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
"Before the coming of Christ, the Church must pass a final test that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies their pilgrimage on earth will reveal the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious imposture that offers men an apparent solution to their problems, at the price of apostasy from the truth. The greatest religious imposture is that of the Antichrist, that is, a pseudo-messianism in which man glorifies himself in the place of God and his Messiah comes in the flesh."
Renato