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
For instance:
If there is an indirect credibility on Matt's part now, then he indirectly demonstrates a legitimacy in Bergoglio before.
And if the other asks for a direct resignation, then he obviously says directly that there is also a legitimacy in Bergoglio.
But Articles 76 and 77 of the Universi Dominici Gregis reveal that this pontificate is not legitimate and has its acts null and void. Because the Constitution says that Pope Francis does not have the Petrine Munus, according to Canon 32.2; Therefore he cannot give up anything.
Because a person only renounces something when that same person has something to renounce.
Due to the lack of credibility of the popes and their laws, this fact becomes an aggravating factor that must be considered. This shows that it is a path that may have no turning back...