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 said that the attack directed was not only directed at him, but at the entire Mystical Body of Christ on earth. Because St. Augustine says that the Pope is the figura ecclesia and represents the Church as a whole.
Bergoglio doesn't fit in one thing or the other. He represents everything opposite: a dead Church that will persecute the faithful who are still alive in order to lead them also to perdition. Because he is a pseudo-prophet (Revelation 19:20) and a pseudo-religious leader of a pseudo-Church that will sway apostasy to the top. He deceives many and betrays the peoples of the earth (Revelation 13:14), and hopes to lead mankind to worship the Antichrist (Revelation 13:12), of which he is a forerunner.
For these and other reasons, Bergoglio was never Pope yesterday, today and never will be tomorrow.