From teh Wiki; “He later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and declined to retract that support after Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate four bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II”
Do you guys wish to call the ICRSS priest in Rockford and tell him that the man who was invited to be speaker at several of the seminars and was given awards out there is in this “certain light”?
The rules of this forum prohibit criticizing legitimate rites of the Church, which include the Novus Ordo. Davies wrote that the Novus Ordo was Protestant, whether or not he said it was valid or invalid, and it’s a matter of public record that he publicly supported and adhered to the SSPX.
This is very true.
He may have written books as you say but calling someone a schismatic without a foundation is at best gossip. He wrote one book which put him in disagreement with a couple of the FSSPX priests so…
It is by no means gossip! And hardly without a foundation.
Yes, it’s pretty important to point that out. But you could do that without calling him a schismatic.
I disagree about the last thing being necessarily the case, but for the sake of harmony, I will say that sure, it’s not necessary to call him a schismatic to make my point. But I stand by what I said about the nature of his writings and their evident inappropriateness/illegality on these forums.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
I wasn’t the one calling him a schismatic, all I was saying was that he was in favor of flagrant disobedience and the illicit consecration of four Bishops, which I would place on par with a “liberal” Bishop ordaining more “liberal” Bishops (the act of which would cause an uproar on this board, yes?)
He’s not a schismatic at all, he’s a traditionalist writer.
You are calling him a schismatic which is without foundation. That is gossip.
There’s nothing that Michael Davies has written that would be harmful to the faith. He writes about the crisis in the Church, and the liturgical revolution of the 60s and 70s. Most traditionalists on this forum are banned/suspended almost immediately.
Whether or not you want to accept it, the Novus Ordo was created by a liberal committee after the Second Vatican Council, headed by Archbishop Bugnini. He offers criticism that is called for. I’m not going to go further into the subject.
We didn’t post his writings here. We gave the names of his books.
It’s “without foundation” because some people on here have a different conception than others of what constitutes a schismatic or schismatic groups.
From the sounds of it, we’re not even supposed to call the Eastern Orthodox schismatic. I’d be careful about throwing that label around. Plus it doesn’t apply to Davies.
Traditionalists get baited, reported, then the mods come in and ban/suspend them all.
Well, people who follow those who at least until the mid-1960s were part of and in full union with the pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church could certainly avoid giving even the appearance of schism by refraining from criticizing the legitimate judgments of the Roman Pontiff in liturgical matters, and suggesting that Protestant tendencies are present in the Church’s validly promulgated rites. Just a thought. :newidea:From the sounds of it, we’re not even supposed to call the Eastern Orthodox schismatic. I’d be careful about throwing that label around. Plus it doesn’t apply to Davies.
I think it’s ridiculous that you consider constructively criticizing the Novus Ordo as appearing schismatic, when even the Holy Father Pope Benedict has said: