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
Because this is part of the consequence of original sin that every baptized person carries with him.
Both the legitimate successors of the first Roman Pontiff and the simple faithful live this consequence.
But sin is not about grace.
And this assistance of the Holy Spirit is always present to the legitimate successors of Saint Peter.
The Pope will always be a Catholic to confirm this faith to other Catholics to maintain a unity in the faith.
And the bishops possess this infallibility equally if they maintain this communion with the Pope.
But Viganò says to this day about a responsibility of Popes in the face of a legacy that the "conciliar sect" emerged.
Was this or was not the cause for him seeking a total unconditional reconsecration of another bishop, even though he had received episcopal consecration by Pope John Paul II himself?
In this way, will he, as prelate, really present a solution to this "Bergoglian sect"?