Michael Davies and the SSPX

The late Michael Davies, I know, wrote various apologetic materials for the SSPX.

He even said (maybe at a Una Voce conference?) that Archbishop Lefebvre was a saint!:eek:

However, I have also heard that Mr Davies was associated somehow with the FSSP(Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter).

Does anyone out there know the full story on Michael Davies, and if he ever “repented” from involvement with the SSPX?

Also, is Una Voce okay to be involved with, since Michael Davies was the President of the international Una Voce?

Could somebody please reply to this posting?:gopray2:

Thank you!:clapping:

[quote=GoLatin]Could somebody please reply to this posting?:gopray2:

Thank you!:clapping:
[/quote]

I found this:

A FUTURE POPE HONORS A TRADITIONALIST LEADER

When traditionalist leader Michael Davies, who headed the International Una Voce Federation, died in 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger-the future Pope Benedict XVI-had this to say:

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 to be 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 on 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 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.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37861

i don’t know that he ever said his statements on lefebrve were incorrect but here’s this for you i’m not quite sure how he reconciles some of the below with some of his other writings but here it is anyway. the poor man always seemed at conflict with himself in much of his writings, in my opinion.

thewandererpress.com/a10-7-2004.htm

What I don’t get is why even some diocesan Priests show admiration for Michael Davies, Archbishop Lefebvre, and the SSPX.:confused: :frowning:

I don’t understand why the then-Cardinal Ratzinger showed that much admiration for Michael Davies when Mr Davies died.

And Mr Davies was associated with The Remnant!

What about Una Voce, should I support them?

bear06 is right, poor Mr Davies seemed to be in conflict with himself!

I believe that Una Voce is in full communion with the Pope, not only in theory, but in practice (unlike the SSPX). So, yes, it’d be okay to support them.

As regards, Michael Davies. He started to soften his positions in old age. He admired Cardinal Ratzinger very much, and defended him from radical traditionalists (See www.christianorder.com for one of the last interviews of M.D._)

God bless!

I wrote a series of books on the defense of Archbishop Lefebvre before the archbishop did his ordinations w/o papal mandate.

He was the head of Una Voce International for many years so he is a supporter of the indult. Una Voce is a group that promotes the Traditional Latin Mass w/ the permission of the bishops.

Una Voce is no doubt in communion with Rome, go visit them.
www.fiuv.org
www.unavoce.org

My main problem with Una Voce was Michael Davies. Now that he’s gone, I have less problems with them.

My problem with most of these organizations is that they can’t seem to promote the Tridentine by educating people of its beauty. They have to do it by pointing out their perceived flaws with Vatican II. I think they’d get a lot farther if they could stay away from the attitude of being the judge and jury of the liturgy.
What’s really sad to me is that a lot of these organizations that started off good have gone farther and farther to the right into a radical traditionalist stances.

As far as why priests show admiration for Davies…I believe that, even though he was wrong on some things, that Michael Davies had good intentions. Good intentions don’t always make for good practice.

Vatican II undermined the liturgy.

Take sacrosanctum concillium:
One paragraph will uphold traditional teaching and going further down another paragraph will undermine it.

The destruction of the Roman Mass is very similar to what Cranmer did to the Sarum Mass in England. He wrote a good books about it if you want to understand what is going on.

-Destruction and smashing of high altars.
-imposition of the vernacular english include against the people who did not speak english
-communion in both species
-communion in hand
-ministers facing the people
-tables arranged in northend
-smashing of statues
-burning of Sarum Missals
-within two generations of attendance of the anglican service the catholic faith was extinguished.
Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi

Does this sound very similar?

From the folks of Devonshire:

“We wyll haue the masse in Latten, as was before, and celebrated by a Pryest wythoute any man of women comunycatyng with hym.
We wyll haue the Sacrament hang ouer the hyeghe aulter, and there to be worshypped as it was wount to be, and they whiche will not thereto consent, We wyl haue them dye lyke heretykes against the Holy Catholyque fayth.”
-Commoners of Devonshire

[quote=Iohannes]Vatican II undermined the liturgy.

