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
And the argument for a “universal acceptance” among Catholics, because with this probable heretical man, who would occupy the Chair of St. Peter, as the article correctly shows, would obviously come to an end.
Therefore, in the case of Bergoglio, he clearly demonstrates that he is not Pope and has appointed 130 cardinals, 92 of whom have the right to vote in the next conclave.
But the "Universi Dominici Gregis" makes it clear that nothing can be changed in Rome after the death of the Roman Pontiff, in the example of the appointment of cardinals, which is inferred, in a situation also of total impediment to the office of the legitimate Pope, in articles 76 and 77; because Benedict XVI does not abdicate the office (“munus petrinum”) makes it clear that the conclave of 2013 was invalid.
It follows that the problem is not so much this usurper in the Chair of St. Peter who utters continual heresies, for he is only the consequence of a cause of an invalid election, but a probable non-continuity of a legitimate pontificate that he is going to provoke.
Because Catholics, especially legitimate cardinals, must understand that if there is no faith in Rome, then the cause was not the legitimate popes with doctrinal errors, but the cause is a clear occupation within Rome, which caused the apex with Bergoglio, in a planning that was finally completed.
Thus the Church would be in danger of no longer electing popes (something will not happen), with the necessary cardinals from the last legitimate pontificates, for valid conclaves.
Wouldn't this be their main intention with this (Bergoglio plans a successor who already calls him "John XIV"), to replace the Church with a world religion, according to these latest heresies uttered by him?