Bugnolo: ‘The Maker and Unmaker of Popes’

Br Bugnolo has doubled down on his insanity, now claiming that those who claim that Benedict resigned 'are liars or are insane of mind'.

From Roma Locuta Est

By Steven O'Reilly

Br. Bugnolo just published an article on Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, titled THE RENUNCIATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI — A POSTSCRIPT. In it, he begins by marking the time since the death of Benedict XVI on December 31, 2022. Bugnolo notes (emphasis added):

It has been a year and 20 days since Pope Benedict XVI passed to the judgement of Christ Jesus Our Lord. And in that time many have continued to debate the validity or meaning of his Declaration of February 11, 2013.

In fact, this debate has gone more main stream, now that the principal canonical question, who is the real pope, has passed into history with the juridically valid election of Pope Francis on January 30, 2023.

Now, certainly, Benepapists are still out there claiming Benedict remained pope until his death, and they are making the same arguments they have for awhile now. The funny thing above is that Bugnolo slips in that the “principal canonical question” posed by these Benepapists has “passed into history with the juridically valid election of Pope Francis on January 30, 2023.”

Here, Bugnolo is referring to the “conclave” wherein he and his fellow papal electors “elected” Francis as pope almost a year ago! Unfortunately for Bugnolo, none of his fellow Benepapists, certainly not the leading ones, accepted or appreciated his effort to put the “principal canonical question” to bed. To my knowledge none of them, such as Cionci, Acosta, Coffin, Minutella, Barnhardt, Docherty, Mazza, accepted the legitimacy of the Bugnoloan conclave.

Still, in this recent article, Bugnolo speaks of his conclave effort — as well as yours truly. Bugnolo writes (emphasis added):

“The Catholics of Rome, as they have always done, immediately moved to see that they have a Bishop to succeed Pope Benedict XVI after his death. In fact, just days after his death, trusting that the Church of Rome would remain true to Her Spouse I opined that within a month She would have a new shepherd. — I was immediately mocked by the CIA Agent, Steve O’Reiley in the USA on his attack blog, known as “Roman Locuta Est”, by which he means ‘Stevie has spoken’ for having expressed such confidence in the Church of Rome. — But the Faithful of Rome came through and did not do what the CIA wanted: they met and elected a successor for Pope Benedict XVI, by which the grace and prayer of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, for His Vicar, came to settle for the first time upon that man known as Pope Francis. And the Church has benefited immensely as is visible unto the present day.”

Again, above Bugnolo is speaking of the “conclave” he arranged in January 2023. My coverage of that ‘historical’ event can be found in the The Bugnolo Files on Roma Locuta Est. I invite folks to examine Bugnolo’s own commentary of his effort at that time, and my coverage of it.

Bugnolo says above that I ‘mocked’ him. I leave it to the reader to characterize my coverage as he or she might. However, in my defense, I think it fair to say that any reasonable person, even with all charity possible, could not describe this Bugnoloan effort as a serious one; or cover it in a serious fashion without, arguably, offending common sense and truth. Further, I’d venture that not one of Bugnolo’s (then) Benepapist allies (Cionci, Minutella, etc) took his conclave effort or the resulting “election” of Pope Francis in January 2023 seriously.

Consider that when Bugnolo says, as quoted, that the “Catholics of Rome” immediately moved to “see that they have a Bishop to succeed Pope Benedict XVI“; one must keep in mind that these “Faithful of Rome” who came together to elect Francis last January added up to a grand total of four persons — Alexis Bugnolo included (see Bugnolan Conclave in surprise move, elects Bergoglio!) [NB: If my total is off — I am open to correction, and will update this article accordingly — if Bugnolo clarifies how many ‘papal electors’ actually voted in this conclave].

But not only was this “conclave” sparsely attended, it was held, not in the Sisteen Chapel, or some ancient Church in Rome — but at at an airport hotel outside of Rome, just off the A91 (see The Bugnolan “conclave” begins January 30, 2023 at a Rome airport hotel!). They couldn’t even management to get a basement in a local parish somewhere. But, perhaps, there was a conflict with Bingo night

Amazingly, in this recent article, Bugnolo doubles down on the validity of his conclave, and its results, i.e., the election of Pope Francis! Now, if it really were the case that Bugnolo and his merry band of papal electors actually elected Francis, then this makes things easier — we now know who, precisely, to blame! Even knowing what they did about the prior 10 years of Francis…they, led by Bugnolo, still voted for him!! Seriously, who would do THAT after having a 10 year preview, and dress-rehearsal of Francis!!

