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
The Pope, who is not a Catholic, now relativizes legality in laws on the same level as illegality in laws, in a sinister and malicious way: he compares illegal immigrants to illegality in the murder of babies.
The truth is that the Gnostics always seek a dialectic of thesis, antithesis, in order to conclude with a synthesis later. But this will always be constant, so there will be more changes about the faith in this pontificate.
The dead always sought to bury their dead (Matthew 8:22).