Roma Locuta Est

May 10, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – [Updated 5/11/2025] A recent Roma Locuta Est post outlines the reasons why I believe a Catholic should be optimistic about the election and reign of Pope Leo XIV (see Habemus Papam).

But, for this current article, I decided to survey some of the reactions to Pope Leo XIV’s election among the Benepapists – i.e., those who claim that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid, and that Francis was an anti-pope as a consequence; and among those who hold Francis was an anti-pope for some other reason.

My concern that such claims might lead some Catholics into a new form of sedevacantism is what originally motivated me to devote a significant amount of time and space on this blog over the years to refute the tendentious claims of Benepapists like Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Edmund Mazza, Andrea Cionci, Patrick Coffin, Estefania Acosta, Alexis “Brother” Bugnolo, et al.  My refutations are found in various article compendiums on this site (e.g., The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”; Summa Contra the BiP Theory (Why Benedict XVI is NOT the pope)), in various videos (see HERE), and in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI.

This entire time I have wondered how the various Benepapists, and the others above would react to a conclave following the death of Francis. Would they accept the conclave?  Or would they reject the pope elected by such a conclave because a vast a majority of the vote-eligible cardinals had been appointed by Francis? Or, even if they provisionally thought it possible the conclave could be valid, what would they do once a new pope confirmed the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation, or confirmed that Francis was a true pope? The moment has come.  Now we will find out what their reactions and actions will be.

Habemus Problem?

In his first appearance on the Loggia of St. Peter’s following his election, Pope Leo XIV did speak of Pope Francis.  Clearly, he considers him to have been a true pope — not that this should surprise anyone. But it crystallizes the whole question. What will these Benepapists and “Franics-was-an-anti-pope” folks do now? For nearly a dozen years they pushed their claims; unfortunately, too often, aided by prominent podcasters who – if not sympathetic to them – did not critically challenge these claims,  content enough to garner the clicks the controversy drew to their sites.

However, now, a new day has come. The temporary, twelve-year-long bubble in which these Benepapists could carry on as they had, deferring the hard choice, has popped. The founders and leading voices of the Benepapist movement can no longer spout their claims without having to make a decisive choice — as if sprinkling them about like fairy dust as they hopped and skipped along in carefree manner — as they had before in their books, their many podcast appearances, and onlines “courses” as if reality would never intervene.  But, reality has now intervened.  Francis is dead. A man has been elected pope in his place.  The end-game logic of their theories must now be acted upon, or rejected. The proverbial ‘rubber must now hit the road’ moment has come. The reckoning is here. Will these Benepapists now do the right thing and submit to the newly elected, lawful, pope and abjure their previously voiced opinions as false and erroneous?  This is the right and honorable thing to do.  Or, will they carry on, and now fall into sedevacantism?

Where are the Benepapist- and Francis-is-an-antipope- Folks now?

So, with the above questions in mind, I thought it might be interesting to review the reactions to Leo XIV’s election of some of the key personalities who had declared the resignation of Benedict XVI to be invalid, or likely invalid, and or Francis to be, or likely to have been an anti-pope. Are we going to see more Catholics sink into sedevacantism as a result? 

I review some of the leading voices below, in no particular order:

Ann Barnhardt: 

Ms. Barnhardt has been a leading voice in the Benepapist movement from the very first. Given Ms. Barnhardt’s many references to the saint, it has seemed to me she imagines herself as something of a modern day St. Catherine of Sienna of this movement — “Ann of Barnhardt“, if you will.  

Unfortunately, she has staked her entire credibility on the claim Benedict’s resignation was definitely invalid, and that Francis was definitely an anti-pope — deriding along the way any who had the temerity to disagree with her view. She left herself no wiggle room. Humanly speaking, it will be quite difficult to impossible for her to extract herself from the tight corner into which she has painted herself by her absolute assertions, rhetoric, and insults.

Ms. Barnhardt will have to eat a lot of humble pie before all is said and done, and I don’t know if she has the digestive system to handle it. Thus far, as of May 10, I have not seen that she had clearly opined on whether Pope Leo XIV in her view is or is not a true pope.  She has posted that the election of Pope Leo XIV is an “abject disaster” (see HERE).  Perhaps she is still collecting her thoughts, until she decides which way the wind is blowing.  

Mark Docherty: 

Mr. Docherty has been closely associated with Ann Barndhardt, frequently appearing on her podcast.  He initially defended the legitimacy of Benedict XVI’s resignation but unfortunately, he was eventually won over to Barnhardt’s position.  Over at his Non Veni Pacem blog, on the day after the election of Pope Leo XIV, Mr. Docherty posted an article on May 9th titled “True Pope? Here is a great way to find out, in short order…“. 

