Since LG 8 etc refer to hypothetical cases only for him, Vatican Council
II is not a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism. Instead
Tradition is supported with Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism
for salvation. All. So in Heaven there are only Catholics and they are there
with faith and baptism and the absence of mortal sins on their soul (CCC 845,
846, 1257).
But the bottom line is that I have not spoken to Thonhauser, what I have
written above refers to common knowledge, common sense. Humans in general
cannot see on earth people who are saved and are now in Heaven. This can only
be known to God. So Vatican Council II should not be an exception for Tradition
for the Bureau Chief at the EWTN office in Rome.
But EWTN, like Pope Francis, interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture
with Tradition and now has excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano for not
accepting this. In other words, for EWTN, LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically visible
non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2024.So the dogma EENS is made obsolete.
This is EWTN’s dishonest policy not only on Vatican Council II but also the
Creeds, traditional Councils and the Catechisms, including the Catechism of the
Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II.
EWTN is dishonest. The journalists have to follow a dishonest policy
to remain employed. All their Staff Reporters, who are paid a salary and are
not working free for Jesus and the Church, have to confuse what is invisible as
being visible, when reporting on Vatican Council II.
EWTN DOES NOT CORRECT WIKIPEDIA
They do not correct the mistakes on Wikipedia. Wikipedia interprets Vatican Council II, EENS, Fr. Leonard Feeney, SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the St. Benedict Centers, sedevacantists etc, with a false premise ( invisible people are visible). With this fake premise (LG 16 refers to a visible person in 2024) they produce a fake inference (visible cases of LG 16 are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the past ecclesiocenrtism). So there is a non-traditional, heretical and schismatic conclusion. Vatican Council II contradicts, the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils. Vatican Council II is a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q-other religions are not paths to salvation).
UNDERSTANDING OF CREEDS CHANGED
Vatican Council II is a rupture with the Nicene Creed in which we pray, ‘I
believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’. There are three or more known
baptisms (blood, desire, imperfect communion with the Church, Unitatis
Redintigratio 3 etc) all without the baptism of water. If they included the
baptism of water, they would be Feeneyite for EWTN.
So for EWTN the Apostles Creed says that we Catholics today believe
that the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that outside the Church there
is known salvation, while in the past the teaching was outside the Church there
was no known salvation, there was no salvation.
The Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members for the Catholic
Churchfor salvation, over history, had no exceptions. Howver now for EWTN there are alleged known
exceptions.
FACTUAL MISTAKE IN 1949 LOHO
The EWTN reports have their foundation on the objective error in the
1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to
Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Centers. It confused invisible cases of
the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This
mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II by Rahner and Ratzinger. The 1949
LOHO is a reference with Lumen Gentium 16. It was Fr. Karl Rahner sj,
who is reported to have inserted the LOHO, into the Denzinger, along with the objective
error.
EWTN has a credibility issue. How can they expect bishops to be honest
on issues like child protection etc.?
EWTN‘s information for the public on Vatican Council II is factually incorrect. This can be verified objectively. –Lionel Andrades
JULY 5, 2024
Donors of EWTN are Frank Hanna III and John N. McAleer. Michael Warsaw is the Chief Executive Office and Jeannette DeMello the Editor in Chief. They both receive a salary. Their interpretation of Vatican Council II is dishonest.
EWTN’s Chief Executive Office and the Board Members protect their income and assets. They do not tell Catholics that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and then the conclusion is traditional and ecclesiocentric. The Catholic Church returns to Tradition.
As I mentioned earlier the Management at EWTN is not telling Catholics about Vatican Council II interpreted morally. They allow Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and produce a fake liberalism. In this way they preserve their jobs at EWTN. It is in their personal professional interest at EWTN, TV and newspapers, to allow Vatican Council II and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms to be interpreted only irrationally and so dishonestly. EWTN has now opened a new office in Rome –
One donor of EWTN is Frank Hanna III, a philanthropist who is on the board of many conservative organizations.
Another EWTN board member is John N. McAleer. Michael Warsaw is the Chief Executive Office and Jeannette DeMello the Editor in Chief. They both receive a salary. They do not inform media like The National Catholic Report that their interpretation of Vatican Council II is dishonest, since the interpretation of Vatican Council II by EWTN (apologists,announcers and editors ), itself is political and unethical.
- Lionel Andrades
https://www.ncronline.org/culture/money-trail-tells-tale-ewtns-direction
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment