Firing Line: Michael Davies and Malachi Martin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very interesting. I’m about half way through it.
This era, the late 70s and early 80s intrigues me as it was before my time.
It is interesting to hear both sides of the debate but I pretty clearly lean towards Davies side of the argument.
 
That was really enjoyable. I do not attend the EF mass, but have always sympathized with their point of view. I think the history turned out to make some of the defenses of AB Levebre ring a little hollow. I think much of the criticism of how certain aspects of the NF are valid.

It’s a pleasure to see four men who know how to use the English language debating. Cudos to the Monsignor who was obviously outnumbered in being able to present such a case.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Slow, measured, civilized discourse, with everyone taking their turn and being permitted to express complete thoughts.
Click to expand...
I remember when that was actually a thing.
Now it’s all “anybody who doesn’t think like me is stupid and crazy and a phobe and prolly also Hitler!”
 
Firing pine was normally civil, though in other venues Buckley could get a little riled up. I believe on ABC news one time he told Gore Vidal, to paraphrase, "I am going to punch you in your g#$d#&n face if you call me a Nazi again’
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Slow, measured, civilized discourse, with everyone taking their turn and being permitted to express complete thoughts.
Click to expand...
I remember when that was actually a thing.
Now it’s all “anybody who doesn’t think like me is stupid and crazy and a phobe and prolly also Hitler!”
Click to expand...
And that’s just the cooking shows. The political shows are where it starts to get nasty.
 
Last edited:
That was a great exchange! Michael Davies was a true gentleman and scholar, I love his works. It’s astonishing how similar many of the same arguments are still used today. For example, when Davies brings up his remark about article 48 containing heresy, Msgr. Champlin doesn’t refute him but instead brings up the issue of authority and obedience. Basically stating that we need to be obedient regardless of errors. Yet, Davies threw it right back on him by pointing out that the US Bishops were not exercising that same obedience to the Vatican when they began issuing communion under both kinds and communion in the hand. It was terrific.
 
Hope this doesn’t get me suspended, warning bad language, but it was on national TV in 1968, my dad told me it was not beeped out.

 
And I apologize for the thread drift. Buckley was so much fun. It’s an overstatement, but sometimes I think of him as our American Chesterton.
 
Last edited:
I knew Michael Davies, met him, and counted him as a friend. Wonderful man.

The exchange between Buckley and Gore Vidal was something to see. Their shared mid-Atlantic accents made it even better, though WFB had a trace of a Southern drawl and extended vowels… just as I do myself.
 
I wish I could shake the hand that shook the hand of +Michael Davies. You were truly blessed to know him.
 
I agree, in the other side, Msgr. Champlin did a good job of describing the ecemunical movement, and correcting Buckley as to its purpose and means.
 
Wow, how blessed were you to have known such a great man and a true defender of the Church. I would’ve loved to have listened to him speak in person. His writings and his talks are truly timeless, I only wish there was a publisher or company that would rerelease his books and content. As it is, I do my best get my hands on anything of his I can find.
 
tafan2 said:
Cudos to the Monsignor who was obviously outnumbered in being able to present such a case.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I don’t think he did a good job of stating his case. Seemed way over his head
 
I didn’t get that impression at all. He certainly was in a difficult position, although he obviously was defending the NO mass, one got the impression that he was not convinced about a few things himself, so the defense was lukewarm. At the least he was sympathetic to the other side of the argument.

He did do a good job of disputing a couple of Davie’s points, eg that the issue of Protestants liking the mass doesn’t directly matter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top