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
Below, the late Cardinal Sodano says that Ratzinger abdicated from the service of the Church shortly after Ratzinger announced his abdication to the cardinals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrajaSH-ZTI
But Viganò shows incoherence to the deceased pope by stating that Bergoglio has the Petrine office, as we can see below:
“This uninterrupted series of acts, contrary to the purpose of the Munus petrinum, which began from his first appearance on the balcony of the Vatican, confirms his defect of consent in the assumption of the Papacy, which Bergoglio intended to use-and still uses-to destroy the Church and damn souls”.
Why doesn't he mention the Universi Dominici Gregis?