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
Here we show the necessity of analyzing the Universi Dominici Gregis in depth, although some see it superficially or reject it altogether.
This Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II proves that Bergorglio is not a legitimate Pope. She herself clarifies this simply with this fact: if Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate the Munus petrinum, then his direct successor does not have the Munus petrinum.
So this "for a good connoisseur, half a word is enough", according to a popular saying in my country. But let us continue to delve deeper into the same Constitution.
If the same Constitution is devoted to rules for the election of a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then the solution is an election of a legitimate Roman Pontiff; Bergoglio would suffer a proper canonical punishment because of it.
All this means that it is the only alternative to which divine providence has placed us in front of a possible lack of consensus on how to resolve this crisis that could take years of existence.
But let's dive deeper into this objectivity, which is clear.
Articles 76 and 77 clearly state that the acts are null and void of Benedict's right successor because there is no need, by confirmation of any high authority of Rome, not to obey this pontificate without Munus.
This leads us to think that it is an urgent appeal to which divine providence tries to show us.
It is something extraordinary beyond common understanding, for example:
1 - Which is found in Catechism 675 of the Church;
2 - That it is consistent that Bishop Fulton J. Sheen says that "there will be a mystical body of the antichrist that will be similar in all its external parts to the mystical body of Christ";
3 - Which corroborates the then Cardinal Wojtyla at the Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia in 1976.
All of this recalls an important warning about the fate of the Church in the Marian apparitions of the last century in Fatima, Portugal.
Thus we understand more deeply what Sister Lucy meant when she said this: "Either we are with God, or we are with the Devil."
Universi Dominici Gregis means, in this context all presented here, whoever still remains in the other Church that reveals itself to be apostate, will be eternally condemned.
So there's no time for rambling.
The rest is to trust in the same divine providence that will once again be favorable to us