Is Michael Davies safe to read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
On another thread, I was referred to a book by Michael Davies (1936-2004) called “The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council”. I have done a little research, and found a few more books Davies wrote. His focus seems to be Vatican II.

Since I am very drawn to traditional Catholicism, Davies’ work has a bonus on my part to begin with. But since I do not want to wander into heresy or schism, I am of course also attentive to the way the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is represented. Unfortunately, as many of you will know, negative portrayal of it is often connected to “radical traditionalism”. I know that Fr. Z (wdtprs.com) has made the odd positive comment, but while Father isn’t to be worried about, I still want to make sure.

Thus, I wanted to enquire whether people here could give me some advice on Davies’ writings. Is he doctrinally sound, that is, does he accept Vatican II as a valid Ecumenical Council? Before I read him, I want to be sure that what I am reading is not going to put me in any precarious situation. While we’re at it, perhaps people can give some feedback about books by him they’ve read.

Thanks. 🙂
 
This a repost of a quote from a previous thread asking the same question:

“I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

…Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,

9 November 2004
 
MIchael Davies was a huge supporter of the SSPX. He constantly criticized Vatican II and basically saw it as the root of all evil. People like John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt adore him.

Back when I was much more a part of the “traditionalist” movement, I thought Michael Davies was great. I have since changed my opinion, and not for the better.

You can take it from there. For the record, the Church, as far as I know, has no list of “forbidden” books anymore, so you are certainly free to read him. But you will get a whole lot of church bashing from Davies.
 
Brooklyn said:
MIchael Davies was a huge supporter of the SSPX. He constantly criticized Vatican II and basically saw it as the root of all evil. People like John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt adore him.

Back when I was much more a part of the “traditionalist” movement, I thought Michael Davies was great. I have since changed my opinion, and not for the better.

You can take it from there. For the record, the Church, as far as I know, has no list of “forbidden” books anymore, so you are certainly free to read him. But you will get a whole lot of church bashing from Davies.
Click to expand...
He wrote a biography of Marcel Lefebvre, entitled Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. Cardinal Newman must be spinning in his grave. 😃

He is frequently cited by the “Resistance Movement” (= sedevacantists sine sedevacantism) - Matt, Vennari, Horvath and Guimaraes.

He was passionately devoted to the “Vetus Ordo” Mass, and this may have led him to some rather intemperate positions.

However, I don’t think you’ll find anything too heterodox in his works; schismatic, perhaps, but not heretical.

It’s worth reading such authors if one is a scholar of the Traditionalist movement in all its colours; whether it is spiritually safe depends on the individual’s own relation to the Church. 😉
 
It does seem rather odd that then Cardinal Ratzinger would speak of him in such a way, if the SSPX thingy as presented here was all there was to it… 🤷
 
Cutler, here’s my opinion on Davies garnered from many, many years of personal experience.

Avoid his books. Why? Because it is pointless to get anyone riled up by telling them all that is wrong, from A to Z, with the new Mass (the Second Vatican Council and almost anything to do with the post VII Church) and then, at the end of the book, proceed to assure you that it is, nevertheless, valid. In other words, he was a sower of discontent, although I understand, in the face of death, he thought twice about all he had written and tried to remedy the situation.
 
Having not read Davies, my personal opinion on getting into traditionalist issues is this:

By all means go to the Vetus Ordo Mass, practice traditional spiritualities, read up on the old encyclicals and Church fathers, learn Latin even.

Doing the above is where you, being drawn to traditional Catholicism, would ultimately end up whether or not you had critically examined Vatican II and the 1970 Missale Romanum via Michael Davies. His analysis may be admissible - I don’t really know, but that is probably a matter for scholarly debate - but think about the end result. Once you hear all the criticisms of the Novus Ordo, you potentially won’t be able to attend a Novus Ordo liturgy without noticing what Michael Davies points out. But why do that to yourself? Just attend the VO as you like and promote it without imbibing the criticism of the NO.
 
steymard said:
Having not read Davies, my personal opinion on getting into traditionalist issues is this:

By all means go to the Vetus Ordo Mass, practice traditional spiritualities, read up on the old encyclicals and Church fathers, learn Latin even.

