Is Michael Davies safe to read?

[commenter]

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.

Nobody is denying he was an OK man. Just pointing out that we have all been saturated in an anti-religious-authority culture the past few decades - specifically hostile to any CURRENT religious authority, such as the current pope, or bishop, for instance. Mr. Davies’ writings didn’t tell lies, but they tended to emphasize certain truths, and not others.

Someone who was leaning towards leaving the Catholic Church might find in his writings a reason to take that step. Have you ever known someone who found in his writings a reason to join the Catholic Church, or to give greater confidence to the teaching authority of whoever was their current pope or bishop? Keep in mind all the dissenters on the Left appealed to “tradition” to indirectly undermine Popes JP II, Benedict, etc.

I’m not saying that undermining the recent popes was an agenda of Mr. Davies, but his writings may have that effect, given the climate we now live in.

 

[PJM]

=CutlerB;11808362]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.

It’s been awhile but I have read several of his works. Sure looks SOLID Catholic to me:thumbsup:

 

[CutlerB]

From the summary of the comments I learn: Don’t switch off your mind when you read him, but don’t think he’s a heretic and schismatic either. Is that a good way to put it?

 

[commenter]

We have all been affected by the anti-religious authority trend of the Western culture of the last few decades. Specifically the secular media, and much of the religious media of the Left and Right, have criticized or minimized the value of obedience to one’s current pope or bishop.

Mr. Davies affirmed the value of the “Magisterium past” because he felt there was a need to do that. He was right. He apparently didn’t see the need, a few decades ago, to explain the value of obedience to one’s current pope or bishop, maybe because he did not perceive readers as ignorant of that then.

But most readers are ignorant of authority and unity of the current Magisterium now. So if you read his books now, remember they don’t necessarily respond to the issues of 2014. If writing today, he might present things differently, to respond to the changed situation.

 

[Lormar]

Nobody is denying he was an OK man. Just pointing out that we have all been saturated in an anti-religious-authority culture the past few decades - specifically hostile to any CURRENT religious authority, such as the current pope, or bishop, for instance. Mr. Davies’ writings didn’t tell lies, but they tended to emphasize certain truths, and not others.

**Someone who was leaning towards leaving the Catholic Church might find in his writings a reason to take that step. Have you ever known someone who found in his writings a reason to join the Catholic Church, or to give greater confidence to the teaching authority of whoever was their current pope or bishop? **Keep in mind all the dissenters on the Left appealed to “tradition” to indirectly undermine Popes JP II, Benedict, etc.

I’m not saying that undermining the recent popes was an agenda of Mr. Davies, but his writings may have that effect, given the climate we now live in.

Agree 100%!

 

[CutlerB]

Agree 100%!

Sounds reasonable. Caution is advised.

 

[Filioque]

From what I’ve read, he should be taken with the same care as with reading the quotes attributed to Pope Francis by the press.

Some of his earlier writings like his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, were written before the consecrations and reflect a position that no longer exists. The SSPX continues to publish the book, even though after the Consecrations Davies could no longer support the actions of the Society. So take anything he wrote prior in the mindset, and historical context it was written in. Before he died, he wrote a book upholding the Papacy and union with the Holy See.

 

[CutlerB]

From what I’ve read, he should be taken with the same care as with reading the quotes attributed to Pope Francis by the press.

Some of his earlier writings like his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, were written before the consecrations and reflect a position that no longer exists. The SSPX continues to publish the book, even though after the Consecrations Davies could no longer support the actions of the Society. So take anything he wrote prior in the mindset, and historical context it was written in. Before he died, he wrote a book upholding the Papacy and union with the Holy See.

I’m interested in his books Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council, and A Short History of the Roman Mass.

 

[Filioque]

All have very good information.

 

[RPRPsych]

From what I’ve read, he should be taken with the same care as with reading the quotes attributed to Pope Francis by the press.

**Some of his earlier writings like his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, were written before the consecrations and reflect a position that no longer exists. ** The SSPX continues to publish the book, even though after the Consecrations Davies could no longer support the actions of the Society. So take anything he wrote prior in the mindset, and historical context it was written in. Before he died, he wrote a book upholding the Papacy and union with the Holy See.

Hmm, that’s interesting! From the way the SSPX keep mentioning it, I assumed he was an apologist for their position. Looks like I was mistaken, thanks for the info.

 

[ProVobis]

Hmm, that’s interesting! From the way the SSPX keep mentioning it, I assumed he was an apologist for their position. Looks like I was mistaken, thanks for the info.

You may also look into one of his (actually co-authored) books, “The Great Debate of '98,” in which he was debated by two FSSPX priests on some of the issues.

 

[commenter]

Hmm, that’s interesting! From the way the SSPX keep mentioning it, I assumed he was an apologist for their position. Looks like I was mistaken, thanks for the info.

Like certain organizations of religious, many Catholic Colleges, and Catholic magazines, many Catholic organizations including the SSPX have changed a great deal in the last few decades. They can quote endorsements a few decades old by people whose views we respect, but those endorsements might not be given to the organization as it is today. My old Catholic high school changed just about everything except the name. But that name still brings in donations and enrollment.

For better or worse, the SSPX now is mostly a different organization than when Mr. Davies was writing. Like my old high school, the leaders take positions that prior leaders would never have considered.

 

[spiderweb]

Davies makes a lot of valid points and does accurately portray some of the abuses post Vatican II. People that think that everything was good following Vatican II were either lucky to not experience some of the abuses or simply are ignorant that they ever happened and unfortunately in some cases are still happening.

