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

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

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

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 wrot

Rorate-Caeli: New Interview with Fr. Charles Murr on what Mother Pascalina Knew about Bugnini, Paul VI, and Other Major Figures

 + JMJ    Rorate has posted an interesting interview that includes details about Bugnini.  I have quoted below the key elements.  This will come as nothing new to seasoned Trads, but represents another step in understanding how we got to this point! P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli   Fr. Murr, if Archbishop Bugnini was somehow involved with Freemasonry, what can we say, then, about Bugnini and the Conciliar liturgical reforms? MURR: I think it is better to ask whether “Freemasonic designs” had something to do with the liturgical reforms that Bugnini  decided  the Second Vatican Council desired. Were Bugnini’s reforms concerned with a more perfect adoration and worship of God, or with celebrating the Freemasonic concept of the brotherhood of man?  When certain Council Fathers insisted that not one word of the 1,600-year-old Roman Canon be touched, by any stretch of the imagination, could that be taken to mean they wanted to concoct entirely new canons? 10  When Archbishop Carlo Ma

Cathinfo and the 'resistance' perspective (updated with response to comment)

+ JMJ Matthew, the owner of Cathinfo - a resistance forum has posted a response to a person that indicated his reasons for continuing to go to the SSPX.