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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO3LXsRCey0
His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, in the face of the Bergoglian antipapacy lo these past eleven years has done little (Remember the Dubia years ago? That he didn't follow up on?) to nothing to stop the scandalizing, deception, and prolonged spiritual rape and murder of so many souls by the Argentinian apostate archcriminal in white squatting on the Chair of Peter.
Whatever his motives, externally his Eminence's behavior is that of a despicable coward. His excuses for inaction are lame copouts. GK Chesterton wrote something to the effect that something worth doing is worth doing even badly, so His Eminence's excuses for inaction fall flat.
Eminence, your time on earth is short, your looming punishment for your grave pastoral negligence is horrific beyond imagining...and will be unending. You wear the cardinalatial red, symbolizing martyr's blood. Act IMMEDIATELY!