/clergy of Rome left to elect a Pope

In other words, the conditions necessary for 1 and 2 above, would then preclude condition #3 from being able to happen.  At that point, we'd need an Imperfect Council ... which we're not going to get barring divine intervention.

But if #2 isn't the case, and at least some of the Cardinals are legitimate, e.g. Eastern Rite ones who are valid bishops and not pertinacious heretics ... as Brother Bugnolo must certainly believe, since some of them go back to the Ratzinger era, AND Brother Bugnolo's previous conclave did elect Bergoglio at some point, making the Cardinals he appointed after that point legitimate also (in his mind) ... so if #2 isn't the case, then by what principle does #3 now come into play, as Brother Bugnolog claims?

He says that simply because the last Conclave was invalid, due to a violation of the Conclave rules (too many Cardinal electors) ... this somehow entitles the clergy and faithful or Rome to proceed with an election.  Now, even that doesn't follow, since some theologians hold that a technically-invalid conclave would be sanated by a "Universal Acceptance".  Now, while I don't agree with that, good luck convincing everyone that it isn't the case.

So given all these what-ifs, disagreements, etc. ... the confusion and fog around such a thing would render it impossible for such a Conclave (even if technically valid, where Bugnolo is correct about every conclusion he's made per the above) ... there would remain so much disagreement, non-acceptance, etc. ... that his Conclave could not produce anything more than a papa dubius at best, meaning that we're still in the same boat and he's solved nothing.

Now, if he's right, perhaps God would provide miraculous signs of his having approved the election ... and win over the entire Catholic world, but even that's sketchy, as Clemente Dominguez had preternatural abilities also and the devil can fake miracles.

There's also a bit of a conundrum for Brother Bugnolo.  According to his thesis, there was a time (before they elected him) that Bergoglio was not a valid Pope.  That would mean that the Cardinals whom he appointed during that time period would not be legitimate, and that would put the total number of electors under the number specified ... and so the Conclave would not have been invalidated on those grounds.  I'll look it up in a minute here, but I'm also certain that's the case.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 29, 2025, 11:56:06 AM
So, this question needs to be asked of Brother Bugnolo ...

Bergoglio was "elected" originally on March 13, 2013, but then Bugnolo conclave that elected him didn't occur until January 30, 2023.

During that time, Bergoglio had appointed 142 Cardinals (of the total 163).  This means that nearly all the 131 electors in the 2025 Prevostian Conclave were illegitimate by his own standards.  That would then certainly have put the total number of ACTUAL Cardinals who participated in the 2025 Conclave well under the 120 limit ... and exceeding that limit is what he uses to claim that Prevost's election was not valid).
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 29, 2025, 11:59:19 AM
Something peculiar happened as I was interrogating ChatGPT about this scenario.  I asked basically how many Cardinals appointed by Bergoglio voted in the 2025 Conclave that elected Prevost as Leo XIV.  Here's what ChatGPT originally said, and I had to provide a link to "correct" it, but it was undoubtedly correct the first time LOL.

I'm going to save this gem here ... :laugh1:

(https://i.ibb.co/93SFw9nt/prevost-conclave.png)
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Ladislaus on December 29, 2025, 03:05:00 PM
Of course, the argument that the Conclave that elected Prevost was invalid due to exceeding the number of voting Cardinals is ... utterly ridiculous and stupid.

Assuming that Bergoglio was a Pope, and Brother Bugnolo and company elected him to be one ... Popes ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE BOUND BY ANY LAW SHORT OF DIVINE LAW.  So, whether it's Canon Law or Wojtyla the Great's Universi Domonici Gregis ... subsequent Popes cannot be bound by the law.  It's not that they can change the law or dispense themselves from the law ... it's that they are not subject to it or bound by it (again, unless something is Divine Law or a close derivative, which the # of Cardinals is not even close to being).

If a legitimate Pope wanted to appoint 300 Voting Cardinals, he is perfectly entitled to do so, and even if he doesn't "change" the law, his ignoring of it is perfectly permissible, and in appointing 133 (or 131 after 2 dropped out due to health) he's IMPLICITLY making know the will of the Supreme Lawgiver in the Church.  In the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church, the will of the Supreme Legislator being made known  and promulgated suffices to create law.  It need not be officially set forth in any docuмent, explicitly, in so many words.

