December 26, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – Since 2017, this blog, Roma Locuta Est, has followed the arguments of those who claimed the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was not valid. One of the things I was curious about was, what would the Benepapists do after the deaths of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis? Would they accept a conclave populated by Cardinal-electors appointed in great part by Pope Francis, or would they ultimately reject it? Would they reject the election of Pope Leo XIV on these or other grounds?
Current Events and Trends in the Benepapist world
Roma Locuta Est tracked the initial reactions of some of the leading Benepapists on this question in an article titled “Habemus Problem?”. Andrea Cionci, author of the Ratzinger Code – who I have debunked here, and in my Book – appears to continue to hedge his bets somewhat, though he seems to continue to lean toward a qualified view that Leo is a valid pope – though he leaves open the possibility he is not. In a video following the election, Cionci said (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 this 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.” It does not appear Cionci has substantially altered this view to this day. So, bottom line, Cionci is leaning toward Leo XIV being a legitimate pope, but he cannot commit at this time, barring proof the “true cardinals” voted for him in sufficient numbers.
Other leading Benepapists who rejected the validity of the election of Pope Leo XIV continue to claim he is not a true pope. The interesting thing here is, whereas they had previously appealed to their own erroneous and fallacious interpretations of Benedict XVI’s resignation document (Declaratio) to reject Pope Francis, there is no document of any kind upon which they can now rest their rejection of Pope Leo XIV.
Consequently, necessity has forced them into adopting sedevacantist-like arguments to defend their rejection of Pope Leo XIV. See Roma Locuta Est articles where this is discussed (see Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist? and Benepapism: The gateway drug to sedevacantism and Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument).
Many of these Benepapists who have moved to offer the sedevacantist arguments which they would have previously (and often did) reject when it came to 1958-style sedevacantism, or related forms of it. Thus, they reject the label of being “sedevacantists” out of aversion to sedevacantism; preferring, instead, to call themselves “interregnists” – i.e., between the reigns of valid popes. However, this is a non-existent, and laughable distinction. Sedevacantists could as easily apply the label of “interregnist” to themselves. The only difference in their positions is the length of the interregnal period. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It may well be as time marches on, these Benepapists of the “interregnist” variety may become more comfortable with the sedevacantist arguments they have adopted. One might speculate they will get to the point of not even bothering to defend their old arguments against the validity of Francis based on the Declaratio. Instead, in the long run, their old “Benedict is pope” arguments may end up as nothing other than a ‘limited hangout‘, i.e, they may well in the end decide to apply their sedevacantist arguments to the Francis pontificate, coming to the conclusion it is superfluous and unnecessary to claim Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Consequently, I think it reasonable to speculate that some of these Benepapists will, in time, migrate away from the “invalid resignation” belief, seeing it as an ‘unnecessary complication.’ In the end, they will simply and overtly embrace sedevacantism.
Among the leading Benepapists there are certainly some ‘interesting’ characters who appear to have delusions, and delusions of grandeur, one considering herself as something of a Catherine of Sienna for this time, or another considering himself authorized to organize a papal conclave, or perhaps, in yet another case, one who seeming considers himself something of a ‘mini-pope’ for the small, Catholic remnant.
For example, Readers may recall “Brother” Bugnolo who organized a “conclave” to elect a “pope” following the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I reported in a tongue-in-cheek fashion on this “conclave” held in an airport hotel outside of Rome, Italy (see The Bugnolo Files). At the time, I thought this might one day make good material for a “mockumentary movie” in the style of This is Spinal Tap.
Unfortunately, at the time, “Brother” Bugnolo, failed to sufficiently reflect and see the absurdity in his endeavor. He pressed on. The “conclave” called in part over his grave concerns about Pope Francis, ended up, oddly enough, electing Francis pope (again). But, it wasn’t long before Bugnolo turned on the pope he ‘helped’ elect(see The Bugnolo Files).
In first imagining a possible This is Spinal Tap mockumentary on the effort above; I hardly imagined that “Brother” Bugnolo would later provide material for a sequel. But he has. After the death of Pope Francis, he then declared the election of Pope Leo XIV invalid. The Church ‘needing’ a pope, Bugnolo sought to supply one by organizing yet another “conclave” which ‘elected’ a “pope,” who took the name of “Hildebrand.”
We don’t know much about this “pope” Hildebrand, other than he is an Italian, he was elected outside of Rome, and that he has not yet been consecrated a bishop. But what is known to date can be found on the new “pope’s” website on which “Brother” Bugnolo held an online news conference — which was not attended by a single journalist (see Bugnolo “news conference”). Members of the public following the live, streamed event, were able to ask questions. We don’t know how many followed the event live, but there was only one question: ‘Is Hildebrand a priest?‘
Bugnolo refused to answer the question. But we did learn that Bugnolo was tasked by the “pope-elect” with finding a bishop who would be willing to consecrate his new “pope” a bishop. I don’t know where Bugnolo will find a bishop who will consecrate his Pope-elect Hildebrand, and even possibly ordain him first a priest. Regardless, it is certain it would be a schismatic bishop. One final point of interest, for those interested in items that might one day become bizarre and or obscure footnotes in a history of this time in the Church, Bugnolo’s “pope-elect Hildebrand” published his Urbi et Orbi homily on Christmas Eve (see “Pope-Elect Hildebrandus, Urbi et Orbi“).
