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
He demonstrates the same behavior about more doubts about his foundation which is called Exsurge Domine. Because this has turned into a controversy for taxpayers who only ask for clarification from this same institution of his. The issue of donations, for example, is the most delicate because of a lack of clarity.
In the Collegium Traditionis project there is a request for 1.5 million euros, but it will not be available to everyone because there is no accountability in the foundation. Nor where a large sum of money raised from some Benedictine nuns who did not accept the offer went.
All because of the archbishop's own fault for not divulging the truth.
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/01/25/la-lettera-che-poneva-domande-a-monsignor-vigano-e-la-posizione-di-duc-in-altum/