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
Kennedy was primarily a major obstacle to Israel's plan to acquire atomic weaponry.
And Ben Gurion, Israel's founder and the Jewish state's first leader, who carried out an "ethical cleansing of the Palestinians," tried to persuade him otherwise—Gurion resigned from office on June 15, 1963, something inexplicable to many, and had the utopia that Israel would one day be a United Nations Center and the location of the "Tribunal of Humanity".
Moreover, the president was a hostile figure to bankers and speculators, whose usury leaves many nations in misery because of debts to this day, and to other wicked interests intertwined with them.
We can tell what this service was from the statement of a historian named Martin Sandle. In addition to a former CIA agent and other sources.
The truth is available to all.