I’ve read several of his books and for the most part find him to express an honest opinion of things. As far as some of the schismatic and/or hetical traditionalist groups using him to promote themselves, well…they also quote popes and various writings of the saints as well. But of course they have their own interpretation of these quotes that may be totally out of context. As has been expressed already by others, you have to read him in the context of when he was writing and what he was writing about.

My personal opinion of him is that he does his homework and the information is accurate. I won’t say I personally agree with everything he writes (I haven’t read it all, and I don’t remember a lot of what I have read). I think the information he presents is solid but not necessarily all of his conclussions. It’s a lot like anything else you might read regardless of the author, use discernment.

 

[RPRPsych]

So take anything he wrote prior in the mindset, and historical context it was written in. Before he died, he wrote a book upholding the Papacy and union with the Holy See.

Unfortunately, even in his last interview, he was propagating Masonic conspiracy theories. Consistency is a dying virtue.

christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_dec04.html

He also claimed, rather laughably (in the above interview) that “Cardinal Ratzinger had no chance of becoming the Pope.”

On the other hand, his work on Medjugorje - where he is aided by careful research - merits attention in this age of valuing dubious private revelation over authentic Tradition.

 

[felsguy]

Unfortunately, even in his last interview, he was propagating Masonic conspiracy theories. Consistency is a dying virtue.

christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_dec04.html

He also claimed, rather laughably (in the above interview) that “Cardinal Ratzinger had no chance of becoming the Pope.”

On the other hand, his work on Medjugorje - where he is aided by careful research - merits attention in this age of valuing dubious private revelation over authentic Tradition.

After reading this interview, which I did in it’s entirety, I an inclined to ask " Is John Bishop safe to read?"

.

 

[RPRPsych]

After reading this interview, which I did in it’s entirety, I an inclined to ask " Is John Bishop safe to read?".

Good point: sometimes an interviewer can come up with loaded questions and misrepresentations that are very difficult to correct (as Popes Benedict and Francis will be the first to admit.)

 

[thursday63]

The only thing I have read of his is “Cranmer’s Godly Order” and I thought it was terrific. I would recommend reading this book at least.

 

[CutlerB]

I have now read A Short History of the Roman Mass, The Catholic Samctuary and the Second Vatican Council and Liturgical Timebombs in Vatican II. They were fairly short, so I could get through quite well.

A quick review for each one:

A Short History of the Roman Mass: And excellent, short (as the name says) book that really gives you a good grasp of how the Roman Rite developed over time. It’s accessible and shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone.

The Catholic Sanctuary: Another great, compact little book that is filled with quotations from both the Council and many other sources. The book outlines how the Council was abused by those who destroyed sanctuaries in favour of modernist (I hesitate to use the word) ones. Davies, in this book, doesn’t attack the Council. Rather, he shows how none of the aforementioned changes were mandated or even hinted at in the documents of Vatican II. He also gives a few remarks on the meaning of certain elements of the sanctuary, as well as their history, with particular attention on the Protestant rebellion.

Liturgical Timebombs: A provocative title, I admit. Yet, in my opinion, Davies makes a reasonable case for how certain people hijacked the Council and managed to insert ambiguous or very vague phrases into the Liturgy Constitution in order to get the Council Fathers to accept them, and to reinterpret them in ways unexpected by them, once the Council had finished. It is important to emphasise that the author doesn’t attack the validity of Vatican II. He merely states that the interpretation of its decrees is a matter that needs to be addressed, and that it has certainly gone the wrong way. Neither does he attack the validity of the Missal of 1970, though he does see in it some deficiencies. What Davies really goes after is the liturgical abuses that have been inflicted on the Mass in the name of the Council that were actually never called for and which the Fathers would have strongly opposed.

That’s my opinion

 

[commenter]

I have now read A Short History of the Roman Mass, The Catholic Samctuary and the Second Vatican Council and Liturgical Timebombs in Vatican II. They were fairly short, so I could get through quite well.

A quick review for each one:

A Short History of the Roman Mass: And excellent, short (as the name says) book that really gives you a good grasp of how the Roman Rite developed over time. It’s accessible and shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone.

The Catholic Sanctuary: Another great, compact little book that is filled with quotations from both the Council and many other sources. The book outlines how the Council was abused by those who destroyed sanctuaries in favour of modernist (I hesitate to use the word) ones. Davies, in this book, doesn’t attack the Council. Rather, he shows how none of the aforementioned changes were mandated or even hinted at in the documents of Vatican II. He also gives a few remarks on the meaning of certain elements of the sanctuary, as well as their history, with particular attention on the Protestant rebellion.

Liturgical Timebombs: A provocative title, I admit. Yet, in my opinion, Davies makes a reasonable case for how certain people hijacked the Council and managed to insert ambiguous or very vague phrases into the Liturgy Constitution in order to get the Council Fathers to accept them, and to reinterpret them in ways unexpected by them, once the Council had finished. It is important to emphasise that the author doesn’t attack the validity of Vatican II. He merely states that the interpretation of its decrees is a matter that needs to be addressed, and that it has certainly gone the wrong way. Neither does he attack the validity of the Missal of 1970, though he does see in it some deficiencies. What Davies really goes after is the liturgical abuses that have been inflicted on the Mass in the name of the Council that were actually never called for and which the Fathers would have strongly opposed.

That’s my opinion

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?

 

[Lormar]

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?