Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "When my uncle came into office, two months later he was fighting his intelligence apparatus and his military... in the middle of Bay of Pigs, he realized they were lying to him. He realized the function of the intelligence agencies had become to provide the military-industrial complex with a constant pipeline of war...
... And so the neocons and CIA got to go into Iraq and do regime change. We spent $8 trillion and what did we get for it? Nothing... Iraq is now much worse off than it was when we went in there. We killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did."
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