Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
Comments
"The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with 'communism' or 'socialism'. Moreover, in the practice of "capitalism," it rejected individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the market over human labor. The regulation of the economy exclusively through centralized planning perverts social bonds at the base; Its regulation solely by the law of the market goes against social justice, "for there are many human needs that cannot be met by the market." It is necessary to advocate a rational regulation of the market and of economic initiatives, according to a just hierarchy of values and with a view to the common good." (CCC, 2425).