FAQ
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Of What Church does SedesApostolica.Info provide information?
Of the Catholic Church, headed on earth by the Roman Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, and present in nearly all nations by means of Dioceses of various rites and languages and traditions, which Church is the only real historical religious institution founded by Jesus Christ, during, at, and after His Ascension to God the Father in Heaven.
What are the essential characteristics of this Church?
That She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. One in the sharing of the same Faith, Sacraments and Moral Teachings, in dogmatic, sacramental and juridical continuity with the Church founded by Jesus Christ, with which She is identical throughout time and place. Holy in that by means of Her God remains in communion with men and men with God through teachings and practices and interior graces which restore and maintain Her members in spiritual union with the One True God, Creator of Heaven and earth. Catholic in that everywhere in time and space She professes and practices and teaches the same truths in the same sense which Christ and the Apostles taught. Apostolic in that She originates through the pastoral action and ministry of the Apostles and their disciples, which Christ at His Ascension commissioned to make disciples of all nations.
Why is Peter, and His Successors, essential to the Church founded by Christ?
Christ Jesus founded His Church to continue His work and presence in this world until the end of time. To guarantee that this community of believers remain faithful to Him He gifted that community a visible bond of unity in the office of unity and authority which He entrusted to Cephas bar Jonah when He named him, “Peter”, sharing with him His own Name as the Rock of the Ages; showing by this means that He would invest His own Church with an unbreakable stability throughout all ages, by providing all His disciples with a touchstone by which being faithful to Him as King, Messiah, Savior and Head of the Church, they might verify and protect their discipleship in His footsteps and with Him as the Lead. This office of Saint Peter was left to the Church at Rome, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that each successive Bishop of that Church would succeed Saint Peter the Apostle in this authority and ministry.
Why is the legitimate election of a Roman Pontiff essential to the continuity of Christ’s true Church?
Since Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18b), and because He defined His Church as the community of His disciples which He founded upon Peter (Matthew 16:18a), and since He endowed Saint Peter and His successors with the power and efficacy of His own Prayer of protection (Luke 22:32), confirming the authority of Saint Peter and His Successors over all the Church (John 21:15-17) and binding Himself and Heaven to that same authority (Matthew 18:18), it follows that who is the true successor of Saint Peter is the most crucial question regarding membership in the visible and mystical body of Christ, for all believers on Earth, since only the true successor will enjoy this special authority and grace in the sight of God. Contrariwise, anyone who falsely claims such a role is committing a horrible sacrilege and deception, just as Pope Nicholas II says, in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, n. 4.
How do we know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter?
Saint Peter the Apostle left his office as Peter to the Church of Rome, such that every Bishop of that Church would succeed to his authority over the whole Church. According to the tradition of the Church at Rome, and as is shown throughout the historical record, the Bishops of Rome have been elected from ancient times, the names of each is known in a list extending from the time of Saint Peter down to our own day, which is called the Apostolic Succession in the Roman Church.
This decision of the Apostle Saint Peter is binding upon the whole Roman Church, according to the teaching of Pope Julius, who says: For it is a sufficiently shameful teaching, that anyone refuse this rule (of the Apostles) whether for pontiffs or orders, which provided for even the See of Blessed Peter (Decretals, C. III).
We know the names of these men because they were elected by the Faithful of the Roman Church and recognized thereafter as Roman Pontiffs. These elections followed different specific rules in different specific ages, according to whether this or that Roman Pontiff established or changed specific rules for how the election was to be conducted: regarding on what day, in what place, by what persons, by what kind of agreements, manners of voting, percentages of vote tallies etc.. Some aspects of each election remained unchanged since the days of the Apostle Saint Peter, such as the ones voting were always the Christians who were baptized members of the Church at Rome. These conditions pertain to what is called the Apostolic Tradition. Some aspects changed from time to time according to the laws established by this or that Roman Pontiff. These conditions pertained to positive papal law or regulations. Some of these regulations were essential conditions which forbade an election or a candidate or a manner of voting. Others were non-essential conditions which directed that certain procedures be followed for good order or to avoid problems.
In every election, there were objective facts concerning how the election was held. When these facts agreed with the established laws and regulations, the election was accepted as valid and the man who was elected and consented was considered a true, valid and legitimate Bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter. When they were not, he was not.
What is the current positive papal law regarding how a Roman Pontiff is to be elected?
The current law governing the legitimate election of a Roman Pontiff is Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, of February 22, 1996. Previous laws, in recent times, have been Pope Paul VI’s Constitution, Romano Pontifice Eligendo, of October 1, 1975; Pope Pius XII’s, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, of December 8, 1945 and Saint Pius X’s, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 1904.
Where in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II does it say that the election of a Roman Pontiff can be invalid or illegitimate?
In paragraph 76, where Pope John Paul II commands that no election which is held in a manner contrary to the prescriptions of his constitution is to be considered valid.
Who has the authority to declare a papal election invalid?
According to the terms of Pope John Paul II’s Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 76, the invalidity of a papal election arises from the objective historical discrepancy in the way the election took place with the rules for how it should take place. This factual discrepancy, being objective and known to all, causes the election to be invalid, and hence when it occurs everyone has the right to declare the conclave invalid, because the election is invalid before they even declare it, inasmuch as objective historical facts pre-exist the public or private judgement of any individual person knowing of them.
Who has the authority to declare an invalid Papal Election valid? or who has the authority to make an invalid election valid?
No one, because in Church law at present there is no provision for any such thing.
What is the result of an invalid papal election?
If the election is legally invalid, then the one who accepts such an election has no legitimate claim to be the Roman Pontiff. Those who support his illegitimate claim become like him schismatics, formally speaking, because they enter into an agreement to separate themselves from a legitimate candidate. And since only legitimate Roman Pontiffs are truly the Successors of Saint Peter, recognized by Christ Jesus as His Vicars on Earth, being an illegitimate pope or being a supporter of such a man puts the believer in immediate formal schism from Jesus Christ and the rest of the Church.
An illegitimate claimant to the papacy is called an antipope. Being a supporter of or in communion with an antipope results in immediate excommunication by reason of Canon 1364 (CIC 1983), by reason of the schism involved. The legal effect of this excommunication is that by Canon 1331 (CIC 1983), the one excommunicated loses all right to exercise any office or ministry or celebrate any sacrament or sacramental.
What is the forfeiture of right which occurs when an Antipope is elected or installed?
The Cardinals who consent to an illegitimate election by that very fact, in addition, forfeit their right to elect any future pope or participate in a legitimate election of any future pope. This forfeiture is the logical consequence of their personal participation and agreement with the crime of violating the laws for the election, by which they decide not to elect any other as the pope, but remain supporters of the antipope which they created.
What is the immediate result of this forfeiture?
The Cardinals, who have an exclusive ministerial right to elect the Roman Pontiff, according to Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 33, cannot lose this right to elect the Roman Pontiff if any number of them, but not all of them, participate in supporting an antipope. For in such a case, the other Cardinals, who reject the illegal election retain their right and can and are gravely obliged to proceed to a second election, according to the rules, and elect a true and legitimate pope.
However, if all of the Cardinal electors consent to the illegitimate election of a man as pope and adhere to him, they forfeit as a College this exclusive right. This happens because their right exists by means of positive papal law, which restricted the electorate to the Cardinal Bishops. This papal regulation was first enacted by Pope Nicholas II in 1059, based on the principle, that, since the Apostle Saint Peter left the whole right to elect the Pope to the whole Church, then any part of the Church could legitimately exercise this right. Thus when Pope Nicholas II restricted this to the Cardinal Bishops he did not innovate any right but merely, for prudential reasons, limited it, to guarantee a better and honest outcome. Since such a limitation is reasonable and not unjust, a legitimate Pope can impose such a restriction. But since the reason for such a law is for a just outcome, this restriction is not binding when the totality of the Cardinal Electors commit a criminal violation. Thus, their unanimity in crime causes the universal forfeiture of their exclusive right, and the right returns to the whole original electorate.
This is clear because the Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, in n. 76, says when an election is invalid, but does not say what is to be done when the Cardinals unanimously adhere to an invalidly elected pope. Thus, in accord with the general principle of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, that in such cases, one has recourse to the previous law (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 19), which is in this case is the Bull of Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, which since it alone speaks of such an extraordinary case, that provision of that Bull remains in force (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 21).
How does the Bull of Pope Nicholas II provide for the special case in which the College of Cardinals forfeits their right to elect the pope?
To understand this, let us first explain what Pope Nicholas did and could not do, in his bull, In Nomine Domini, of April 13, 1059:
Pope Nicholas II did not nor could he grant the right to vote to those who are not members of the Church at Rome. For, since the right to elect the pope is a right granted to the Church at Rome by Saint Peter the Apostle, no pope can transfer this right to another Church or to persons who are not members of this Church.
Second, Pope Nicholas II could not and did not redefine the Church at Rome, since it is Saint Peter who defines the Church at Rome, for in his own days he entrusted the entire territory of the Eternal City to his own pastoral care. For this reason, this Church at Rome which can elect the pope includes all the territory of the Eternal City, as it was in Saint Peter’s day. Today we call this territory the Diocese of Rome and the 7 suburbican Dioceses of Rome. These include Ostia, Porto-Santa Rufina, Sabina-Poggio Mirteto, Palestrina, Frascati, Velletri-Segni, and Albano. This is why the Cardinal Electors are incardinated as pastors of churches found in any one of these 8 dioceses, since as clergy in these dioceses they are members of the Church at Rome, over which Saint Peter ruled.
Third, Pope Nicholas II could not and did not remove the right of anyone to participate in the election for the Pope, since this right being granted by Saint Peter, can never be entirely extinguished. Thus, in his Bull he only restricts the right to deliberate the candidate to the Cardinal Bishops, and retains the tradition of allowing all the other clergy and religious and laity to consent to or disagree with their choice (n. 1).
Fourth, the Pope is not elected by the members of the Church at Rome, but by the Church, represented through Her members. Thus, whosoever participate legitimately in a legitimate election, the election is accomplished by the Church at Rome formally speaking, and only by those participating as Her members, instrumentally speaking.
Accordingly, since it is only just to restrict the right of deliberation so as to secure a more honest outcome, it follows that, since a smaller electorate is more capable of falling prey to a dishonest election, that when it does so, the reason for the restriction ceases to exist, and thus the restriction of right is no longer binding. This principal he recognizes in n. 3 of his Bull, where he is says that “Cardinal Bishops, with the other religious clergy and laity, though few obtain the right of power to elect” the pope even outside of the Eternal City, a thing never done before in the history of the papacy.
Importantly, Pope Nicholas II describes this smaller electorate with terms different from those with which he described the ancient electorate in n. 1 of his bull. For he says of the clergy, now, “religious clerics”, that is those who have the faith and live rightly according to ecclesiastical discipline. And he says of the laity, now, “Catholic laity” rather than “the people” of the City, to indicate laymen who are right believers and do not adhere to the schism of the Greeks, which began in 1054, just 5 years before. The import of Pope Nicholas II’s alteration of description is to emphasize that the right returns to that part of the Church which is honest and rejects the schismatic and illegitimate actions of the previous election.
What precisely does Pope Nicholas II mean by his emergency measure?
The authentic meaning of any papal law is found in the text of the law understood by the general principles of jurisprudence. First, Pope Nicholas II says that of this smaller electorate, “let them obtain the right of power” (ius potestatis), that is the right of ability to act. He does not say that he, Nicholas II, grants this right. Thus, he affirms that they have this right by a higher font of authority than himself. Thus, he implicitly recognizes the authority of Saint Peter in granting this right to them, in this extraordinary circumstance. But since this smaller electorate is only a small part of the whole electorate to which Saint Peter granted the right, the only reasonable understanding of the teaching of Pope Nicholas II is that the whole right exists in every part of the Electorate, such that in extraordinary circumstances, it can be legitimately exercised even by such a small honest part of that electorate, with all other non essential restrictions of positive law suspended for that special election.
