Antonio Socci in his book said "during the days of the polemical
statements [by Team Francis] concerning Ratzinger's preface to the book
of Cardinal Sarah Bergoglio [Francis] gave a homily that seemed to be a
criticism of the pope emeritus, specifically for his 'halfway'
resignation."
Francis said:
"[A] pastor has to... take his leave well, to not leave only halfway."
Socci questioned:
"To whom is he referring? To Benedict XVI who relinquished all the power of governance while remaining pope?"
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 123-124)
In Francis criticizing Benedict's "'halfway' resignation" is he implicitly admitting the apparent thesis of Dr. Ed Mazza that "Benedict
XVI who relinquished all the power of governance [as the Bishop of
Rome]... remain[ed]... pope [the Successor of Peter] " according to
Socci?
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as
well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus
and the Immaculate Heart of the Mary.
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