Eric Sammons makes the common mistake of interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.He confuses what is invisible as being visible and then projects exceptions for the ‘absolutist’ concept of Catholic Salvation.
So his Salvation Spectrum would not exist if he did not use the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I), Vatican Council II and the 16th century exclusivist interpretation of EENS.It is only with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II,i.e by confusing what is subejective as being objective, that for him,emerges the theological schools Exclusivist, Inclusivist, Pluralist, and Universalist.
In his report The Ongoing Debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Crisis Magazine May 25,2021) and book Deadly Indifference he emerges as a politically correct with the Left, liberal on this issue, similar to Ralph Martin, who used the same false premise to remain vague.
With the false premise in the interpretation of LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II he creates practical exceptions for EENS. The present two popes, the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbisbishop of Boston did the same. They created alleged practical exceptions for EENS.So with there being salvation outside the Church, even though no one has seen or met such a case on earth in the present times, there emerges theologically, the universalist position of Bishop Robert Barron and the exclusivist and inclusivist theological position of the SSPX, FSSP and sedevacantists CMRI.
On the other hand we have the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA holding the absolutist position on EENS but contradicting it with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with the same false premise, Eric Sammons uses.So even though they support EENS they negate it with Vatican Council II, similar to the popes since Paul VI and those whom they call the ‘Vatican Council II sect’.
So on a video on Traditionis Custode, Sammons could only say that the real issue is doctrine and in particular Vatican Council II. He could not elaborate. Since he was limited by the false premise of the LOHO, which is official and accepted by the popes.
Pope Francis is restricting the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass to only those who interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so reject the absolutist interpretation of EENS.The issue is the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Since even if Vatican Council II was accepted and interpreted with the rational premise, it would be unacceptable for the Left. Since there would be a harmony between Vatican Council II and the absolutist position on EENS of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
For Pope Francis and Pope Benedict the LOHO supersedes the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils, with none of them mentioning any exceptions.This is political.
Eric Sammons also says that ‘the Church has condemned’ the theological position of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who said that the baptism of water was needed for all for salvation ( to avoid Hell).But a Letter from cardinals and bishops in Rome and Boston, approved by Pope Pius XII cannot contradict the dogma EENS supported by the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q,27Q) and that to with a faulty premise.Dogmas do not change.
It is unethical and dishonest when the LOHO is used to reject Magisterial documents which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Since there are no practical exceptions to EENS etc known on earth.But the popes since Pius XII accepted LOHO which is heretical and irrational and has brought in a new theology in the Church, which says outside the Church there is salvation ( with the false premise) and which was accepted at Vatican Council II. LOHO says not every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation and the Athanasius Creed still says all need the Catholic faith for salvation. LOHO says invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincinble ignorance are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so all do not not need to be a formal member of the Church for salvation. The Syllabus of Errors and the old Catechisms say all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
For Eric Sammons, the LOHO is Magisterial, and so he states that ‘the Church’ has ‘condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney’ without mentioning that the excommunication was lifted with the Boston priest only having to recite the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation. He was given a Catholic funeral with a bishop present there.The Boston heresy really referred to only the Archbishop of Boston and the popes and cardinals and Jesuits of that time who projected invisible and unknown cases at that time as being objective exceptions to a de fide teaching of the Church.
So today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise he cannot be magisterial. This is an important point which Sammons cannot discuss. It is when Crisis magazine choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premish, that there can be a Magisterial interpretation of the Council which would not contradict the past Magisterium of the Church. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
