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
I have observed that there is something hidden, in my opinion, in this sentence of the German prelate. The meaning of the word of Greek origin that is called crypto means hidden. He can demonstrate a message encoded in the same Protestant mindset with this statement.
Therefore, this statement is against the image of the legitimate Pope and against the image of the legitimate Church. Because he simply continually refuses to make a canonical investigation into Bergoglio's pontificate.
https://www.pinatafarm.com/memegenerator/34612f67-77cc-4cc9-bdb6-342e1b25f035
We can paraphrase this statement by Müller with that meme of the dog sitting inside the house on fire: "everything is fine, because the Church does not belong to the Pope"...