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
"Money, money, digital crasch, money, money, in your hand the chip and such, now you have the power to buy and sell because the mark of the beast can be on you."
Bergoglio will launch a new "encyclical" of Laudato Si soon, as one of the links in this post says, in the same context of the same globalist agenda. But, in my opinion, what draws the most attention is the clear form of adherence of Bergoglio with the enemies of humanity, as shown by another link in the post. He makes himself one with them. This clearly demonstrates who he is. As was warned before by us.
I don't think it was consciousness. I think it's really a Digita
Chash 666.
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2023/09/boycott-all-666-cashless-banks-it.html
Everything falls into place. It all makes sense. So the facts speak for themselves. It just doesn't see who doesn't really want to see.