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
1 – Benedict XVI abdicates the ministry, something that not being placed according to the same Constitution requires above. If the Pontiff speaks of weariness or the burden of age in order not to continue the exercise of the same ministry, then he would abdicate the Petrine Munus. Here they must seek a logic, therefore, a deepening of this question;
2 – Benedict XVI also speaks to the Cardinals, in his letter to the same College, that the same "Lord show him what he wants", in the docility of the Holy Spirit, about this future conclave, in 2013, of a "new pope"; The word is in customary use among Catholics, but canonically not expressed in canonical matters.
Finally, we hope that all of this can be understood by them, a real beginning of a new journey of faith that the Lord so desires.