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
In this same context, unity in the Church is based on the person of the Vicar of Christ, who represents that identity which distinguishes, for example, from the Russian Orthodox Church, which is opposed and schismatic.
This initiative with Bergoglio's Fiducia Supplicans, totally against faith and morals, proves yet another detail of the Anti-Church: a clear false and subtle change in the visibility of the Church making it similar to the Russian Church.
It is no coincidence that Gnostic doctrine is present among both the Bergoglians and the Russians.
At Vatican II, with ambiguous texts that did not define any new dogma, collegiality weakened papal sovereignty over bishops. Because the pope is unique among the peers who are the bishops.
But Pope Paul VI, with no alternative, as reported by Dr G. Gamberini who was a bishop of the Gnostic Church, and forced to sacrifice a tradition for the survival of the Church, put two explanatory notes on account of the ambiguity of the text about this same collegiality to satisfy the bishops, but to no avail.
And so he renounces a very simple Papal Tiara that looked like a Russian Sputnik missile, placing it on the Altar of St. Peter.
We can analyze these facts coldly: they are part of the same previous revolution that led the bishops, today there is an episcopal independence against the papal document; but against an author of the document who is not a non-legitimate pope, he does not represent the Church.
The Gnostics are demoralizing and blaming the pope and the papacy, destroying unity with Peter, using a puppet to their evil end.
It is the same cunning that was orchestrated before by the serpent to destroy faith today.
https://www.traca.com.br/livro/1054944/maconaria-igreja-catolica/