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
Worse than this blasphemous and immoral act in itself intended to bless people in a state of sin, although it does not require a written record, as Fiducia Supplicans itself says, is to affirm that Bergoglio is pope.
Because the Gnostics used this same antipope to invert and blame the divine institutions, but maliciously in a double tongue, which is characteristic of the serpent.
The authority of Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis asserts that he is not.