This title, at least to me, suggests a reservation about committing to whether Pope Leo XIV is a true pope or not. Mr. Docherty goes on to seemingly lay down conditions necessary to confirm “who’s who, and what’s what”, i.e., it seems, whether Leo XIV is a true pope or not.  Mr. Docherty writes (bold added):

“Regardless of any past irregularities, Pope Prevost, if truly Pope, now enjoys the supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises. The heresies in Amoris, and the heresy of Synodality, must be addressed. So let us converge these two realities and find out who’s who and what’s what.”

Below this statement, Mr. Docherty then posts an article written by  Fr. John Zuhlsdorf on his own separate blog in which Fr. Zuhlsdorf suggests the Dubia cardinals should resubmit to Pope Leo XIV their original dubia on Amoris Laetitia “when things settle down.”

Two points.  First point, I agree with Fr. Zuhlsdorf.  I do believe the dubia cardinals, and additional cardinals, should resubmit to Pope Leo XIV all their dubia (two sets) on the question of Amoris Laetitia.  I did hypothesize in my article on the election of Leo XIV that there may have been some sort of agreement between Prevost and conservative cardinals to take another look at this question (see Habemus Papam).

Second point. There can be no real question that Pope Leo XIV is the pope.  He was elected  by the cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when the See of Rome was indisputably vacant.  No cardinal or local ordinary has stepped forward to allege there was any canonical problem or violation of the conclave rules in his election. Nor, for that matter, has Mr. Docherty asserted any such violation. Furthermore, with the possible exception of times when there were multiple claimants to the papal throne, there is simply no precedent in Church history to claim one can reasonably, honestly, or faithfully adopt a wait-and-see attitude as to what a pope does or does not do before submitting to his authority as true pope.  Mr. Docherty’s position is untenable.  

The above said, my hunch is…this is probably a position similar to what Ms. Barnhardt will adopt, i.e., wait and see.

Andrea Cionci:

Signor Cionci has probably been the most successful Benepapist from both a popularity and a financial point of view with the success of his book, The Ratzinger Code. His central thesis is that Pope Benedict XVI never intended to resign the papacy.  Rather, in order to protect the papacy from the modernist enemies of the Church, Benedict, according to Cionci, devised a way to create a self-impeded see — whereby he only appeared to have resigned, but really kept the office (munus) of the papacy for himself.  Thus, Cionci argues, Benedict remained true pope till his death. This, of course, meant the election of Pope Francis was invalid. In Cionci’s view, Benedict communicated the reality that he had remained pope through obscure references and amphibologies – ambiguous words or phrases admitting of different meaning.  Thus, through this supposed “code” – the Ratzinger Code of Cionci’s book – Benedict allegedly communicated to those who could understand his code that he was really still pope.

That is the claim. However,Cionci’s thesis is nonsense on many levels, as argued in my book and a series of articles (see Summa Contra Andrea Cionci, Plan B, and the Ratzinger Code). First of all, it is ridiculous to think Benedict would believe pretending not to be pope, and not using his authority as pope could be a wiser or more prudent course of action than actually being and doing what a pope could do to save the Church from the problems outlined by Cionci.  In fact, under Cionci’s theory, Benedict effectively, willfully and intentionally surrendered the Church to an anti-pope, i.e., to a veritable wolf who ravaged the Lord’s flock.

Thus, Cionci’s theory makes Benedict a monster, particularly so because Benedict’s plan did not leave us an out, as for how the Church might extricate itself from the problem created by Benedict himself (see Benedict XVI and the missing “Last Testament”?). Cionci’s protestations to the contrary will not avail him; the conclusion is ineluctable. Cionci’s theory is also ridiculous as the central example of his supposed Ratzinger Code is shown to fail miserably upon close examination (see Regarding the “Ratzinger Code”), and he was forced to admit his claim was mistaken, though once this was revealed to him, he awkwardly tried to escape the obvious hole in his theory (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”).

Now, going into the conclave, it seemed to me that Cionci’s view was the conclave would be invalid because most of the Cardinal-electors had been appointed by Francis, and thus were invalid by his theory.  Yesterday (May 9), I came across his video recap of the election of Pope Leo XIV (see HERE). The title of the video in Italian is: “Plausibile che Leone XIV sia un vero papa. Graduale svelamento: occhio al cerimoniale.” This may be translated, “Plausbile that Leo XIV may be a true pope. Gradual revelation: watch the ceremonial.” So, here Cionci already signals it is “plausible” Leo XIV is a true pope, though he does not commit to it.