I had an argument on X with this Eastern Rite SV Priest who was at one time affiliated with Bishop Dolan, and so he's anti-sedeprivationist.  So he made this argument from Canon Law that "priests are selected by the Roman Pontiff" to serve as Cardinals, the point being that these men who are currently Cardinals are not valid Cardinals even according to law (materially) because they're doubtfully valid (or outright invalid) as priests, i.e. are laymen.  That's nonsense because, the Canon Law is worded very specifically in this case in the present passive "priests are selected by the Roman Pontiff", not priests MUST BE selected by the Roman Pontiff.  That would absurd and nonsensical, since there's nothing of the sort that MUST BE done by any Roman Pontiff, as the law cannot bind him, and the law is written in such as way as to recognize this by merely being a description of the current practice.  At the time of the Council of Trent, there was no such requirement, and it was only a Pope some time later (forget which one) who instituted the practice of choosing only clerics at least in Minor Orders, who had been in those Orders for at least 5 years, and finally by 1917 it was Priests (generally), though practically all of them were at least Bishops.  But a Pope can appoint ANYONE HE WANTS to regardless of Canon Law, since he is not bound by it.  Pope Pius XII could have gotten up any given morning and designated "Mr. John Smith" from Peioria, Illinois to be a "Voting Cardinal", and his appointment would make it so, regardless of what "Canon Law" says.

So Begoglio's intention to appoint 133 Voting Cardinals ... made it so.

In fact, even Wojtyla's UDG contains a statement that permits automatic override, where it says that an appointment by a Pope:
Quote
A Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church who has been created and published in a consistory has, by that very fact, the right to elect the Pope.

Of course, even this provision can be overridden by a (legitimate) Pope, where he could make someone a Cardinal but then say "this one can't vote".  In fact, Bergoglio did exactly that for this one "Cardinal" Becciu, who had been implicated in some financial scandal ... where Beccius had his voting rights stripped, but nevertheless retained the title of Cardinal.  Popes can do whatever they want.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Shrewd Operator on December 29, 2025, 07:22:53 PM
A couple of logic questions.

1. If popes are not bound, why did JP II even put the 120 limit at all?

2. If popes are not bound, how does that work with Quo Primum and infallible statements?
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on January 05, 2026, 01:36:19 PM
https://sedesapostolica.info/docuмenta/de-reintegratione-clericorum-et-religiosorum/ (https://sedesapostolica.info/docuмenta/de-reintegratione-clericorum-et-religiosorum/)

(https://i.imgur.com/FaWwSLK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XVYIXkM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pjWFrcP.png)
*note that there is now 99 subscribers to the "Apostolic" You Tube channel of "H.H. Hildebrandus PP. Electus" (the membership has doubled since news of his "election").
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on January 05, 2026, 09:09:38 PM
That raises an interesting question. Can a priest or even a lay Catholic adhere to a pope whose identity he does not even know? I don't see how that's possible.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on January 06, 2026, 09:58:44 PM
That raises an interesting question. Can a priest or even a lay Catholic adhere to a pope whose identity he does not even know? I don't see how that's possible.
I say yes. 

It would be akin to the Western Schism and someone not knowing who the true Roman Pontiff was.

The idea is, "you submit to the true Roman Pontiff whomever he may be" - no heresy involved. 

Now submitting to one who you are certain is a heretic as the "true Roman Pontiff" doesn't work either (as I know you are well aware).
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Simeon on January 08, 2026, 10:31:29 PM
I am reasonably certain that Bugnolo is "Hildebrand," that he will never be consecrated, and that this latest methane balloon cannot last for too much longer a time. 

If you read "Hildebrand's" "magisterium," it has Bugnolo's fingerprints all over it. I don't need Sherlock's magnifying glass to line up the whorls. 

Keep an eye on fromrome.info. It will reactivate, as "sedesapostolica.info" goes the way of all subway toilet stalls, and as Bug finds himself with a lot of dead time on his hands. 

What literally blows my mind are the dopes out there who are making believe there's a real pope in town, and are falling down and adoring him on Bug's pages, and even on other feeds. Of course, these could be fake Bug accounts, so that he adores himself. 

With this kind of circus in town, who needs AI? 
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SimpleMan on January 09, 2026, 08:40:42 AM
I am reasonably certain that Bugnolo is "Hildebrand," that he will never be consecrated, and that this latest methane balloon cannot last for too much longer a time.

If you read "Hildebrand's" "magisterium," it has Bugnolo's fingerprints all over it. I don't need Sherlock's magnifying glass to line up the whorls.