Take sacrosanctum concillium:
One paragraph will uphold traditional teaching and going further down another paragraph will undermine it.

The destruction of the Roman Mass is very similar to what Cranmer did to the Sarum Mass in England. He wrote a good books about it if you want to understand what is going on.

-Destruction and smashing of high altars.
-imposition of the vernacular english include against the people who did not speak english
-communion in both species
-communion in hand
-ministers facing the people
-tables arranged in northend
-smashing of statues
-burning of Sarum Missals
-within two generations of attendance of the anglican service the catholic faith was extinguished.
Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi

Does this sound very similar?

From the folks of Devonshire:
[/quote]

Obviously, Cranmer was a formal heretic and went too far, but let me ask you, since the Church approves this things, what is BAD about a Mass that people can understand? What is BAD about communion in both species (we’ve had it in both for longer than we didn’t)? What is BAD about communion in the hand, practiced in the Apostolic and Patristic period? What is BAD about the altar being in the middle of the room? The north end? The west end? What is BAD, satanic, demonic, about that? You and I both know there’s nothing inherently bad in any of those things, particularly in the things permitted by the Church. And may I ask, are you with the good folk of old Devonshire, advocating the killing of heretics?

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Obviously, Cranmer was a formal heretic and went too far, but let me ask you, since the Church approves this things, what is BAD about a Mass that people can understand? What is BAD about communion in both species (we’ve had it in both for longer than we didn’t)? What is BAD about communion in the hand, practiced in the Apostolic and Patristic period? What is BAD about the altar being in the middle of the room? The north end? The west end? What is BAD, satanic, demonic, about that? You and I both know there’s nothing inherently bad in any of those things, particularly in the things permitted by the Church.
[/quote]

As I am sure you know, there is nothing inherently bad about any of the things you listed. For me that is not the question, the questions are “Why did tradition and the Church change those practices?” and “Are those reasons no longer operative?”.

I don’t know the answers to all those questions, but for instance my understanding is that we received the Host only to reinforce that either specie is complete. Since we have gone “back” to communion using both species, I hear more and more Catholics saying that you don’t get all of Our Lord if you don’t receive both. My own inclination is to not overturn tradition. There is a reason the Church changed practices from the early years and that is because of the problems the early practices led to.

[quote=SnorterLuster] Since we have gone “back” to communion using both species, I hear more and more Catholics saying that you don’t get all of Our Lord if you don’t receive both. My own inclination is to not overturn tradition. There is a reason the Church changed practices from the early years and that is because of the problems the early practices led to.
[/quote]

My own inclination is to stress greater catechisis. I understand that Our Lord is, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, completely present in Both Species and Either Species. If some one doesn’t, then they need to be taught better. Our Lord gave Both, there is no reason NOT to take both (obviously, not at huge papal masses, etc.). It could be argued that by denying the Chalice and giving the Host, we could potentially raise the Chalice in the minds of some to a “higher” level than the Host (ie, only the priests are “worthy” to receive it). Are we going to then reverse and give only the Chalice until they catch a clue? Our Lord gave BOTH, there is no indication that He intended that we should do other than receive BOTH, it is within the Church’s legitimate, Christ-given authority to govern Her Sacraments and to either permit the Chalice or withhold it and She has again allowed it to the laity. It is neither more holy to refrain from the Chalice (we are not worthy of either the Most Sacred Body or the Most Precious Blood) nor is it more “traditional” (in the history of the Church, it was only denied from about the 12th century, so we HAD it for more years (400) than we didn’t have it). And, as you said, “There is a reason the Church changed practices.” Well, here’s a reason she’s changed them again. She had a good think and decided to shift her discipline. Regardless of what we do, the Church is always, absent the Parousia, going to confront problems from within Her ranks and without. It’s been that way from the beginning and will be that way until He comes in glory.

