Is Michael Davies safe to read?

[ProVobis]

Davies’ critique of the OF is somewhat outdated, since the new translation about 16 months ago.

I always held the view that anyone who was criticizing a particular translation wasn’t necessarily critiquing the Mass per se, as most of those translations were made before the Missal of 1970 was promulgated. They would have to do better than just criticize a translation or the fact that Gregorian chant, EP1 etc, is seldom used.

 

[CutlerB]

The question in the OP did not ask whether or not Mr. Davies had some good historical analysis. The question is whether, in 2014, it is “safe” (spiritually beneficial) to read Davies. Keep in mind the secular culture, and large parts of Catholic “Left” and “Right” are far more hostile to the authority of CURRENT popes and bishops than when he was writing. Also keep in mind Davies’ books are promoted by an organization hostile to the current pope and bishops.
There are other books, including some available through Catholic Answers ,that would offer good liturgical historical analysis, but able to incorporate insights that Davies did have access to. Davies’ critique of the OF is somewhat outdated, since the new translation about 16 months ago.
Davies’ books have been identified by some leaving the Catholic Church as the cause. Has anyone identified his books as the cause for anyone entering or returning to the Catholic Church?

Since I asked the question, I think it is legitimate to add to the thread additional comments that relate to the original intention. As the reason I posted was to decide whether I should read the books, because they might have been advocating heresy or schism, I deemed it appropriate to give my view after having read them. The question was not whether it was “spiritually beneficial” but rather if it was great spiritual risk. I have come to the conclusion the latter was not the case for me. That doesn’t mean the former automatically follows. Since the question has now been answers, I’ll leave the thread.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I would recommend “Cramner’s Godly Order” by Michael Davies if you would like to understand more about the Novus Ordo Mass and what the modern Catholic Church has undergone in the past 50 years.

Before the changes were mandated from outside the Church, in these past decades, the changes came from inside.

The Novus Ordo was not really ‘new’. It was based on the Book of Common Prayer from the 16th century I believe with some changes for consecration.

Mind you, the Novus Ordo Mass that most of us participate in is entirely valid! Certainly am not saying otherwise.

 

[Cojuanco]

I would recommend “Cramner’s Godly Order” by Michael Davies if you would like to understand more about the Novus Ordo Mass and what the modern Catholic Church has undergone in the past 50 years.

Before the changes were mandated from outside the Church, in these past decades, the changes came from inside.

The Novus Ordo was not really ‘new’. It was based on the Book of Common Prayer from the 16th century I believe with some changes for consecration.

Mind you, the Novus Ordo Mass that most of us participate in is entirely valid! Certainly am not saying otherwise.

Of course, a lot of the BCP elements are similar to the unequivocally valid Sarum Rite. Given that a similar relationship exists between Anglican Use and the BCP, with changes for consecration, this does not necessarily make the changes bad.

 

[Ace86]

Yes Michael Davies is safe to read. He promoted the Society of St. Pius X, which strives to continue Tradition as it always was in the Church. It rejects novelties which appear heretical. Vatican II is full of ambiguity. Ambiguity is not Catholic. Catholics believe in clear reasonable teachings, such as Outside the Church, there is no Salvation.