In n. 3 of his Bull, Pope Nicholas II, who, as he says in his preamble, intends to prevent illegal and dishonest elections in the future, uses a grammatical structure to ensure this: for he says, “Let the Cardinal Bishops with … though few obtain the right of power”, using the ablative of accompaniment with the Latin preposition “cum” (with), which does not require anything specifically, other than that there be a few (paucis), since reasonably, a dishonest conspiracy could compromise each category of the Faithful, but never overcome the entire Church, there always being at least a few who will resist. — It is known, for example, that there were not a few, but only two Cardinal Bishops at the election of Nicholas II, in 1058, at Siena, Italy, an election which preceded the promulgation of his own bull in the following year. For this reason it must be presumed that Nicholas II intended by his own Bull to affirm the principles upon which Saint Hildebrand promoted Nicholas to the papacy: namely, that the necessary requirement is that a few of the Faithful, from any of these three categories, participate. — Nor did Pope Nicholas II intend that the entire electorate be present in person, as can be inferred from what the Cardinals did in the election of Pope Bl. Urban II, at Terracina, in 1088, where the “religious clerics” and “Catholic laity” were not present in person, but represented legally by a priest who was delegated by some of them, to vote on their behalf.
This understanding is confirmed by the general principle of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, that grants of right are to be interpreted broadly, not narrowly (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 18); and by the general principle of natural right, that “necessity knows no law” (necessitas nullam legem cognoscit), that is, that merely positive or arbitrary restrictions which would prevent the intended good outcome of a right or law, in cases of necessity, do not oblige (cf. Decretum Gratiani, C. III, “In maioribus siquidem est regendi et iubendi potestas, in minoribus obsequendi necessitas”). Finally, it is important to note that Saint Peter the Apostle conferred this right upon the Church at Rome without specifying which members of that Church would be electors; thus, if one appeals to Apostolic right, there is absolutely no reason to exclude, in cases of emergency, the ability of any member of that Church from acting.
What is the authority of the Bull of Pope Nicholas II?
The Bull of Pope Nicholas II, written with the counsel of Saints Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church, and Hildebrand of Sovana, the future, Pope Gregory VII, and promulgated in the Synod of the Lateran in the presence of 113 Bishops is without doubt a solemn exercise of papal authority. The Bull is principally a disciplinary document regarding papal elections and what is to be done in the case of illegal elections. But inasmuch as it founds its discipline upon assertions of juridical or doctrinal principle, it is an exercise of the solemn Papal Magisterium. This is especially true in those principles which all subsequent Roman Pontiffs respected and reaffirmed. It is also true because since the Apostolic Succession in the See of Rome is validated by this Bull and its observance, if it contained a false principle, the Church at Rome would no longer be the legitimate successor to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Thus, the juridical and doctrinal principles presupposed in the discipline must be held to be free from all such error.
For this reason, though this Bull no longer governs papal elections it retains its authority. It retains its authority inasmuch as current papal law includes its provision of restricting the electorate, in normal circumstances, to the Cardinal Bishops. It also retains its authority inasmuch as current papal law makes no provision for what is to be done in the case mentioned by Pope Nicholas II in n. 3 of his Bull.
The continued authority of Nicholas II’s Bull is also affirmed by Pope Paul VI in his own Apostolic Constitution, where he calls its teaching “celebrated”.
How was the Conclave of May of 2025 conducted illegitimately?
This is explained in brief in the Rogito for the election of Hildebrand, and at length here.
How is the election of Hildebrand legitimate?
As the Rogitum for his election says, since the Cardinal Electors forfeited their right to elect the pope by their participation in the illegal election of May 2025, the Catholic Faithful, meeting the requirements of n. 3 of the Bull of Nicholas II, and acting upon the right which he declares they have in such extraordinary cases of dishonest elections, elected Hildebrand validly and legitimately as was their right.
The juridical validity of the election arises and exists in virtue of this, that the facts of the election are conformable with the juridical right of the Church to elect a true pope under the conditions of a dishonest illegal election as happened in May of 2025 and as specified by Pope Nicholas II, in his Bull, in n. 3.
The proof of the juridical facts which attest to the claim of the validity of the election are certified by sworn statements of all the participants and summarized in the published Rogitum for the election. The actual documents are available for the inspection of those Cardinals and Bishops, who have publicly recognized the invalidity of the May Conclave, since, as is obvious, only these could possibly have a sincere and honest desire to know the truth of Hildebrand’s election.
Who were the electors who participated in the election of Hildebrand?
In accord with the teaching of Nicholas II, in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, the lawful electors of a Roman Pontiff, in the extraordinary circumstance, after the unlawful election of antipope, are any few baptized Catholics who are members of the Church at Rome, as has been explained. Such was the case in the election of Hildebrand on November 23, 2025. Who the electors were will be made known to the Bishops who consecrate Hildebrand and to other members of the Sacred Hierarchy, but for the sake of their privacy and personal security will not be made known publicly, since neither does Church law require this, nor do Italian Laws on privacy permit it without their consent. Moreover, since Italy is governed by a particularly malicious form of Freemasonry and because a criminal element is in power in the Vatican City State, the need for such security is obvious.
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.
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. However, anyone who is ignorant of the facts or laws of the election has the right to know the truth of these matters: and for this purpose, SedesApostolica.Info exists.
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.
What about the opinions of Cardinal Billot and Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori regarding papal elections which are vitiated by imperfections or moral errors?
It is a common error and a frequent and dishonest method of arguing, that recent apologists for Modernists and Heretics appeal to the writings of Cardinal Billot, S. J., and the great doctor of the Church, Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, in an attempt to twist their doctrines to support the crimes of the enemies of Christ. They do this by taking their opinions out of context and applying them to the wrong cases.
First, the opinion of Cardinal Billot (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Thesis XXIX, §3) regards valid and legitimate elections, not invalid or illegal elections, and is restricted to the case of Savonarola’s accusations of heresy against Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) after his election; moreover, it regards the case in which the entire Church did not contest the validity of a papal election. But in May of 2025, thousands of Catholics at Rome and throughout Italy contested the validity of the election, and continue to do so up to the present day, so it cannot be applied to the case of the Conclave of May 2025.
Second, the opinion of Saint Alphonsus (Verita Della Fede’ 1767, Part III, Ch. VIII, n. 9) 1 which speaks of elections which are “illegitimate” and vitiated by “fraud”, does not clearly speak of juridical probems but moral problems. This is because in Italian both terms refer principally to moral deviations, not to problems of juridical invalidity. Being a moral theologian, in the first instance, this Doctor of the Church should be presumed to be speaking of the moral order. And those who would insist otherwise need to prove their gratuitous assertions.
To understand the gravity of the misuse of both authors, one must distinguish, first of all, between a papal election which was invalid or illegal, on the one hand, from a valid papal election which resulted from merely immoral behavior of the electors, when such behavior did not of itself render the election juridically invalid.
The rule to be used here is found in the Papal laws themselves, as Cardinal Billot himself says,2 and this must be followed, because just as no one can appeal to any other authority against the judgement of the Apostolic See, so no one can appeal to the opinion of Cardinal Billot or of Saint Alphonsus against Papal Law. Indeed, in such cases any honest scholar will see that the correct reading of such authors is to be accommodated to Catholic teaching, and held to regard moral turpitude alone, and not actions which juridically invalidate an election per se, so as to avoid implicating these two great men in opinions which are contrary to the perennial Magisterium.
Now, in the papal law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, it explicitly says, for example, in n. 78, that if simony occur during the election, that those who participate in the simony are to be excommunicated, but that this moral crime does not render the election invalid. The same regulation is found in the law of Pope Pius XII. Such a distinction is ancient, in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, as can be seen in the case of the election of Pope Gregory VI, who purchased the papacy from Pope Benedict IX, and after his election by the Clergy and Faithful of Rome, renounced the papacy at the Provincial Council of Sutri, in 1046, after confessing before King Henry III of Germany and the Bishops and clergy assembled, how he had obtained the papacy under the color of simony. To this day, Gregory VI is held to have been a legitimate pope, but his renunciation is also held to be legitimate and proper.
Moreover, in the present case of the Conclave of 2025, one does not deal with simple actions of moral turpitude or with minor infractions of the papal law, since to vote with 133 electors is clearly contrary to the precept in n. 33, and no dispensation against that can be used as per the censure found in n. 4; moreover, all such contrary actions make the election invalid as per n. 76, so we are not dealing with an election with minor issues or moral corruption only, we are dealing with a direct violation of precept.
If Cardinal Billot and Saint Alphonsus could be quoted in such a case as the Conclave of May, 2025, in which there is the direct violation of a precept of the law, then similarly, their opinion would have to be held in the election of the antipope Benedict X in 1058, where the only violation was the convocation contrary to the precept of Stephen IX, that the election could not be held until Saint Hildebrand the Archdeacon was present. Thus, it would render the subsequent election of Nicholas II invalid, and the canonizations of HIldebrand and Peter Damian would be invalid and fraudulent, and thus the entire Church of Rome since 1058 illegitimate and in error.
If, therefore, any Catholic should appeal to Billot and dei Liguori in such wise, they are clearly risking canonical penalties for scandal, heresy and schism, since if they are consistent in their assertions, they must deny that the Catholic Church since 1059 is the true Church of Christ. Rather, authentic Catholic interpreters must read both authors, presuming that they were not speaking of the present case, but spoke inexactly or imprecisely and never intended to imply dissent against the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiffs in such matters.
The appeal to Billot and Liguori to justify the Conclave of May 2025 is, however, a truly blasphemous project, since it is an attempt to claim that the true Church of Christ is not a juridically legitimate institution which has preserved juridical legitimacy since the time of Christ, Who founded Her. This blasphemes Christ as God, Who promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against Her (Mt 16:18), and blasphemes Christ as the Spouse and Head of the Church, since it implies that He would unite Himself to a harlot and not to a faithful virgin (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16). Such an ecclesiology, as would embrace illegitimacy, to sustain an ardent Bergoglian heretic as pope, in his illegal election, is clearly a doctrine of the Anti-Church (cf. Saint John the Apostle, Apocalypse 17:1-2), not of the Church of Christ. For this reason, all true Catholics reject such an appeal as a deception and teaching of antichrists (cf. Leviticus 19:29 and 20:6; Proverbs 24:21; 1 Peter 4:4).
Footnotes:
1 The precise citation can be found on page 104, of the 1767 edition, HERE. As can be seen from the original Italian, the Saint is speaking of a hypothetical, since he says, “It does not matter if” at any time in the past it happened that etc., and only in regard to how to determine if the Apostolic Succession is broken or not. Thus, to argue he is teaching a rule to determine valid elections is absurd and contrary to the context. — Indeed, since the great Doctor of the Church frequently cites Cardinal Billot in his writings, and in this passage refers to his theory of universal acceptance, those who would assert that the Saint is expanding Billot’s opinion to apply to other cases, as validating an election which was invalid of itself, are merely imposing gratuitously their own meaning upon the text. — This is especially true, if we regard the case of Pope Leo VIII, who was installed by the German Emperor with force of arms and illegally, without any election, as Pope at Rome (Dec. 6, 963 A. D.), but after the renunciation of the papacy by the true pope, Benedict V, on June 23, was accepted by the Faithful at Rome, as the Pope, by public acclamation and acquiescence, a modality of election which existed only under apostolic right in those days, but has never existed under subsequent papal law. However, when the Faithful of Rome gathered on November 23, 2025, they did not sanate the election of Leo XIV by electing him according to apostolic right; they elected Hildebrand instead. So to appeal to Saint Alphonsus’ passing apologetical argument against the election of Hildebrand, is not only dishonest, because contrary to the context of the Saint’s own argument, but fraudulent, because it is contrary to both historical precedent and juridical right, in regard to sanating an invalid election.
2 Cardinal Billot says, in his Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, De Romano Pontefice, Thesis XXIX, Prati, 1909, p. 609, “Quod legitima electio Pontificis a solo iure pontificio de facto nunc dependeat, facili atque obvio argumento demonstratur, quia lex regulans electionem fuit edicta per pontifices summos. Ergo quoaduseque a Pontifice ipso abrogetur, in suo virgore manet, et non est aliqua potestas in Ecclesia, etiam sede vacante, per quam possit immutari.” (” That the legitimate election of the Pope now depends de facto upon papal law alone, is demonstrated by a facile and obvious argument, because the law regulating the election was published by the Roman Pontiffs. Therefore, until it be abrogated by a Pontiff, it remains in force, and there is no other authority in the Church, even during a sede vacante, through which it can be changed.”) — The previous citation to Billot, is found on pp. 620-21.