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
Can you explain that to us, your excellency?
If the judgment is not about a Pope, then the election of the "Pope" was null and void from the beginning. For example, the candidate for Supreme Pontiff was a woman, or a demented, or an apostate, etc.
In Bergoglio's case, he is simply a false pope because Ratzinger has not abdicated the office. That is why he utters continual heresies to demonstrate that he does not have the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
It can be deduced from this article that the majority of cardinals and bishops know only that one cannot judge a Pope, as Berllarmine affirms that no one can judge him, because above a Roman Pontiff only God.
That is why Bergoglio can stay in Rome for more years.
It is also deduced that this bishop thus loses himself in the same way. Therefore, it is due to ignorance or negligence about this cause. The bishop lacks love for the truth.