I'm not familiar enough with Bugnolo's writing, to be able to say one way or the other, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the "plan" is as you describe.  They are now reporting that "technical problems" have forced the cancellation of their January 8 and 10 press conferences.  Their attempts thus far on their YouTube site have been a hot mess.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on January 09, 2026, 11:14:21 AM
Now the main article on Bugnolo's page is a request for money to "support" this "new pope". There is a similar request (https://www.fromrome.info/2025/12/19/help-hildebrand-the-new-catholic-pope-elect/) further down the page. A lot of the pages related to this "new pope" seem to have a lot of PayPal boxes where you can send this "unknown person" your money.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Yeti on January 09, 2026, 11:17:07 AM
I'm not familiar enough with Bugnolo's writing, to be able to say one way or the other, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the "plan" is as you describe.  They are now reporting that "technical problems" have forced the cancellation of their January 8 and 10 press conferences.  Their attempts thus far on their YouTube site have been a hot mess.

.

This is hilarious! He claims he can't do his livestream because YouTube has assigned a technician (https://www.fromrome.info/2026/01/07/press-conference-on-hildebrands-urbi-et-orbi-letter-saturday-6-pm-rome-time/) to interfere with his broadcast.

It is canceled indefinitely.

Anyone who believes any of this must have manure for brains.
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Simeon on January 09, 2026, 11:28:12 AM
.

This is hilarious! He claims he can't do his livestream because YouTube has assigned a technician (https://www.fromrome.info/2026/01/07/press-conference-on-hildebrands-urbi-et-orbi-letter-saturday-6-pm-rome-time/) to interfere with his broadcast.

It is canceled indefinitely.

Anyone who believes any of this must have manure for brains.

I mean, are bitchute and rumble beneath the papal dignity??? :jester:

 
Title: Bro Bug Banned Me }Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: Galilean on January 10, 2026, 04:43:23 PM
:fryingpan::jester:

OH, BROTHER BUG, WHO ART THOU?

He cannot take criticism!  He has a very huge ego. I'm relieved he banned me.  I never want to read about his Phantom Pope Fairy Tale again.

I commented that "seeing is believing."

I also commented, "this is the internet.  We've earned the right to question everything!"
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: WorldsAway on January 10, 2026, 05:06:23 PM
From 01/06:


Quote
Some laymen are not acting as you do, however. Chief among them are the Freemasons at Cathar Info, who spend all day attacking Catholic Bishops and Priests, to mutually assure their own hatred, disrespect, disobedience and excuse for their corrupt consciences. They have dedicated an entire thread to attack the Pope elect and denigrate his supporters. They appear to be the only website on the internet which has taken interest in Hildebrand, though for perverse reasons.


https://www.fromrome.info/2026/01/06/what-you-can-do-to-promote-the-restoration-of-the-church/

:smirk:
Title: Re: The Bennyvacantists have a new pope.
Post by: SkidRowCatholic on January 10, 2026, 05:31:48 PM
From 01/06:



https://www.fromrome.info/2026/01/06/what-you-can-do-to-promote-the-restoration-of-the-church/

:smirk:
He miserably tries and fails to portray those who dispute a contested election as anticlericals and even likens them to the Cathars, but the analogy collapses once one recalls that the Cathars were not mere critics of corrupt clergy but radical dualists who rejected the visible Church, the sacramental priesthood, and apostolic succession. If one grants—even hypothetically—that Leo presides over a false ecclesial structure, then the resemblance to the Cathars lies far more with a counterfeit hierarchy that undermines the Church’s juridical and sacramental constitution than with Catholics who repudiate an invalid election performed by 3 men in private.

In fact, telling people to attend Masses that commemorate Leo—as Bug is doing—would require them to affirm in sacred things what even Bug’s own standards would call a lie. By urging Catholics to participate in schismatic and sacrilegious worship that names a false pontiff in the Canon (or what passes for a Canon in the Novus Ordo), it is rather he who mirrors the Cathar rejection of apostolic order. Those who defend the necessity of a valid pope, a visible Church, and the integrity of the Canon are not anticlerical at all; they stand precisely where Saint Dominic stood against the real Cathars, while Bug's analogy runs entirely backwards.

He should come on here and explain himself and tell us what he thinks is really going on and who this man he thinks he elected pope is.

But, I do not think him capable of doing this.

I do not believe he could stand up to all the scrutiny leveled against him, so it is just easier to call everyone here satanists and shake the dust of his Birkenstocks.