Who knows…in fairness…perhaps these ‘papal electors’ agreed on this choice at the pre-conclave congregation/meeting at the hotel bar’s Happy Hour before the actual vote — and perhaps after one too many cranberry mules. I don’t recall if Bugnolo indicated how many rounds of balloting was required to put “Cardinal Bergoglio” over required two thirds vote — in this case three votes; or what the final vote tally was. But…I can’t help but imagine that there was at least one vote for a Pope Bugnolo along the way.

Anyway…as is evident to any reasonable person, this event was so preposterous, it could not be covered as if it were serious event. That would be an insult to any reader, whether now, or at some point hundreds of years from now. Future historians might look back and ask: “aside from Bugnolo, did anyone way back in 2023 A.D., Catholic or non-Catholic, really take Bugnolo’s conclave seriously?’ To this question, and to remove all doubt, I wanted to convey to these historians of some future age — hundreds of years hence; a clear, and unequivocal answer: “No. We absolutely did not.”

Such was my responsibility to the historical science, and to the ages that follow. In this, I rest my defense. Now, my reportage has clearly irked Bugnolo. To this degree, I suppose I should be “glad” he was not elected “Pope Bugnolo I” by the ‘airport hotel conclave‘; something I had originally considered a distinct possibility (see Pope Bugnolo I?). For if he had been so chosen, Pope Bugnolo I would have excommunicated me long ago! Not that he would have really been “pope” and could really do so…but it would have given him the false, self-satisfaction of believing he could really excommunicate someone! So, to that extent, the fact his own conclave, which he called, organized, and for which he made the rules did not elect him pope is kind of a grandiose “self-own.”

So we see, Bugnolo still believes he really helped elect Francis a legitimate pope. The funny thing is, before 12 months had even passed, Bugnolo has declared the see of Rome is now “impeded” (see THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS NOW IMPEDED, BY THE HERESY OF POPE FRANCIS — WHAT THIS MEANS). Who knows what is next for Bugnolo and the papacy? Perhaps just a matter of time before Bugnolo declares the See of Rome is empty again, thus returning everything back, essentially, to the status quo ante as far as his relationship goes with his former, fellow Benepapists. Amazing. Bugnolo is “the maker and unmaker of popes.” Quite the responsibility.

Of course, the sad reality is, Benedict did validly resign, and this has given us the Francis pontificate, which has been horrendous. I have written about about both the validity of Benedict’s resignation, and the problems during the Francis pontificate. It’s all been sad and tragic, and we are still living through it. But, perhaps one day, when spirits are lighter, someone will make a ‘documentary’ of the Bugnoloan conclave episode in the spirit of the movie Spinal Tap.

But Seriously Folks…

Good fun aside, I would address some of the “facts” alleged by Bugnolo in his article specifically dealing with Benepapist claims related to canon 332.2. Bugnolo writes in part:

“Logic itself demands, therefore, that all recognize that Pope Benedict XVI never fulfilled canon 332 §2, and that thus, in the eyes of God Himself, he remained the one, only and true Roman Pontiff until the day of his death on Dec. 31, 2022 A. D.. — All those who say otherwise are liars or are insane of mind — Insanis in Latin means, “not healthy”.’

The reference to canon 332.2 refers to the question of Benedict resigning the ‘ministero’ or ‘ministry’ of the Bishop of Rome in his Declaratio rather than resigning the ‘munus’ or ‘office’ as the Benepapists claim is necessary per canon 332.2.

I have gone into this question in detail on my blog (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), and in my book (see Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI; see, especially, pages 17-27). So, I suggest the open minded reader refer to these sources for a detailed rebuttal. But, briefly, there is no requirement anywhere in canon law that the word munus be used in a papal resignation, or that the word ministerium cannot be. For example, in the resignation of Celestine V, he did not use the word, he used ‘papacy.’

But even that aside, as cited in my articles, and book, ministerium and munus can be synonymous (citations provided in articles and book), and indeed this is demonstrated by the title of the Declaratio in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which includes a form of ‘munus‘ (i.e., muneris). The title of this document in the AAS is Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione. This may be translated “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” Thus, the wording of the title in the AAS, using munus, tells us how to understand the use of ministero/ministerium in the body of the Declaratio below it, i.e., synonymously.

Even setting all this aside, Lumen Gentium demonstrates that a ‘munus is a ministerium‘; and that therefore in regard to the Petrine munus, if one resigns the Petrine ministerium, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus (see Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto). Now, the interesting thing here is, Bugnolo attempted to suggest that one cannot appeal to Lumen Gentium because of Canon 17. However, as shown conclusively in my response to Bugnolo, he is simply wrong, and he clearly exhibits faulty logic, and faulty comprehension with respect to Canon 17 (see Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Faulty Logic, and Faulty Comprehension with Respect to Canon 17).