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
And let me repeat it too: Universi Dominici Gregis claims that Bergoglio had the election "null and void, without the need for any declaration, and therefore confers no right" on Bergoglio himself. It is enough for the Catholic to confer this in the same constitution in articles 76 and 77.
Probably he did not allow himself to be carried away by the Gnostic hypnosis of chaos. The example, of course, is Bergoglio confirming the blessing of homosexual partners in churches; And many conservative Catholics are now getting more into the same chaos that is contrary to the faith.
For this reason, Pope Benedict XVI kept the Petrine Munus to himself, a selective process, so that only those who have faith would remain in the Church.