A oft-cited essay by Dr John Lamont blames St Ignatius and the Jesuits for many evils, based on the notion of obedience expressed in the foundational texts. Is this justified—or vacuous?
I don't think it would change your evaluation or Fr. ZeloZelavi's critique very much, but I would like to note that there is a longer and more developed version of John Lamont's essay in the following anthology, which also contains some of the best R&R argumentation to be found anywhere:
With contributions by Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke • Bishop Athanasius Schneider • Phillip Campbell • Stuart Chessman • Charles A. Coulombe • Roberto de Mattei • Edward Feser • Timothy S. Flanders • Rémi Fontaine • A Friar of the Order of Preachers • Matt Gaspers • Jeremy Holmes • John P. Joy • Robert W. Keim • John Lamont • Sebastian Morello • Martin Mosebach • Clemens Victor Oldendorf • Thomas Pink • Enrico Roccagiachini • Eric Sammons • Joseph Shaw • Henry Sire • Thomas Sternberg • Darrick Taylor • José A. Ureta
Thank you for your reply Dr Kwasniewski, and please be aware that I do regret your being named in Fr ZeloZelavi's article. But it is not possible to redact such things.
Unfortunately, the list of contributing R&R authors is far from “the best.” It looks more like a buffet of indult apologists, who are much heavier in the “recognize” than they are on the “resist.”
If one wants to read the strongest R&R apologists, they’d be much better off reading the likes of +Williamson, the Avrille Dominicans, +Lefebvre, +de Mayer, or the pre-branded SSPX (2007).
As an aside, it’s not clear to me how Dr. Lamont can be included amongst the list of RR apologists, in light of his articles on the public heresy of Francis. Yes, I’m aware that he does not consider himself a sede, but the interior cognitive dissonance must be intense, given the unavoidable consequence of his theological conclusion regarding church membership and public heretics. To the extent that he continues to identify as RR, he does so despite his own theology.
I remember first coming across a positive evaluation of "blind obedience" when reading through Dom Guéranger's Liturgical Year. I realized how liberalised my conception of obedience had been up to that point, and it was a moment where I had to decide to either hold on to my own ideas or conform myself to the mind of the Church. I hope and pray that I've done the latter.
But the esteemed abbot's words fit right alongside those of St. Ignatius and Fr. Rodríguez above.
Our lives, living in this era, are destined to consist of progressively uncovering new layers of liberalism which we have imbibed—and divesting ourselves of them.
I don't think it would change your evaluation or Fr. ZeloZelavi's critique very much, but I would like to note that there is a longer and more developed version of John Lamont's essay in the following anthology, which also contains some of the best R&R argumentation to be found anywhere:
https://osjustipress.com/products/ultramontanism-and-tradition
With contributions by Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke • Bishop Athanasius Schneider • Phillip Campbell • Stuart Chessman • Charles A. Coulombe • Roberto de Mattei • Edward Feser • Timothy S. Flanders • Rémi Fontaine • A Friar of the Order of Preachers • Matt Gaspers • Jeremy Holmes • John P. Joy • Robert W. Keim • John Lamont • Sebastian Morello • Martin Mosebach • Clemens Victor Oldendorf • Thomas Pink • Enrico Roccagiachini • Eric Sammons • Joseph Shaw • Henry Sire • Thomas Sternberg • Darrick Taylor • José A. Ureta
Thank you for your reply Dr Kwasniewski, and please be aware that I do regret your being named in Fr ZeloZelavi's article. But it is not possible to redact such things.
No worries, I can give and take punches like any man!
Not every man can, I'm afraid!
Unfortunately, the list of contributing R&R authors is far from “the best.” It looks more like a buffet of indult apologists, who are much heavier in the “recognize” than they are on the “resist.”
If one wants to read the strongest R&R apologists, they’d be much better off reading the likes of +Williamson, the Avrille Dominicans, +Lefebvre, +de Mayer, or the pre-branded SSPX (2007).
As an aside, it’s not clear to me how Dr. Lamont can be included amongst the list of RR apologists, in light of his articles on the public heresy of Francis. Yes, I’m aware that he does not consider himself a sede, but the interior cognitive dissonance must be intense, given the unavoidable consequence of his theological conclusion regarding church membership and public heretics. To the extent that he continues to identify as RR, he does so despite his own theology.
I remember first coming across a positive evaluation of "blind obedience" when reading through Dom Guéranger's Liturgical Year. I realized how liberalised my conception of obedience had been up to that point, and it was a moment where I had to decide to either hold on to my own ideas or conform myself to the mind of the Church. I hope and pray that I've done the latter.
But the esteemed abbot's words fit right alongside those of St. Ignatius and Fr. Rodríguez above.
Our lives, living in this era, are destined to consist of progressively uncovering new layers of liberalism which we have imbibed—and divesting ourselves of them.