In the actual video Cionci says (at 3:51): “I’m happy because I believe 75% that the legitimate Petrine succession has been restored.” Cionci goes on to say further on in his video (at 8:17) that until he sees “unequivocal proof” that Leo XIV was elected by true cardinals, he “cannot consider him 100% a legitimate pope.”  Cionci adds that if Leo XIV “…is a legitimate pope he will gradually make the truth known with the wisdom of the father.” So, bottom line, Cionci is leaning toward Leo XIV being a legitimate pope, 75% so, but he cannot commit at this time, barring proof the “true cardinals” voted for him in sufficient numbers.

It is curious that Cionci says that if Leo XIV is legitimate, he will “reveal” this with the wisdom of the father. Presumably, this means he will do so in a code!  So, perhaps there is an opportunity for Cionci to write another book, perhaps titled “The Leonine Code“.  Keep a watchful eye, perhaps it may be coming to Amazon or to a bookstore near you soon!

Regardless, bottom line, although he is leaning toward Pope Leo XIV being legitimate, Cionci appears to be on the fence, not yet able to commit firmly.

Estefania Acosta: 

This Colombian attorney is another leading voice of the Benepapist movement.  She has a book of her own — among the first ones I believe. Her theory on the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation bears some similarities to Cionci’s. Both she and Cionci rejected Barnhardt’s theory, even as Barnhardt contemptuously rejected Cionci’s (see HERE and HERE). 

Ms. Acosta appears to have been closely associated with a petition (see here), in which the signatories declared they “remain faithful to Pope Benedict XVI.” Indeed, hers is the first signature on the list. In addition, the petition, amongst other things, declared at the time (when Benedict still was alive) that any future conclave held under certain, specified conditions would be invalid.  The specified conditions relevant to the recent conclave declared the participation of cardinals named by Jorge Bergoglio, or any conclave held under provisions created by Jorge Bergoglio would make that conclave invalid.  In a warning to the Benepapists at that time, I called this petition “utter folly.” (see A Suggestion for Beneplenists before it’s too late).

Given that cardinals created by Pope Francis did take part in the recent conclave, it appears if one accepted the petition, then it would follow that one would hold the election of Leo XIV to be null and void.  And indeed, this appears to be the position taken by Ms. Acosta.

To see Ms. Acosta’s current position, I checked out her X account last night (see HERE).  There she posted an image with the following statement in Spanish (see HERE).

I used google to translate it as follows (emphasis added):

“From the outset, I refuse to recognize the canonical authority of someone who has called himself Leo XIV. I prefer to risk being mistaken in this way than to submit to a “pontificate” that, at its canonical foundation, is built on the sand of irregularity and dishonesty. It is far more dangerous to yield to the “enchantment” of someone whose election is spurious and whose actions/words are serpentine, than to be willing to receive—if it comes—a correction based on solid arguments—rather than on childish enthusiasm.”

The import of her position seems quite self-evident, and there is no need to go deeply into it.  Unfortunately, responding to her own X post above, Ms. Acosta conveniently absolves herself of any blame in the event she is mistaken in her belief (bold added):

“Y, en todo caso, de equivocarme en esto, sería un error más que excusable… atribuible principalmente al silencio cómplice de la jerarquía eclesiástica.”

Translated by X as follows:

“And, in any case, if I were to err in this, it would be a more than excusable mistake… mainly attributable to the complicit silence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.”

(Source:  See HERE)

Why Ms. Acosta would blame the hierarchy in the case she is mistaken is not clear. The ecclesiastical hierarchy’s refusal to adopt her position is in fact a sign they universally accepted the legitimacy of both the resignation of Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis, even if only implicitly.

Regardless, Ms. Acosta makes herself judge and jury in her own case.  Ms. Acosta — the lawyer — should know better. All of this is unfortunate. Ms. Acosta through the advocacy of her position, and her stubbornness in maintaining it even now, has led not only herself but thousands of others into error with herself. 

Dr. Edmund Mazza:  

Dr. Mazza, like Mark Docherty, has been closely aligned with the positions of Ms. Barnhardt. His theories have molted and changed over time. He first famously appeared on Taylor Marshall’s podcast touting the “Mazza Hypothesis” 1.0, yet about a year later, he had discarded that theory and was already up, self-admittedly, to “Mazza Hypothesis 3.0”. If you had blinked, you had missed the roll out of version 2.0 of Dr. Mazza’s theory. Notably, he has offered so many tendentious arguments (see HERE as but one example), and erroneous takes on historical precedents (see HERE and HERE) one may be excused for thinking Dr. Mazza is just flinging mud against the side of the barn to see what might stick (also see The Summa Contra Dr. Mazza). 

