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.

I saw a video of a "press conference" that Brother Bugnolo put on yesterday ...


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?

.

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.

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.

This whole situation is just bizarre.