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 let us read carefully what "Pastor Aeternus" says:
"(...) if anyone asserts that the Roman Pontiff has simply a task of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only with regard to faith and morals, but also with regard to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the earth; or that it be invested only with the principal role and not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not common and direct both over all individual Churches and over each believer and pastor: let him be anathema."
There is no contradiction in God, because He is coherence. And God is goodness. Someone cannot restrict this, much less, put a control on God as something harmful. Because the person vetoing the author of grace, who inspired Pope Pius IX on these teachings, the Holy Spirit, sins gravely against the same Spirit.