RATZINGER FOLLOWED RAHNER’S FACTUAL ERROR WHICH PRODUCES SCHISM AND CALLS FOR AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION : HE DID NOT TELL THE CHURCH ABOUT A RATIONAL AND NON SCHISMATIC ALTERNATIVE
RATZINGER FOLLOWED RAHNER’S FACTUAL ERROR WHICH PRODUCES SCHISM AND CALLS FOR AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION : HE DID NOT TELL THE CHURCH ABOUT A RATIONAL AND NON SCHISMATIC ALTERNATIVE
We no more have a schismatic Church created with a fake premise and inference and so the conclusion is non traditional. We have a rational and orthodox choice.
LIBERALS HAD TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED
It was Ratzinger, Rahner, Congar, Balthazar and Kung and others, who had to be excommunicated since Karl Rahner’s LG 16 visible premise was heresy and schism. Rahner’s book, ‘The Christian of the Future’, has no support in Vatican Council II, rational. Rahner’s books need to be pulled back.
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is aligned doctrinally with Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not announce the obvious i.e LG 8, 14, 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases only. He kept this a secret. He did not announce that Vatican Council II has no explicit exceptions for Feeneyite EENS, the EENS of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century. LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to invisible cases was the secret. He kept it hidden.
We now know that the present common interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False Premise is schismatic, since we have a rational and traditional alternative in the text of the Council. No changes have to be made. We simply interpret implicit cases as being implicit. This was not done by Cardinal Ratzinger who affirmed an irrational Vatican Council II and then excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting it.
CARD. RATZINGER AS PREFECT
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope John Paul II on November 25, 1981. He took up the post in early 1982 and served in this role until his election as Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005. Father Leonard Feeney died on January 30, 1978, at the age of 80, in Ayer, Massachusetts. An American Jesuit priest known for his ‘strict interpretation of’ no salvation outside the Church. He had been reconciled with the Catholic Church in 1972 following his excommunication in 1953.
FR. FEENEY AND THE SBC WERE NOT INFORMED
When Fr. Leonard Feeney died in 1978 he did not know that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 were implicit and so not explicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence, ‘the strict interpretation’, which does not mention any exceptions.
Instead Rahner and Ratzinger in 1994-95 projected the baptism of desire as an exception for EENS and supported the irrational and schismatic 1949 Letter of the Holy Office approved by Pope Pius XII.
He did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney in public.
BRO.FRANCIS MICM MET HIM
Then when Brother Francis Maluf micm, spoke with him at the Vatican, he still maintained the secret. The secret he held back was that Lumen Gentium 16 etc, were not visible cases. They could not be objective exceptions for the dogma EENS as held by Brother Francis micm and the St. Benedict Center.
HE DID NOT CORRECT MURRAY, LEHMANN AND KUNG
He did not announce that John Courtney Murray made a mistake with his liberal and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and so did Rahner, Lehmann, Congar, Lubac, Balthazar, Kung and others. He did not alert the traditionalists Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Romano Amerio, Michael Davies, Hildebrand, Plineo Correa D’Oliveira, Roberto dei Mattei, Corrado Gnerre, Christopher Ferrara, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others.
The discovery which Ratzinger kept hidden for most of his life was that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible and unknown case, in real life – always.So the So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney was irrational, dishonest, political and schismatic.
ASSISTED BY LADARIA, MULLER AND POZZO
Instead, along with Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Guido Pozzo he cited the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office in two papers of the International Theological Commission. This was an objective mistake.
They still hid the secret.
So today with the new discovery of LG 8, 14, 18, UR 3, NA 23, GS 22 etc, being invisible, Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II is aligned with Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of his time and there are no known exceptions for AG 7 or EENS in 2026. Cardinal Ratzinger did not say this to the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney. It would mean that the Council supported Feeneyite EENS and not the Cushingite EENS of Pope Paul VI and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
BISHOP PETER LIBASCI
The Council supports Brother Andre Marie micm today and not Bishop Peter Libasci the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar and others were in schism with the Magisterium over the centuries and so are the present two SSPX bishops today, who also do not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and in harmony with Tradition. Schism is a sin. Catholics no more have to interpret the Council like the SSPX bishops and Pope Leo.
Ratzinger’s New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelization, New Canon Law etc, are based upon exceptions for EENS in Vatican Council II. They are based upon a lie. Without the exceptions we return to the old ecclesiology and old salvation theology.
Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly when a rational and ethical option is there? Ratzinger and Rahner’s innovation was schismatic.
WE NOW HAVE UNITY AT ALL RITES
With Vatican Council II rational, the Latin, Ambrosian, Syro Malabar and Novus Ordo and Amazon liturgies have to be only Feeneyite i.e. LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases. The New Missal is Cushingite, i.e. LG 8, 14 16 etc refer to visible cases which are exceptions for the dogma EENS, which is not affirmed at the Novus Ordo Mass.
GOOD FRIDAY PRAYER
With Vatican Council II rational we go back to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews of the 1930s. With Vatican Council II irrational, the Jews are told on Good Friday that they have only to follow God’s alliance with then. In other words there are exceptions for the dogma EENS, with Vatican Council II and so not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church, practically, for salvation.
This is why Bishop Robert Barron keeps denying the Catholic Faith. It is possible only when he interprets the Council irrationally like Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals.
CANONICAL PETITIONS TO CHECK SCHISM
Now in general cardinals, bishops and priests use the New Theology of Cardinal Ratzinger which is schismatic. In future there will be canonical petitions appealing to them to affirm the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed rationally and non schismatically. They can no more defend themselves with Vatican Council II irrational instead of rational. Pope Leo can no more cite Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
BISHOP MARTIN AT CHARLOTTE
For instance, the bishop of Charlotte, Bishop Martin ofm, is in schism with Vatican Council II irrational. We now know that we can interpret the Council non schismatically. It is the same with the SSPX priests in Charlotte who interpret the baptism of desire (LG 14) irrationally and so Vatican Council II emerges liberal and not traditional. So their understanding of the Creeds and all the Catechisms is schismatic. Since they choose the Irrational Premise, schism, a break with the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, has to follow.
CARDINAL BLASÉ CUPICH
Is Cardinal Blaise Cupich ready to accept the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? No.
BISHOP ROBERT BARRON
Is Bishop Robert Barron ready to come out of schism and interpret Vatican Council II rationally, with Ad Gentes 7 aligned with the Athanasius Creed ? No.
CARDINALS SARAH AND BURKE
The same could be said for Cardinal Sean O’Malley. Even the conservative cardinals Sarah, Burke and Muller make the same mistake.
They accept Rahner’s LG 16 mistake which produces the schism, irrespective if one is conservative or liberal. – Lionel Andrades