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
But you can't demonize them just for that; the Church says that they alone cannot be held responsible for the death of Christ, for example. And this is written in the Catholic Catechism, numbers 597 and 598. This catechism exemplifies a passage from St. Francis of Assisi: "The demons did not crucify; you are the one who crucified and continue to crucify him with them, delighting in vices and sin."
One cannot blame the Jewish people exclusively for all evil, for evil is not only among the Jewish people. And this refers primarily to sin.
This coherence is found in Our Lady's message at Fatima, for example, which speaks only of the need for the conversion of humanity. And there is no name of a specific group in the message, but of a country called Russia. Although Russian leader Putin is committed to the Jewish sect Chabad Lubavitch, Jews are not mentioned.
For reason says that it is the greater responsibility of those who know Our Lord in order to remain faithful to Him.
The Catholic must soften the fate that awaits him in these eschatological times.