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.

Has Br. Bugnolo been selected? Is it Prévost? Vigano? Mel Gibson?