Karl Rahner made a factual mistake in his book, there is no denial from anyone : Pope Leo and the cardinals follow him
Karl Rahner made a factual mistake in his book, there is no denial from anyone : Pope Leo and the cardinals follow him
Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible person in our human reality. This is a fact of life. We cannot see or meet anyone saved in invincible ignorance. So LG 16 cannot be an explicit example of salvation outside the Church as Rahner implies. It cannot be an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as held by Augustine and Aquinas.
On Jan.17,2026 I wrote on Gloria TV 1 that Karl Rahner used the False Premise and Inference to interpret Vatican Council II in his book, The Christian of the Future (1967.Herder and Herder, New York). On pp.94 and 95 he projects being saved in invincible ignorance of Lumen Gentiun 16 as being an explicit and known example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. He then infers that LG 16 is an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So EENS has become obsolete for him (pp.82-85).
With the Rational Premise the Council would have been traditional and ecclesiocentric.With the Fake Premise he has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 and rejected the ecclesiology of Augustine whom he criticizes.
So this book is not free from doctrinal error.
The reject or change the understanding of the Creeds, even with an irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire, is first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II ( Ad Tuendum Fidem).
It is also schism with the popes of the middle Ages and the Church Fathers and the Apostles.
This book was first published in Germany in 1967 by Herder KG and then in Ireland by Cahill and Co.Ltd.
But the point here is that those who are saved with an upright heart, or with a good conscience or in invincible ignorance are hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-1967. They cannot be exceptions for Augustine on outside the Church there is no salvation. If anyone is saved according to LG 16 it can only be known to God. There are no such cases in our human reality. Invisible people cannot be exceptions for the dogma EENS.
Rahner is making the same mistake as the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). It projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence 1442; Feeneyite EENS. This was an objective mistake of the Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican).
The 1949 LOHO with this objective mistake was inserted in the Denzinger by Fr. Karl Rahner sj, it was reported on the website Catholicism.org by Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior of the St Benedict Center, NH. So the error in the LOHO is not magisterial or apostolic. Before 1949 they did not confuse implicit cases of the baptism of desire as being explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition.
Rahner’s New Theology was supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. The 1949 LOHO, with the objective error, was reference in Vatican Council II (LG 16) and then in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger maintained the new ideology. He took care of the narrative even when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for not accepting Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise and Inference.IfLefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise it would be Ratzinger and Rahner who would be in heresy and schism.
Ratzinger did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney who rejected visible baptism of desire as being an explicit exception for the dogma EENS.
Ratzinger would later, confirm the error and issue a statement saying that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. There was a development for him. He meant, like Rahner, that the development came by confusing invisible cases of LG 16 as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. So a New Ecclesiology was born. There was to be a New Ecumenism, as Rahner suggests in this book. Collegiality was now an issue since there was the traditionalist-liberal division in the Church, with the Council being liberal.Cardinal Ladaria supported Rahner in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.
But their secret is now out.
We now have a choice. We can interpret Vatican Council II with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’ ( see graphics on Gloria TV ) and with ‘the blue passages dominating’. This was not known to Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar, Lubac, Lehmann, Kung and Guardini and neither was it known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Michael Davies, Romano America, Plinio Correa D’Oliviera, Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara.
So the new books today on Vatican Council II are published with a doctrinal error. It is an error which has spread throughout the Catholic Church and it can be eliminated with the Rational Premise and Inference and Traditional Conclusion.
On Jan 18,2026 I wrote 2 in another report on Gloria TV that
Thousands of priests and religious sisters gave up their vocation after 1965 since Vatican Council II was schismatic and not traditional. They did not know about the implicit-explicit confusion. Pope Paul VI, Rahner, Ratzinger and Lefebvre did not tell them about it. The Council was really traditional without the subjective-objective error.
POPE BENEDICT MAINTAINED THE MISTAKE
Pope Benedict maintained the lie in Karl Rahner’s book The Christian of the Future . He supported the New Theology based upon implicit cases of the baptism of desire being explicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Council of Trent. Unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) were projected as known exceptions for Augustine and Aquinas on outside the Church there is no salvation.
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated because he did not accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
Cardinal Ratzinger met Brother Francis Maluf micm . He did not tell Brother Francis that with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally the Catholic Church would return to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This was the EENS as he and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St Benedict Center in New Hampshire. The Catholic Church returns to the strict interpretation of EENS, the Feeneyite version.
He did not tell Brother Francis that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct when he rejected visible baptism of desire. There is no visible baptism of desire.
As the new pope, Benedict had meetings with Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr. Hans Kung separately and did not let out the secret.
Then during the SSPX-Vatican Council II doctrinal talks he did not announce that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with a Rational Premise i.e. LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to only hypothetical cases. So they must not be confused as being exceptions for Ad Gentes 7. AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Vatican Council II really had a continuity and not a rupture with the dogma EENS of the missionaries of the 16th century.
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
When he issued Summorum Pontificum he wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II irrational, i.e. with LG 16 being an exception for EENS and the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX on ecumenism etc.
Then with Cardinal Ladaria, Pope Benedict supported a Theology of Religious Pluralism, based on the LG 16- error made in Rahner’s talks and writings in Germany.
Pope Francis maintained the New Theology and no one corrected him on this point except for me on my blog Eucharist and Mission (Lionel’s blog).Rahner’s books are placed in the Good Reads series and his theology is supported by Peter Kwasniewski at the Latin Mass. It is the same for the sedevacantist MHT, CMRI and MHFM.
Pope Leo’s recent catechesis on Vatican Council II carries the Rahner-LG 16 virus.
Cardinal Fernandez accused Archbishop Vigano of being in schism since he did not accept Vatican Council II interpreted only irrationally, as does Fernandez.
Fernandez then, along with Bishop Michael Olsen, laicized the Arlington Carmelite Discalced Sisters. Since their Carmelite faith, clashed with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. St. Teresa of Avila interpreted the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally.
DECREE OF PROHIBITIONS
Fernandez maintains a Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions against the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in New Hampshire. They affirm the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence which, for Fernandez, has exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 14,LG 16 etc). For them implicit cases of the baptism of desire ( LG 14 ) etc are not exceptions for EENS. So they affirm Vatican Council II and also Tradition.
So when Rahner was giving his talks in Germany and Ratzinger was supporting him in Munich, priests and nuns all over the world were giving up their religious vocation. The Church had changed for them. It had become heretical and schismatic.
Today there are new books written on Vatican Council II and their authors are interviewed by Larry Chapp, who does not bring out the error Rahner made on LG 16 . Even Bishop Robert Barron keeps dishonestly prudent, during interviews. He does not say that L G 16 is not an exception for EENS.
The theology of the Synods and the Consistory was based upon the mistake in Karl Rahner’s writings. This is not mentioned by Joseph Shaw and Una Voce who interprets Vatican Council II with the Rahnerian error.
V.R.S.on Gloria TV says:
The main problem now is not Rahner's or Congar's books but the post-conciliar pseudo-magisterium pushing the doctrinal revolution. Documents like Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii Gaudium, Amoris Laetitia, etc.
Yes. We need the pope, cardinals and bishops to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and point out and correct the common, irrational interpretation of the Council. In future the pope must only issue Documents based upon Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. Also a College of Cardinals must only elect a pope who interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally.Pope Leo’s present interpretation of Vatican Council II is heretical and schismatic and disqualifies him from offering Holy Mass.- Lionel Andrades
1
17.01.2026
POPE LEO MUST NOT ALLOW THE IMPRIMATUR FOR NEW BOOKS ON VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED WITH THE FALSE PREMISE : RAHNER’S BOOKS MUST BE PULLED BACK
POPE LEO MUST NOT ALLOW THE IMPRIMATUR FOR NEW …
2
18.01.2026
POPE LEO’S PRESENT INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IS HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC AND DISQUALIFIES HIM FROM OFFERING HOLY MASS
POPE LEO’S PRESENT INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN …