for his heresy of no one in Hell at the end of time
He denied teaching that, by the way.
Now you gave no citations ie. web sites and books for your statement,
Journet cites Bellarmine already in the OP.
It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.
shear hypocrisy that Bishop Castro Mayer was not named in the so called excommunication when he was co- Consecrating the four SSPX Bishops
He was named in the Decree of Excommunication issued by the Congregation for Bishops under His Eminence Cardinal Gantin.
You still do not want to admit you are wrong.
"Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in his synod ... declare by mutual agreement ... to regret and to remove from memory and from the midst of the church the sentences of excommunication" (ibid., 4); cf. also Paul VI apostolic letter Ambulate in Dilectione (Dec. 12, 1965): AAS 58 (1966), 40-41; Athenagoras I, Patriarchal Tomos (Dec. 7, 1965): Tomos Agapes Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970), 129 (Vatican Polyglot Press: Rome-Istanbul, 1971), 290-294. This web site explains the new theory of “sister churches”on this site the admit that “The expression sister churches does not appear as such in the New Testament” See http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3135
My quote merely shows that Cardinal Ratzinger demonstrates that his is an "interpretation" of the fact that the excommunication was between Rome and Constantinople and was "mutual" he said "As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led in later centuries to mutual excommunications with "consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople." Now Ratzinger stated, "As far as we can judge-so he demonstrates that it is his own private judgement because the fact is that the mutual excommunication was not just between individuals representing the "ecclesial communities to use Vatican II newspeak but in fact involved the excommunication of the Orthodox Church itself after a period of time .
See for The Eastern Schism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
"His points were different from those of Photius; he had forgotten the Filioque, and had discovered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the idea that had been found so useful was that of declaring that we are impossible because we are heretics. It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as defenders of the true Faith.
IV. AFTER CAERULARIUS
In a sense the schism was now complete. What had been from the beginning two portions of the same Church, what had become two entities ready to be divided, were now two rival Churches. Yet, just as there had been schisms before Photius, so there have been reunions after Caerularius. The Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and again the Council of Florence in 1439 both arrived at a reunion that people hoped would close the breach for ever. Unhappily, neither reunion lasted, neither had any solid basis on the Eastern side. The anti-Latin party, foreshadowed long ago, formed and organized by Photius, had under Caerularius become the whole "Orthodox" Church. This process had been a gradual one, but it was now complete. At first the Slav Churches (Russia, Servia, Bulgaria, etc.) saw no reason why they should break communion with the West because a patriarch of Constantinople was angry with a pope. But the habit of looking to the capital of the empire eventually affected them too. They used the Byzantine Rite, were Easterns; so they settled on the Eastern side. Caerularius had managed cleverly to represent his cause as that of the East; it seemed (most unjustifiably) that it was a question of Byzantines versus Latins.
At Lyons, and again at Florence, the reunion (on their side) was only a political expedient of the Government. The emperor wanted Latins to fight for him against the Turks. So he was prepared to concede anything — till the danger was over. It is clear that on these occasions the religious motive moved only the Western side. We had nothing to gain; we wanted nothing from them. The Latins had everything to offer, they were prepared to give their help. All they wanted in return was that an end should be made of the lamentable and scandalous spectacle of a divided Christendom. For the religious motive the Byzantines cared nothing; or rather, religion to them meant the continuation of the schism. They had called us heretics so often that they had begun to believe it. Reunion was an unpleasant and humiliating condition in order that a Frank army might come and protect them"
So we see the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly says they were two rival churches which demonstrate that it was not just as Ratzinger implied the censure of persons who authored the excommunication. It clearly spread to the Orthodox Bishops in general. If Ratzinger's statement was accurate that it applied only to the authors of the excommunication then the Church would have told people go ahead and go to an "orthodox Church" to fulfill your Sunday obligation but no that was forbidden before Vatican II because the excommunication was against the orthodox Church itself because as the Catholic encyclopedia states the other Orthodox Bishops went along with their Orthodox leaders and called us heretics. IF this excommunication just applied to a few dead Bishops then why say to Catholics the only reason you can receive sacraments from the orthodox is if you are in danger of death according to pre Vatican II teaching. (If my memory serves me correctly.)This is nonsense on Ratzinger's part as the problem of schism developed it involved the Churches as the Catholic encyclopedia demonstrates and not just individuals who authored the excommunications.
It doesn't matter after 100's of years what was initially intended, this is revisionist history, what matters is that there were two different Churches and the Orthodox were and are still in schism. The orthodox to this day do not admit to the primacy of Peter, the Filioque or papal infallibility or the Marian dogmas. Someday the Russians and other Orthodox will be united with Rome we have Mary's promise. Miracles do happen but it won't be because we compromise the truth.
What is your OP citation?