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- He also sees the controversy of Bergoglio's election, putting it in a speculative and mistaken way, exchanging an ecclesiastical problem, Code of Canon Law 331, for one of vice that is only justified by the lack of consensus on one or the other part of the spouses to make it so valid or not, but in the Sacrament of Matrimony, number 1159;
2 - Indirectly, he does not see an effective canonical solution in the Universal Church because of the same "vice of consensus";
3 - But when the interviewer asks about a solution, he points to a gradual change in the Church through the Exsurge Domine, the foundation he founded.