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
But this is related only to the performance of the sacrament of matrimony. In the Code of Canon Law, number 1159, it is said that this consent is necessary for the other party to have a valid sacrament.
He should cite was another canon which is number 331 relating to ecclesiastical office correctly on the subject.
And the consensus is thus seen in the Universi Dominici Gregis in a different way, which is cited by him in numbers 87 and 53. This last arctic cited, says that it is necessary for the elected candidate to accept or not the consensus among the cardinal electors on his choice. That's why I put it last to emphasize this well.
It is really necessary to take a good look at the quality of the clergy around us.
Catholics must safeguard their faith, because the tendency is to worsen the chaos for that same clergy who do not understand each other and do not yet resolve the issue of Bergoglio.