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
These statements cited in the article about him by an illegitimate Pope Francis are aimed at speculation, not a canonical quest to recognize him as actually an illegitimate Roman Pontiff. And the others who were legitimate are not in his concern. Nothing more.
That's why Viganò said he won't go to Rome for lack of interest.
Thus all this is clear what Father Chazal, who is a member of the Resistance founded by Bishop Williamson, says about the confirmation of the unconditional reconsecration of Viganò according to the same priest, and a mutual cooperation between them until this return – the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk
And the Society is not interested if it celebrates its Masses "una cum" Pope Francis.
There is much said that the Society will consecrate more bishops and nothing is said about a papal mandate, although Bergoglio himself favored it on some points.
Lefebvre's foundation today also with Viganò does not care whether he is a legitimate pope or not.