The reason for all this (persecution) according to Franciscans of the Immaculate is not merely their support of 'Tradition', though all of them seem happy to celebrate both forms of the Roman Rite but their opposition to the speculative doctrines of Karl Rahner, the Jesuit.- Fr.Ray Blake
By 'the speculative doctrines of Karl Rahner, the Jesuit', they mean, whether they know it or not -the New Theology! It in itself violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Bishop Fellay once referred to the innovation in Vatican Council II and said that the Vatican Curia should point it out and do something about it.
But there is no innovation in the actual text of Vatican Council II. If you are searching for it you will not find it. Since the controversial, Cushingite texts are rational and can be interpreted in two ways.So the search for innovation in this way will prove inconclusive.
The innovation came with a theology.The seeds of irrationality and confusion were there in the theology.Even now- if you avoid the theology, the innovation goes.The Rahner Effect is neutralised.
It is so simple and obvious that it went past the SSPX bishops.The Franciscans of the Immaculate have noted something wrong and vaguely call it 'the speculative doctrines of Kark Rahner, the Jesuit'.
But what are these doctrines?
This question could draw a blank from them or they could cite the results of interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
But that Vatican Council II is break with the dogma EENS is not the actual Rahner doctrine.This is the result of a theology.It is the conclusion of a wrong premise-used.
The text of Vatican Council II is as it is because of the New Theology and it is being read today with the New Theology.
The New Theology comes from assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to visible cases.It is as simple as this.
The seeds of the error were there in the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The old theology considered the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical catechumen who dies before receiving it, as being an invisible case.This is something obvious. You do not have to be a theologian to note this.
The new theology considers this hypotethetical case of a catechumen as personally known and visible.
So the Baltimore Catechism has it placed in the baptism of water section as if it is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston,which was made public three years after it was issued by the Vatican, says 'therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. In other words, the inference is that there are exceptions.If there are exceptions they would have to be known and visible.So when the saints and popes referred to the baptism of desire,it is inferred, that they were referring to visible cases.
When St. Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who was saved - he was a visible and known case to him !
See the subtle inference.And the credit ( or discredit) is wrongly given to Fr. Karl Rahner S.J.Of course he employed the error.So did Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
There are no visible baptism of desire cases.There are no visible and known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.Yet a theology has been created in the Catholic Church, with this innovation.
It violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.How can we physically see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water ?
The conclusion of the irrational premise can clearly be seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) which says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and it also says God is not limited to the Sacraments.So every one defacto needs the baptism of water for salvation but some de facto do not?
Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation and yet contradictorily says ' though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him'.All need 'faith and baptism' but some do not !
This is the irrationality of the New Theology.
We can interpret CCC 1257 without assuming there are exceptions; without assuming that there are visible and known cases of non Catholics saved because God is not limited to the Sacraments.Then we would be back to the old theology.
The theology of Vatican Council II is based on the violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction. There are orthodox passages which affirm the uniqueness of the Church as the means of salvation and then there are accompanying passages which suggest, based on the new theology, that there are exceptions.
Why did the Council Fathers permit the passages from the new theology to be placed in Vatican Council II?
We have to remember that from 1960-1965 the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was still not lifted (1953-1972).And this was probably intentional.The secular media reported that the Catholic Church had changed its position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Archbishop of Boston did not deny this. Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that the Vatican ( Holy Office ) was heretical.No pope until 1972 corrected the error of invisible cases being assumed to be visible.
Pope John Paul II also did not notice it.So Redemptoris Missio refers 'to the ordinary means of salvation', as if there is also a known extra ordinary means.This is establishing the new theology in the Church by Cardinal Ratzinger.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church(846 Outside the Church there is no salvation) says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. Here again, it is accepting the baptism of desire etc as being explicit and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So we have the new ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue based on the new theology since there is allegedly known salvation outside the Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger no more defended the traditional 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Seminarians who affirmed the dogma EENS were removed with the approval of the CDF. I personally know this!
Even today those who affirm the dogma EENS are considered traditionalists and sedevacantists, since it is believed that they do not accept the New Theology and do not interpret the dogma EENS with the New Theology. They do not also interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology.-Lionel Andrades