Doing the above is where you, being drawn to traditional Catholicism, would ultimately end up whether or not you had critically examined Vatican II and the 1970 Missale Romanum via Michael Davies. His analysis may be admissible - I don’t really know, but that is probably a matter for scholarly debate - but think about the end result. Once you hear all the criticisms of the Novus Ordo, you potentially won’t be able to attend a Novus Ordo liturgy without noticing what Michael Davies points out. But why do that to yourself? Just attend the VO as you like and promote it without imbibing the criticism of the NO.
Click to expand...
I’m not reading him on the Ordinary Form, but on the changes made in architecture and sanctuaries “in the spirit of Vatican II” and whether the Council actually called for those alterations.
 
does he accept Vatican II as a valid Ecumenical Council?
Click to expand...
After he tells you everything that went and is wrong with it, he tells you that yes, he does accept it.
 
Lormar said:
After he tells you everything that went and is wrong with it, he tells you that yes, he does accept it.
Click to expand...
From the paragraphs I’ve read, I get a different impression. In those, he criticises false “interpretations” or even outright inventions, that is, things supposedly ordered by the Council, which actually weren’t. I don’t know about his other works though. There is a great difference between criticising the implementation and the Council itself, after all.
 
CutlerB said:
From the paragraphs I’ve read, I get a different impression. In those, he criticises false “interpretations” or even outright inventions, that is, things supposedly ordered by the Council, which actually weren’t. I don’t know about his other works though. There is a great difference between criticising the implementation and the Council itself, after all.
Click to expand...
Cutler, I’ll tell you what. It sounds to me like your mind is already made up regarding him and you just what to debate those whose thoughts on him differ than your own.

Count me out.
 
Lormar said:
Cutler, I’ll tell you what. It sounds to me like your mind is already made up regarding him and you just what to debate those whose thoughts on him differ than your own.

Count me out.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re wrong there.🤷 What I’m trying to say is this: Since the few paragraphs I’ve read seem quite reasonable and not anti-Vatican II at all but rather very positive, it would take a little more than “I don’t think he’s a good read” to make a point.
 
Personally I don’t see much value. Summorum Pontificum is now in effect.
 
Michael Davies didn’t support the SSPX when they went over the edge. He tried to drag them back. As someone who knew him said, “He was crushed when Archbishop Lefebvre left the Church, having had so much hope for his work.”

He was a sharp-tongued but faithful Catholic, and his research and activism in favor of the Extraordinary Form was one of the things which led up to Summorum Pontificum. I have never seen anyone who knew him have a bad word to say about him.

I am disappointed that anyone would insinuate that his works are unsafe or unimportant, when they were explicitly praised by then-Cardinal Ratzinger as important to read.

Nor is it light praise to have then-Cardinal Ratzinger say that he had no doubt that Michael Davies died a saint, which is exactly what he said in that quote.
 
Mintaka said:
I am disappointed that anyone would insinuate that his works are unsafe or unimportant, when they were explicitly praised by then-Cardinal Ratzinger as important to read.

Nor is it light praise to have then-Cardinal Ratzinger say that he had no doubt that Michael Davies died a saint, which is exactly what he said in that quote.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they were unimportant. I heard him speak twice at symposiums (-ia) in Rockford, having been invited there by the ICRSS. Interestingly enough, he gave talks on certain parts of English history, unlike some of the things he’s been known to write. Perhaps his works have more of a historical value at this point. Just saying.
 
Mintaka said:
Michael Davies didn’t support the SSPX when they went over the edge. He tried to drag them back. As someone who knew him said, “He was crushed when Archbishop Lefebvre left the Church, having had so much hope for his work.”
Click to expand...
He may not have intended that his readers go “over the edge”. But some people have already gotten a heavy grounding in anti-Magisterium writing from other traditionalist Catholics, and we all have, more than we realize, been deeply affected by the anti-Magisterium slant in the secular media. For those people, reading Davies was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”,

He had good ideas, but his good ideas are not what moved some of his readers to leave the Church - an action he may not have intended. It’s not a question of whether he was a good or bad man. I know of a few people who attributed his writings to their leaving the Church. Has anyone heard of someone joining the Church as a result of reading his writings?
 
steymard said:
This a repost of a quote from a previous thread asking the same question:

“I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

…Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,

9 November 2004
Click to expand...
Thanks for the quote.
 
For decades Michael Davies was known as a stout defender of tradition and an icon of the Catholic Faith.

He is perfectly safe to read. As far as people “going over the edge”, well they have been doing that ever since the end of the Council. Check out the old ORCM (Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement), or the CMRI, or the real way out Palmar De Troya.

You can find extremists any where. Davies was an OK man. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top