Remarkably, on an appearance on Tim Gordon’s podcast a few days before the conclave, Dr. Mazza even offered a way the few conservative cardinals could by themselves elect a true pope, circumventing the canonical process. I reviewed his hypothesis and pointed out the grave flaws in his theory (see Dr. Mazza’s latest idea: “maneuver” or manure?). .

As far as Dr. Mazza’s stance on the validity of Pope Leo XIV election, I have not yet been able to determine what it is of this moment. But I have determined this. It appears one may be able to learn what Dr. Mazza’s view is on this critical question of the day, IF one is willing to pay $99 for the online course he just announced on May 8, 2025 — the day of Leo XIV election(!) which is titled Pope Leo XIV? & The Papacy (see Pope Leo XIV? & The Papacy). Note the clever insertion of the question mark, “Pope Leo XIV?” which teases the question of Leo XIV’s validity for those tormented by the very doubts which were shamelessly instilled in them by the Benepapists all of these years.  Anyway…those who register must wait until May 15th for the start of this course to see if Dr. Mazza does, or does not, share his opinion on Pope Leo XIV’s validity.

Personally, I will pocket my $99 and consider myself all the wiser for it.

Fr. James Altman: 

Whilst Pope Francis was still alive, Fr. Altman had said that Francis had “lost the papacy” and “he is not a pope” and “he is a fraud“, etc.  He said all this in a videotaped talk at a Cancelled Priest Conference (see HERE, beginning around the 34:00 point).   

With regard to Pope Leo XIV, Fr. Altman published a long, rambling statement on X on the question of Pope Leo XIV (see HERE). He begins this statement saying “Dear family, many have been asking me about Prevost, the new “pope.”” Fr. Altman’s use of scare quotes (“pope”) certainly seems here intended to call the validity of Pope Leo XIV into doubt.  That is also my personal interpretation of the remainder of his long, rambling statement. The reader should take a look and draw his or her own opinion, but it appears to me that if Fr. is not denying the legitimacy of Leo XIV, it appears he intends to at least cast doubt upon it, or at least hold it out as an open question, yet to be decided.   

Patrick Coffin

Mr. Coffin clearly came out and claimed Francis is an anti-pope.  He did so in a video titled “Seven pieces of evidence that Francis is an antipope.”  At the time, I wrote a response addressing his “evidence” (see Benepapism and Mr. Coffin’s “Seven Pieces of Information Francis is an anti-pope”).

One may exist, but I haven’t seen a clear statement of Mr. Coffin’s position with regard to Pope Leo XIV.  He has referred to Pope Leo XIV in a number of tweets by title and name (e.g., HERE). That would suggest that he thinks Leo is a real pope.  If the reader has seen something different, please forward to me.

Alexis “Brother” Bugnolo: 

Bugnolo was a little late to join the Benepapist cause; but did so with a vengeance once he was fully committed to it. I’ve written various articles against his erroneous opinions and interpretations (e.g., see Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Faulty Logic, and Faulty Comprehension with Respect to Canon 17), and this has not pleased him (see HERE). I think I live rent free in his head.

Bugnolo attempted to defend the claim that Benedict’s resignation was invalid, and claimed that Benedict XVI remained pope until his death. Following the death of Benedict XVI, Bugnolo declared the See of Rome vacant. When the College of Cardinals failed to act — in Bugnolo’s view — to elect a successor to Benedict, Bugnolo boldly went forward with organizing a “conclave” of his own to elect a pope!  

Seeing the unaware hubris, utter absurdity, and humor surrounding Bugnolo’s “conclave” efforts, Roma Locuta Est decided to record these events for the benefit of posterity (see The Bugnolo Files). Future generations should remember this rogue “conclave” held in an airport hotel outside of Rome (see The Bugnolan conclave begins January 30, 2023 at a Rome airport hotel!), and that there were only four or so participants – or should I say “electors”!  Then the unexpected happened. After years of railing against Pope Francis as an anti-pope, the Bugnolan “conclave” — in a surprise move — elected Pope Francis as pope!  It makes one wonder whether Alexis “Brother” Bugnolo ever looked into the mirror in the morning at some point after this “conclave”, and shook his head, as he blamed himself for Francis being pope “because” of his “conclave” —  “What were you thinking, ‘brother'”!  I still believe that a story based on this “conclave”  would some day make an excellent “mockumentary” in the style of This is Spinal Tap.  If there are any interested movie producers out there…I’d be happy to write the screen play!

