Antonio Socci in his book uses quotes to show that Benedict XVI, in his two letters responded to Cardinal Walter Brandmuller's criticism of the title "pope emeritus," saying he didn't want to be a cardinal because he would be "seen [as] the ex-pope."
Brandmuller wrote Benedict that the title "pope emeritus" happened to be "extraneous to the entire canonical-theological traditional."
Benedict according to Socci "expresses concern [to Brandmuller in the letters] had he returned to being a cardinal, 'in that cardinal would have been seen the ex-pope,' thus creating confusion."
Simply put Socci presents the case that if Benedict doesn't want to be seen as the "ex-pope" then he wants to be seen as the pope which brings us back to the "question of the validity of a dubious or partial resignation."
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 99-105)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church
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