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
There would be an objective and profound solution to the crisis, without speculation from those shepherds who show no sincere interest in the good of the flock (John 10:13).
There is a huge crisis in the clergy today, both on the progressive and the traditional side, in the four corners of the world. Because the voice of reason and faith is no longer heard. She is the voice of the Good Shepherd.
And the consequence is a clear division within an ecclesial communion that should not exist with a subject who has no supreme authority in order to have the same ecclesial communion. Because he clearly reveals himself to be a mercenary.
Irrationality without faith reigns consistently at this eschatological and definitive moment in the history of humanity.