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 was reconsecrated bishop by Bishop Williamson, who belongs to a priestly society parallel to the Church known as the Resistencia. And the archbishop to this day has never denied this fact.
The context analyzed then must be in accordance with the Code of Canon Law of Functions of Ecclesiastical Office on the Society founded by Wiliianson, which there is information that he himself has consecrated four bishops since his departure from the Society of St. Pius X, and will continue without this canonical regularization logically.
This is clearly as an opposition to the same reformed Code of 1983:
"It is not permissible for any bishop to consecrate another bishop unless he is previously informed of the pontifical mandate (1013)".
Moreover, "without canonical provision, no ecclesiastical office can be validly obtained(146)" from the episcopal consecrations performed by him. Only the Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms them (377); In the case of Williamson, there is no authority or power to confer anything in the Church, nor in the sacrament to another. That is why it implies disobedience to the Pontiff himself on his par (80).
And the archbishop shows contempt for the gift he received, episcopal grace, at the hands of Pope John Paul II himself, who made him a bishop. And all the authority of the Roman Pontiffs and even the validity of all the sacraments in the Church which he received.
It is worth noting that number 845 in the Code of Canon Law says below:
"The sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders, since they imprint character, cannot be repeated."
[more]
And Viganò clearly demonstrates total adherence to this same canonical disobedience of both the English bishop and the other bishops of St. Pius X. Moreover, he seeks the same example of canonical irregularity with a foundation in a Church parallel to the canonical Church, separating from the latter.
It is good to remember that any gesture of Bergoglio, with an illegitimate pontificate according to Canon 332,2, cannot confer any regularization, according to the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, articles 76 and 77.
Therefore, here is the most faithful analysis possible of facts that cannot be disregarded, not carried away by preferences about this or that person; but turned only to the truth of Christ and his Church.