Obviously, Cranmer was a formal heretic and went too far, but let me ask you, since the Church approves this things, what is BAD about a Mass that people can understand? What is BAD about communion in both species (we’ve had it in both for longer than we didn’t)? What is BAD about communion in the hand, practiced in the Apostolic and Patristic period? What is BAD about the altar being in the middle of the room? The north end? The west end? What is BAD,

first, few people who love the tridentine mass will concede that any changes in the normative mass are inherently harmful to the faith. what they are saying is that they think the traditional mass is subjectively more pious and that some of the changes of the post VII mass were unessesary and have led to much confusion and pain on the laity.

what we should have seen was an organic development of the mass like the 65’ missal. what we got is something entirely different. a mass fabricated by a group of liturgical experts which stripped much of the traditions which have developed organically for the past 1,500 years or more. before that time we do not know what the liturgy was like.

people like michael davies and the sspx have their place. if it wasn’t for lefbreve, we might not have the fssp or such a vibrant movement associated with the tridentine mass. look at the vocations associated with these movemtents. if anything, they are pointing that reforms of the roman rite are still needed.

Take sacrosanctum concillium:
One paragraph will uphold traditional teaching and going further down another paragraph will undermine it.

i think it can be interpreted in light of tradition to be orthodox but it leaves much room for interpretation. i think it was written too positively or optomistically. it should have listed as many prohibitions as it did changes to keep people in line. this is probably why God gave us the 10 commandments and not the 1 trillion permissions.

[quote=oat soda]first, few people who love the tridentine mass will concede that any changes in the normative mass are inherently harmful to the faith. what they are saying is that they think the traditional mass is subjectively more pious and that some of the changes of the post VII mass were unessesary and have led to much confusion and pain on the laity.
QUOTE]

Please see above emphasis, which is mine. Thank you, Oat Soda, you come to the point nicely. Once the myth (the radically traditionalist myth) of the “protestantization” of the Mass has been been debunked, in the end there are only two positions one can reasonably take: either one concedes that one’s personal, subjective taste dictates one’s liturgical preference for the TLM or one asserts that the TLM alone is the “Mass of the Ages”, the Pauline Rite is an “abomination”, and that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church (because something that is an abomination cannot confect the Sacrifice that can propitiate for our). Those are really the only two positions one can choose from, if one wishes to be taken seriously. The notion that the TLM is inherently, of itself, more reverent, is spurious, as is the notion that it is “abuse-proof.” I’ve only attended one. I didn’t care for it. Given my choice, I’d never go again. I will, however, admit that that is my “subjective” opinion, my “subjective” taste.
[/quote]

The notion that the TLM is inherently, of itself, more reverent, is spurious, as is the notion that it is “abuse-proof.” I’ve only attended one. I didn’t care for it. Given my choice, I’d never go again. I will, however, admit that that is my “subjective” opinion, my “subjective” taste.

yep, and the traditionalists who are so ridgid as to discount everything post 1969 make themselves look like fools. in fact, i talked to a good fssp seminarian who did not like JPII to the point of not even reading anything he wrote like my favorite -theology of the body. they also reject the luminous mysteries and some even the new catechism. there is a very funny website that basically shows how ridiculous rigid traditionalists are by rejecting the changes from greek to latin.

what they don’t like to admit is the liturgical movement had been developing what is essentially SC since the 19th century and that lefbreve himself signed it during VII. it is a major point of VII that the faithful should actively participate and not be mere spectators. it’s quite obvious that the tridentine mass can be difficult to follow and that participation is normally silent unlike the ancient divine liturgies of the east.

my point is that while you’re probably going to far to hold to a ridgid attachment to the tridentine mass, one can argue that the reforms went too far so that the licit celebration of the normative mass in english without gregorian chant of latin ad populum in a circle in the rounds church can appear to be a completely different rite from the tridentine mass. this can lead to the idea that the pre VII church was wrong and that it is a different faith.

i will say that by far the most beautiful masses i’ve ever been to where celebrated according to missal of 62’. they put you in touch with the mass of the ages and the roman rite celebrated for the last 1,500 years. that to me is extremely important today to feel that you are part of the same church and that it has this cosmic dimention with the saints in heaven. of course, this is my subjective feelings on it but i think they are very common.

