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
An Imperfect Council!
Now!
Ivan
He justifies this through the creation of his Catholic foundation, similar to the Society of St. Pius X, but without a canonical link with Rome. This means a contempt for any different initiative on the part of other members of the Church.
This is a clear distance from the popes because he presents them as revolutionaries at Vatican II, without showing a more respectful and profound analysis of them, who did not dogmatically define the same council at all.
His view remains always negative.
And he now distances himself from Catholic commentators with positive suggestions for saving the papacy.
The archbishop also distances himself from the faith because he does not mention it once in the article. He thus comes to a grim conclusion: nothing can prevent the destruction of the papacy.
The archbishop's faith, therefore, is bound up with the Sabbath.
.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html