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
So what Church is this, Your Eminence, if Catholic teaching is immutable about faith and morals?
Your Eminence should delve into this question about Benedict XVI invalidly abdicating, as you yourself once questioned, through the teaching of the Universi Dominici Gregis.
Is this Church nothing but belonging to another mystical body, which is consistent with an eschatological, historical and even prophetic reality, said by Pope John Paul II and other mystics and historians?