5 Comments
User's avatar
Peter Kwasniewski's avatar

Is there a Part III of the essay, or is it now concluded?

Expand full comment
S.D. Wright's avatar

Did I reply already? This is the end. He has other articles on obedience but have too much other stuff to write about at the moment.

By the way I forgot to mention with the last one that I too have been thr subject of the Fr ZeloZelavi treatment in one or two of his articles !

Expand full comment
Sean Johnson's avatar

It’s incredible that a man of Dr. Lamont’s obvious intellectual talent could blunder so badly, as to indict the methods and spirit of an order who’s good fruits are so manifest (eg., the conversion of the New World; leadership in the Catholic counterrevolution at and after Trent; etc).

If he thinks to find ammunition for his theory in the many scandals of the conciliar Jesuits, it is only because “the corruption of the best is the worst.”

I would expect that at some point he would retract this untenable theory.

Expand full comment
John Raymond's avatar

Dr. Lamont, please forgive me but Saint Ignatius is a Saint. The Catholic Church would not make such mistakes - a sede who was robbed of his formation, but who still wants to be Catholic

Expand full comment
Michael Boharski's avatar

It would have been nice to have a section to clarify the process of reasoning and discernment to follow when one is strongly suspicious or certain in ecclesial matters that obedience must be suspended i.e. when it obviously contradicts divine law or is harmful to one's salvation. Archbishop Lefebvre's arrival at his position at least to me was the epitome of such a process, but without his expression of it I would have had nowhere near enough knowledge to arrive at his justification by myself.

Expand full comment