Leaving Bugnolo and the “pope-elect Hildebrandus” behind us, we might also consider the case of Don Minutella. Fr. Minutella is an Italian priests excommunicated for having denied Francis was a valid pope. He was once allied with Andrea Cionci of Ratzinger Code fame, but the two apparently had a falling out at some point. Roma Locuta Est had previously covered Don Minutella to some extent in a couple of articles [see Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt wrong on the pp (Pontifex Pontificum), and Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”].
As for Don Minutella, it seems, he recently declared himself the “grand prelate” (see Bugnolo’s article on this HERE), and refers to his followers as the “Piccolo Resto”, i.e., ‘little remnant.’ One Italian writer describes the origin of the title of “grand prelate” as follows (bold added):
“Let’s turn to Minutella’s latest—for now—eccentricity. On the afternoon of June 29, the Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul, on the stage of a sports pavilion in the Italian city of Monza, before some 1,500 people and next to an image of Our Lady of Fatima, one of the priests who follows the sedevacantist leader exclaimed: “The Marian Priestly Sodalitium, with unanimous decision, and taking into account the sensus fidei of the people of God, officially recognizes Father Alessandro Maria Minutella as the Prelate sent by God.”
At these words, everyone erupted in applause, as if it were a historic and supernatural event. The face of the man from Palermo—dressed in a cassock—reflected emotion and satisfaction at being considered the figure foretold by prophecies for centuries, “the Lion of Mary.” All this “so that the faith of the Catholic Church may be restored in its entirety in these times of great apostasy.”
The Great Prelate? The Lion of Mary? What is this all about? It’s nothing more than an eschatological figure invented by Minutella and Cionci, a patchwork of elements taken from various private revelations. In recent years, these two have been convincing their followers of the imminent appearance of this prophetic figure, preparing them for what finally happened on June 29th: the Great Prelate is here! And sometimes they subtly suggest his identification with “Petrus Romanus”
Another Italian commentator who has followed Minutella much more closely than I said this “‘Little Remnant’ is a Church in itself and Father Minutella is assuming the role of Pope of his Church, of Antipope” (see And the Great Prelate (Father Minutella) proclaims the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix). Indeed, Minutella, on Feast of the Immaculate Conception this past December 8th, “declared” his own dogma of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. The same Italian writer says:
“The Grand Prelate and his “Little Remnant” proclaimed the dogma of Mary Co-Redemptrix, which the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith did not recognize.
In addition, Father Minutella declared Pope Leo XIV excommunicated.”
(Source: And the Great Prelate (Father Minutella) proclaims the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix)
This Italian commentator, sizing up this absurd farce, correctly says “we are at the point of madness” (see HERE).
The aforementioned Andrea Cionci has chronicled some of Minutella’s pretensions. Indeed, in one of his recent videos, Cionci offers a recording of Don Minutella making this ‘dogmatic declaration’ using language and expressions as if he were a pope (The Great Prelate excommunicates Leo XIV and proclaims the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix), and goes so far as to declare Pope Leo XIV a heretic, and to declare him excommunicated.
Final Thoughts
The Church is being attacked in various ways, such as the purity of doctrine, in its liturgy, and in its unity. These attacks do not always originate with modernists, liberals, or progressives. These attacks may also come from some who consider themselves “traditional” or conservative. In the cases above, the false attacks against the validity of Pope Leo XIV’s papacy come from some who consider themselves “traditional.”
To say this is not necessarily to defend everything related to Pope Francis or Pope Leo XIV. Roma Locuta Est, for example, has commented on Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, etc., and on the Pope Leo XIV’s silence regarding the homosexual mass in Rome (see Pope Leo XIV: Silence gives consent), as well as commented on the title of Co-Redemptrix (see The recent controversy over Marian titles and the Crisis in Rome). But, this said, it is clear Leo XIV is, in fact, a true pope, as is clear from the doctrine of Universal Acceptance (see Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist? and Benepapism: The gateway drug to sedevacantism and Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument).
As said, Minutella, a Benepapist, rejected the election of Pope Leo XIV. He once was somewhat associated with Andrea Cionci, but they appear to have had a falling out. Bugnolo as well seems to have had a falling out with Minutella and Cionci. Other leading Benepapists are not on good terms with some of these individuals either, and or vice versa. This is an interesting thing to note, as like all schismatic and heretical groups, divisions inevitably appear.
It has become clear over the years that the false claims of the Benepapists/’semivacantist’/ “interregnists” are backed by little more than shoddy research, and embarrassing misrepresentations. Roma Locuta Est has documented this in various articles on this blog (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), in a video series (see HERE), and in a book which replies to Benepapist arguments in an objection-reply format (see Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI). Others, such as Fr. John Rickert, Ryan Grant, John Salza and others have defended the validity of the resignation against the arguments of the Benepapists on various grounds as well.
But aside from the erroneous arguments offered by the Benepapists, ‘semivacantist’, and “interregnists, there is something else suggested by the recent events and trends discussed above. That is, a number of the leading voices who claim Francis and Leo are antipopes clearly exhibit signs of delusions, and delusions of grandeur to one extent or another. For one, they have not bothered to wait for any judgment of the Church before making their own absolute declarations on the question of the validity of Francis and Leo as popes. They will not consider evidence or alternatives that contradict their conclusions. Rather, in their minds, it is for the rest of us, for the rest of the Church to catch up to them!
Their delusions may vary in degree amongst themselves – but the direction of their movement is the same: a downward spiral into schism and “madness.” You know who they are. Avoid them. But, pray for them.
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.
Roma Locuta Est 