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

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

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

Catholic Culture - The Edgar Schein Model Analysis of the Pre and Post Conciliar Culture

+ JMJ So ... I was thinking ... I've used Edgar Schein's (RIP) organizational cultural model (link ) in my research ... why not apply it in a comparison between the Catholic Organizational Culture - PRE and POST Second Vatican Culture? Of course, this will be from my own perspective, I'm certain that others will think differently. 😁 Also, apologies for a rather long article. Graphic: https://mutomorro.com/edgar-scheins-culture-model/ Below is a quick mapping of the cultural factors that I could think of. Since the Church is vast and composed of millions of Souls, it is necessarily a limited cultural map. Yet, I think it will still be useful to assess what has changed since the Second Vatican Council. Additional Reading: 5 enduring management ideas from MIT Sloan’s Edgar Schein | MIT Sloan Artifacts Artifacts are tangible and observable aspects of the culture being examined. All organizations have them. Walmart has their Walmart chant, Charismatics have their spe

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

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Tradicat

Search This Blog