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
"There is only one legitimate pope, but two living successors of St. Peter. There is an expanded ministry with an active member and a contemplative member."
Now, if there is a legitimate pope, then who will be the other? And in an interview with Corriere della Sera (an Italian newspaper), Benedict XVI himself, analyzing this unusual presence of two men in white in Rome, said:
"There are not two Popes. The Pope is one."
So who is the de facto Pope?
If there is no presence of the logos in these analyses, in order to proceed validly in these connectives, a true and just conclusion will not be reached.