Even many of the leading Benepapists by that point in time appear to have had enough of Bugnolo’s antics. Indeed, just the other day, Estefania Acosta in an X post disputing the legitimacy of Pope Leo XIV’s election, did so by derisively citing the Bugnolan “conclave.”  She wrote (bold added): 

Los que hoy llaman a esperar a ver “qué resulta” del “pontificado” de “León” son comparables a los que llamaban a esperar “qué resultaba” del “cónclave” que lideró Alexis Bugnolo en Roma en 2023. Hay que usar la lógica de entrada: procedimientos ilegales, resultados ilegales.

Translated by X as follows:

Those who today call for waiting to see “what comes” of “Leo’s” “pontificate” are comparable to those who called for waiting to see “what came” of the “conclave” led by Alexis Bugnolo in Rome in 2023. We must use basic logic: illegal procedures, illegal results.

(Source: see HERE)

Though it is sad to see Ms. Acosta disputing the election of a Pope Leo XIV, her comment about the Bugnolan “conclave” is still pretty funny. But…it is one that Alexis “Brother” Bugnolo is not likely to forget or forgive.  

Anyway, coming to the point of it all.  Bugnolo was a late comer to the original Benepapist cause, and seems to be one who likes to be in the thick of things.  So it really comes as no surprise that he wanted to stake out an early position —  “out of the gate,”  so to speak — claiming that Leo XIV is likely an anti-pope. Indeed, Bugnolo may be the first one to have done so on record, doing so quite clearly on May 8, 2025, shortly after Leo’s election that same day (see Habemus Papam? Leo XIV). In his article, after describing his perception of Cardinal Prevost’s view of Fiducia Supplicans, Bugnolo wrote in part (emphasis added):

“On this basis, I say that Prevost’s election MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE INVALID in virtue of Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex apostolatus officio”. I believe my judgement is shared by the Catholic Cardinals, none of whom were seen on the balconies of the Basilica of Saint Peter for the announcement of the election of Prevost. That is very significant. Cardinal Burke was not present even though he is an American.”

Bugnolo’s reaction was quite rash for many reasons.  As one example, had he simply checked Cardinal Burke’s X account on May 8th he would have seen he accepted the election of Pope Leo XIV, writing: “Please join me in thanking Our Lord for the election of Pope Leo XIV, Successor of Saint Peter, as the Shepherd of the Church throughout the world” (see HERE). Cardinal Sarah, as but another example, posted on X calling him pope (see HERE). Unfortunately, Bugnolo’s original, qualified position of May 8th – i.e., Leo XIV’s election “must be presumed to be invalid” – hardened. By May 9th, Bugnolo had published an article titled (bold added): “Cardinal Prevost is an Anti-Pope, his election is invalidated by Paul IV” (see HERE). In the video attached to this article, Bugnolo said Cardinal Prevost ‘is not the pope.’

As a final note on Alexis “Brother” Bugnolo.  Now that he has declared that Pope Leo XIV is not in fact the pope, will Bugnolo now organize yet another “conclave” of his own?  And if so, does he have membership points at the airport hotel?

Final Thoughts

Our survey of these leading Benepapists and ‘Francis is an anti-pope’ folks is a mixed bag.  A couple — i.e., Acosta and Bugnolo — are on record saying Leo XIV is not a valid pope.  Fr. Altman appears to be leaning that way, at least that’s how I interpret him. Cionci sits on the fence, saying he is 75% sure Leo XIV is a true pope, but wants evidence the “true” cardinals (those not appointed by Pope Francis) voted for him. Another, Docherty, seems to suggest a wait and see attitude that is contingent on what Pope Leo XIV does on certain controversial issues.

But, it does seem we can say a few have fallen into a new species of sedevacantism, and that a few others are on the fence — some leaning more one way, and others leaning more the other. All of this is regrettable, as each of these individuals have folks who follow them and may be influenced by what they say or do. To head this off at the pass, I do pray that all these folks, who have taken quite public positions, come out and declare Pope Leo XIV to be a valid pope.  Also, it is important they abjure any opinions or views they have publicly advocated that have previously cast doubt upon the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and or which have claimed Francis was an anti-pope. That is the honest thing to do.

Someday, I hope, the Benepapist controversy will have been finally put to rest for good, with all the arguments and personalities perhaps being no more than footnotes in some obscure, old, and dusty dissertation on tin-foil-hat conspiracies in the Catholic Church of the 21st century which has been tucked away somewhere on a darkened, forgotten shelf.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.