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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSW0HHF2amA
We may not fully agree with the content of the video, as it comes from a German, i.e. Western, media. But it gets in the way and it's a problem when you declassify a fact out of ideological attachment perhaps, because everything gets hazy again. The truth becomes even harder to discern. But if we analyze coldly it will be clear that the video above is consistent with what some mystics say, let's pay attention when it shows a plan of a Russian invasion in Europe, as Alois Irlmaier says. We must cling to the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHWBl7nL5-M