Skip to main content

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:





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

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.