Phil Lawler avoiding 'tragic error ' job-wise

It was Phil Lawler's employee at Catholic Culture Jeff Mirus, who  posted the report Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney, for EWTN on the Internet.So if Lawler interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise, he would be affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) like Fr. Leonard Feeney. It could be 'a tragic error', job-wise, for him.

He does not comment on these relevant blog posts which I e-mail him.

If Phil Lawler interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise that could be the end of his employment at Catholic Culture.

Jeff Mirus in his reports on Vatican Council II makes sure to say LG 8, LG 16 in Vatican Council II are exceptions to EENS.This is even though he knows there are no practical exceptions to EENS and the text of the Council was not saying there are exceptions. It has to be implied wrongly.

I choose not to imply it.

 So for me LG 8, LG 16 etc by being hypothetical are not exceptions to EENS.

Well, it's easy for me to say this. I'm not employed by Jeff Mirus or EWTN.

Phil Lawler  in a vgaue way, told Archbishop Carlo Vigano that Vatican Council II was a break with the past. Why was he not precise ? He could have said that the false premise causes the hermeneutic of rupture and the false premise could be avoided.

After 55 years we now know what causes the hermeneutic of rupture in Vatican Council II and how it can be avoided.

Lawler knows what is the precise cause of the hermeneutic of rupture so why did he not make it known in public ?

Of course if he eliminates the false premise he would be affirming EENS Feeneyite and the Jewish Left  would label him Anti Semitic.

Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of the diocese of Manchester, where the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts is situated would not allow Lawler to teach in New Hampshire.

Then Jeff Mirus at Catholic Culture  would ask him not to be the Editor any longer.

So to stay employed  he did not tell Archbishop Vigano that the precise cause of the hermeneutic of rupture is Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.This was something Pope Paul VI could have avoided.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 29, 2020

Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Phil Lawler must stop talking in vague and general terms about Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition and instead they should specify how the false premise creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/archbishop-carlo-vigano-and-phil-lawler.html