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 the Gnostic Church is acting against the identity of the same being, which is a characteristic of Gnosis, through dialectics. The latter means that something always changes and never stays static.
Gnosis denies God who is immutable from immutable commandments as well. Because the Gnostics believe that all of this further imprisons the divine seed that exists in them because of matter. That is why they say that it is necessary to abolish rules, in an irrational and illogical process; and God is an evil to be rejected.
That's why she's debating whether she can call a homosexual union a "couple" as well.
In short, she is debating every imaginable identity against the immutable Catholic faith.
This turns into a mystical, demonic hypnotic trance in the minds of the faithful.
It is a punishment for not seeking the truth that does not change.