That quote was from the book Cranmer’s Godly Order by Michael Davies, he talks about the brave souls of Cornwall and Devonshire resisting the protestantization. Interestingly enough the people of Cornwall did not speak english and had an english service imposed on them, they spoke cornish. Cranmer sent in armies and mercenaries to crush and murder those folks and impose the Book of common prayer.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Obviously, Cranmer was a formal heretic and went too far, but let me ask you, since the Church approves this things, what is BAD about a Mass that people can understand? What is BAD about communion in both species (we’ve had it in both for longer than we didn’t)? What is BAD about communion in the hand, practiced in the Apostolic and Patristic period? What is BAD about the altar being in the middle of the room? The north end? The west end? What is BAD, satanic, demonic, about that? You and I both know there’s nothing inherently bad in any of those things, particularly in the things permitted by the Church. And may I ask, are you with the good folk of old Devonshire, advocating the killing of heretics?
[/quote]

Cranmer wanted to destroy the notion that Mass was a sacrifice so he had the high altars smashed and set up tables instead.
He wanted to destroy the real presence (which he did in the Church of England) and the belief in it by have two species and communion in hand.

Yes there was communion in the hand in the patristic era, do you also want to bring back the older form of confession? They were more reverent and had an admontion about those who did this to becareful. This is antiquarism which is condemned by Mediator Dei by Pius XII.

Today Communion in both species (seperated) has led to some to believe that you cannot get the Full grace or Christ unless you have both,a heresy. A good compromise would be instinction, IMO.

Michael Davies believed it was valid and licit to attend a Novus Ordo that was properly celebrated, Otherwise he would not be president of Una Voce.

I even heard he even called a priest a “saint” who celebrated both the Novus Ordo reverently and TLM.

What amazes me is that both radical traditionalist Catholics and neoconservative Catholics* attack him.

*if the term radical traditionalist is used, then it is fair to use neoconservative.

[quote=Iohannes]Cranmer wanted to destroy the notion that Mass was a sacrifice so he had the high altars smashed and set up tables instead.
He wanted to destroy the real presence (which he did in the Church of England) and the belief in it by have two species and communion in hand.

Yes there was communion in the hand in the patristic era, do you also want to bring back the older form of confession? They were more reverent and had an admontion about those who did this to becareful. This is antiquarism which is condemned by Mediator Dei by Pius XII.

Today Communion in both species (seperated) has led to some to believe that you cannot get the Full grace or Christ unless you have both,a heresy. A good compromise would be instinction, IMO.
[/quote]

Only if one insists on it. I’m not insisting. I’m saying the Church has the right to govern her sacraments and permit these things and that there ARE ANTECEDENTS. Pius XII’s condemnation could equally apply to only ever wanting the TLM. Can the charge of antiquarism ONLY apply to those who appeal to the Patristic/Apostolic Age? Can the Pope’s condemnation not also apply to those who argue for only the TLM?

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Only if one insists on it. I’m not insisting. I’m saying the Church has the right to govern her sacraments and permit these things and that there ARE ANTECEDENTS. Pius XII’s condemnation could equally apply to only ever wanting the TLM. Can the charge of antiquarism ONLY apply to those who appeal to the Patristic/Apostolic Age? Can the Pope’s condemnation not also apply to those who argue for only the TLM?
[/quote]

I do not think that charge can be applied due to the fact that for sure we know how the TLM is celebrated, and it is a current available lawful missal of the church.

I know of no one who argues only for the TLM.
I accept others including Mozarabic, Parisian, Ambrosian, Bragan, Norbertine, Carmelite, carthusian Uses.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.