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 demonstrated favorable to the pharmaceutical industry and today the arms industry. These industries are part of the same Zionist agenda that aims to destroy humanity.
Because he is committed to a Zionist Jewish messianic utopian mission, even though he claims that he desires the good of his country.
Bottom line: either he walks on the path favorable to the U.S., or he walks on the path favorable to Israel.
He will be sincere to everyone if he breaks with this commitment not aimed at his country.