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
@FrDaveNix
·
Aug 13
Too many traditional Catholics imply "voting for the least bad candidate" is like having to choose between a mortal sin and a venial sin. Nope. I will be voting for the least bad candidate, and that's not a venial sin.
Some of your mutual follows often like this account
Andromeda
@AndromedaAMDG
It’s a traditional Catholic teaching. ‘In the case where all candidates support the moral evil (eg. of abortion) a Catholic would vote for the candidate who is least likely to advance that evil.’
9:37 AM · Aug 13, 2024
·
1,160
Views