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
]
Let's say there was a case of the owner of the house and the constant barking of the neighbor's dog that the police never solved.
The neighbor's new cat next door annoyed him by meowing all night, but he claimed it was the neighbor's old acquaintance next door's dog that annoyed him again. He thus clearly demonstrated that he could no longer distinguish the noise of two distinct beings, because there is a loss in him of the being which is always that which separates the subject of the bark and the subject of the meow.
Let us also imagine the same fellow being taken and bound to a straitjacket for the same act.
The doctor on duty would leave him sedated for arriving at the shift greatly altered by a "dog" meow; when passing the medication, the nurse on duty would ask if he is okay; He would answer without any sense of reality: "Bergoglio is my pope!"
Catholic truth is based on being is what it always is; but Bergoglio is not a being who proves to be what he is.