The content at his site is protected, so no cut and paste here. You will need to go read it over HERE.
In a nutshell, Socci says that the “inner continuity” comment, when illuminated by the context of the omitted paragraphs (which show a lack of “external continuity”), could only mean one thing. That the “strangeness of the concept” of having “inner continuity between the two pontificates” must be taken in the present tense, with two pontiffs currently reigning (in Benedict’s mind), each with distinct roles within an expanded petrine ministry.
After his upfront “profound” discourse, Benedict spends the balance of the letter dismissively declining to issue theological commentary on the “little volumes”, and refuses to even read them, due to supposed time constraints and other obligations. Then in the last paragraph now revealed, Benedict goes after certain authors who contributed to the work, due to their heresy and personal attacks in the past. Therefore Socci concludes that with this obvious lack of “external continuity”, which he terms “a colossal problem”, Benedict took care to insert the “inner/interior” modifier.
Socci then grasps onto what I was trying to explain in THIS post. Namely, if words have meaning, then the choice of words matters, and if we know anything about Benedict, it’s that he tends toward precision. From my earlier post:
Inner/interior can be meant in the sense of the spiritual; the interior life. If we put this meaning together with the previous definition of continuity, we get a meaning that could refer to a spiritual/theological continuity existing between two distinct, mutually exclusive pontificates, across linear time. Given the overall context of the letter, that seems plausible, except for the fact that we have a pretty well-defined data set informing us that Benedict doesn’t see it that way.
As luck would have it, the second way continuity can be defined is not across time but rather within the confines of a space. We observe that the surface of a sphere has continuity, in the sense that it is continuous. “A continuous or connected whole” is one definition HERE. We can also observe continuity between individual parts of a greater whole. The honeycombs of a beehive have continuity. The oxygen we breathe is actually composed of two atoms of oxygen, which naturally exist together through a covalent bond as a single entity wherein we can observe continuity. In order to save you from spending the rest of your day down a rabbit hole of molecular chemistry, just think of it as cracking a single egg and discovering a double yolk.
But wait there’s more! Not only can continuity be spatial, so can inner/interior. In fact the primary meaning of inner/interior is not spiritual, but rather physical/spatial, referring to the inside of some confining space.
So what do we get when we combine the spatial definition of “inner” and the spatial definition of “continuity” together in the phrase, “inner continuity”? Can you think of any other “whole” inside of which we might observe continuity between “individual parts”?
How about the inner continuity between two popes exercising their separate and distinct pontifical roles IN REAL TIME, within the faux Expanded Petrine Ministry, as already thoroughly explained by Ganswein.
Socci goes right at the Ganswein speech as well, and he also touches on the root cause of Benedict’s substantial error, which is that any man who accepts the papal crown is indelibly anointed in an irrevocable way, such that anyone who “resigns” the papacy can never do so completely. As Socci describes Benedict’s erroneous concept, “the pope, if he resigns, he maintains the responsibility he has taken in an interior sense, not in function.” This squares with Benedict assuming the “contemplative” role and Bergoglio assuming the “active” role, each operating within the Expanded Petrine Ministry as defined by Ganswein.
Please do click on the link at the top for the full English translation of Socci’s post. Of course it wasn’t picked up broadly by the Catholic media, but nevertheless this is the most “mainstream” author/outlet yet to pick up on the real. We must be pretty close to the dominos starting to fall.
I will leave off once again with the smoking gun in Benedict’s final general audience of 27 February 2013, the day before his invalid resignation did not become effective, where he exposes his erroneous notion of the indelible nature of the Petrine Ministry (note that Socci makes reference to the “a father is always a father” analogy in his post). In doing so, Benedict directly contradicts all those previous statements where he claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”. HERE
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. (<in his mind> the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration). My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. (the indelibility is <in his mind> irrevocable – Benedict is pope forever, but <in his mind> now exercising only part of the Petrine ministry). I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God. HERE