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
Let us not forget how Bergoglio promoted the coca leaf/ Evo Morales, the communist Mujica who turned Uruguay into Soros' marijuana laboratory, etc. Also Church Militant showed a video a few years ago of how homosexual predators prepare their victims. This also reminds me of how a “Jesus in the Street” campaign was started earlier to encourage young Catholics and seminarians to go to bars.
It is no coincidence that when the gay mafia overthrew Pope Benedict XVI, the apostate priest and homosexual activist Don Gallo commented on the matter and said that a gay pope would be magnificent. Let’s see if this sounds familiar: The apostate priest Don Gallo defined himself as a “Father of the sidewalks” of the “peripheries” – in reference to his perverse work with the so-called “marginalized” and “socially wounded” – or an “anarchic and angelic priest.” In practice this meant a communist priest, who not only favored the “free love” practitioners of homosexuals and transsexuals, but also defended feminism, pacifism, drug use and other anticatholic causes.