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
The pontificate of Pope Francis, if he recognizes himself as a legitimate Roman Pontiff, must have a definitive sentence on the part of the Church, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, in order to be pointed out as a heretic: "In fact, heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons are deprived of the exercise of their powers by a sentence of the Church (Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Quaestio 82, Articulus 9, co.)".
Therefore, if some believe that this Pope is a heretic, but is a Pope, then one must still expect such a sentence. Unfortunately, they must continue in due "obedience to the Roman Pontiff" (Code of Canon Law, 751). That is, they must abide, for example, to "Amoris Laetitia". No one has the authority to judge him or disobey him, for that would be an act of schism against a Pope. Because that would prove to be rebellion and an unchristian attitude.
But this also reveals another big problem. The Church has defined papal infallibility, a definitive dogma by Pope Pius IX, and if Bergoglio is sentenced as a stubborn heretic, this would obviously be contradictory to this dogma; The article, however, does not have this problematic possibility.
The solution to get out of these impasses, in what was defined by the Church, is in the Declaration of Benedict XVI. And Bergoglio does not have the munus (office) obviously. Therefore it should be noted that what is written in the "Universi Dominici Gregis", in its articles 76 and 77. Because these articles authorize Catholics not to obey this non-legitimate Pope, since it is said that it is not necessary for a sentence from the Church.
The problem itself is not heresies of this pontificate, but that this pontificate has never been legitimate from the beginning. The solution proposed by the article is inconsistent, as it should be logical. All possibilities must be coherent in the face of a legitimate and real good Christian conscience, because all this must be addressed so that there is coherence with the truth.