LifeSite News: Dr. John Lamont responds to criticisms of letter to bishops concerning heresies of Pope Francis

JMJ

Dr. Lamont has written a response to the criticisms levied against the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

For me, here's the pivotal point in the response:

Catholics must judge for themselves in reading the letter whether this evidence is sufficient or not.

My primary concern is that people will arrive at and act upon the sede-vacantist conclusion of this thought process. Dr. Lamont then makes an statistical argument and goes on to state:

We should therefore accept that Pope Francis has publicly and persistently upheld the heresies listed above.

At this point it is obvious that Dr. Lamont has personally come to the conclusion and made this private judgement for himself. He is definitely entitled to hold his personal opinion.

However, the statistical argument is flawed because he assigned a low probability that Pope Francis is not meaning to make heretical statements etc. ... But he has no data to support such an assumption.

So ...

You cannot 'accept' that Pope Francis has publicly and most importantly persistently upheld the heresies ... because there is still a chance that he did not.

Hence the need for an authoritative judgement.

At best Dr. Lamont could conclude, like a radiologist reading an MRI, is that the statements are consistent with heresy and need further examination.

Again an need for a formal investigation ... which I believe is the intent of the Open Letter (I wonder if they sent it privately first).

Without that examination and determination, it is simply a personal opinion being stacked up with other personal opinions. While this is useful in an academic environment, this is not a mere academic question, it is a juridical question. Resorting to statistical proofs and a stack-up of personal opinion is not valid and this is where Dr. Lamont appears to be undermining his credibility.

He is proceeding on the assumption that Pope Francis is a heretic.

In engineering, I learned early on that you need to list your assumptions and then validate them.

These assumptions are not validated.

Below is a statement made to me by a senior engineer guiding me through one of my earlier RF designs:

Source: Not certain where the picture came from the phrase was coined by Jerry Belson

P^3

Comments

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog