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
What did he say?
Here:
-"14 Vos enim imitatores facti estis, fratres, ecclesiarum Dei, quae sunt in Judaea in Christo Jesu : quia eadem passi estis et vos a contribulibus vestris, sicut et ipsi a Judaeis : 15 qui et Dominum occiderunt Jesum, et prophetas, et nos persecuti sunt, et Deo non placent, et omnibus hominibus adversantur,
16 prohibentes nos gentibus loqui ut salvae fiant, ut impleant peccata sua semper : pervenit enim ira Dei super illos usque in finem."
-St. Paul, 1st Epistle of St Paul to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2