Skip to main content

A Group of Theologians on Amoris Laetitia and CMTV - Updated

+
JMJ

Retirement is so much fun!!!

The appeal to Cardinal Sodano (see Rorate) has caused a bit of a stir across the spectrum of Catholicism.

Interestingly, it didn't hit the front page over at CMTV - I had to dig into the daily news briefing to click on this link which lead to Edward Pentin's piece. I had expected some sort of commentary - but after announcing the document - just crickets.

I will reiterate my belief that while WE do not know the identity of the signatories to the document - beyond Professor Shaw - We do know there are signatories.

This is very interesting as, aside from the group of theologians who intervened in the case of the Novus Ordo Missae, I am not aware of anyone calling out the Pope on a document with theological censures since John XXII.

Pray that the Pope listens and supports the Teaching of the Church!!!

P^3



Update

Hilary White's opinion was that the signatories behind the intervention are cowards.

Here's Dr. Shaw's and Dr. Lamont's responses:


Thank you, Hillary.
But I don’t want to claim any greater degree of machismo than the other signatories of the appeal. The point of the document is not a public denunciation but a private appeal to the Cardinals and Patriarchs. The reason we’ve issued a press release is to prevent it being misrepresented (or, at least, to make that a little harder).
If the appeal has any positive effect the push-back will almost certainly include a leaking of the text and signatories and a persecution of the latter. I am in an unusally secure position. Many of the other signatories will need your prayers. ( http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2016/07/12/on-growing-a-pair/#comment-5531 )
...
As a matter of fact I wouldn’t say the lay signatories are more worried than the clerical ones. The latter have religious superiors and bishops to worry about, and vows of obedience. They too may find it impossible to feed their children – their spiritual ones – when the chickens come home to roost. They’ve all made the calculation and understand the risk. ( http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2016/07/12/on-growing-a-pair/#comment-5554 )




Dear Hilary,
I don’t think the accusation of cowardice and anonymity stands up, as the identity of the signatories of the document is known to all of the college of cardinals and Eastern patriarchs. They will thus be known at once to the ecclesiastical powers who will have an interest in punishing them for this initiative, and it can be expected that this punishment will be forthcoming – as the signatories are well aware. (I will mention that I am one of the signatories myself.) The names of the signatories have not been publicly announced because the appeal is to the college of cardinals and to the patriarchs, rather than to the general Catholic public. That is because it is the college of cardinals and the patriarchs that have the first responsibility to take steps in approaching (and reproaching) the pope on Amoris Laetitia. In legal and ecclesiastical terms, they have the right to be the first recipients of any protest and request for action about the errors of that document. If they carry out their responsibilities, there will be no need for the signatories to address Catholics generally about the errors of Amoris Laetitia, because the college of cardinals will do so on their behalf, with greater authority. You are no doubt skeptical about the possibility of this happening, and I would not argue with you about that. But the people at the top have to at least be given a chance to do their job and carry out their responsibilities. It is a matter of respect for their office and its authority – which is respect for the Church herself – regardless of the actual character of the officeholders. Showing this respect provides some protection against retaliation for the signatories, which is another reason for addressing ecclesiastical authority rather than the general public in the first place; but it is justified on its own terms. If the ecclesiastical authorities fail in this regard, then a broader appeal to Catholics can become justified and necessary. At the same time it is important for Catholics generally to know that someone is trying to do something about the errors of Amoris Laetitia and the harm these errors are causing. One may anticipate as well that the supporters of these errors will try to misrepresent the appeal in order to discredit it. It thus becomes desirable to clarify its nature at the outset. Hence the press release, which is not a final statement on the whole affair.
John Lamont ( http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2016/07/12/on-growing-a-pair/#comment-5597 )

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...