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.

BTW, they need to find a new secretary to cobble together some decent Latin ... or at least minus the errors.

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.

False.






Now give us your opinion on:

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.

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

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.

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.