Michael
Davies, defender of the Faith or faithless heretic?
By Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
-10/1/04-
As
some of you may be aware, Michael Davies died last week on September 25th,
2004. Michael Davies was one of the
most prominent writers on traditional Catholic matters in the world. His books, especially on the changes in the
liturgy, influenced the way in which countless souls viewed the New Mass and
the liturgical revolution. He is already
being “Canonized” as basically a Saint – and one of the greatest defenders of
the Church of all time – by the false traditionalists. Just after his death, Michael Matt of The Remnant posted the following:
“Dear
Friends: On Saturday, September 25, the
great Michael Davies died. After a
long and courageous battle with cancer, Mr. Davies was taken, perhaps
mercifully by the Divine Judge, of a massive heart attack. The debt we all owe this extraordinary
individual cannot be measured. We have
lost a friend and mentor, the
traditional movement has lost its uncontested elder statesman, and the Church
has lost one of her greatest defenders of all time.
“Though he was not martyred,
the name Davies can surely and without hesitation be placed alongside those of
More, Fisher and Campion, as men who gave their lives to the
defense of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church in times of unparalleled attack…”
So,
Davies can be placed along the side of
Michael Davies totally rejected the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation
In the Sept. 15, 2001 issue of The Remnant, Michael Davies informs us that he holds that Jews can
be saved without the Catholic Faith.
Michael
Davies, The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “He
would, presumably, agree with me that Jews who are convinced that the old
covenant still prevails and are perfectly sincere and conscientious in their
observance of the Jewish law can be saved.”
This is formal
heresy. In fact, that a Jew can be saved
without the Catholic Faith was condemned not just once, but twice at the
Council of Florence. Mr. Davies was
certainly familiar with the Council of Florence; and, as he admitted, he had
been “studying the dogma since 1979” (The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001).
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino,1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go
into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,
unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”
We can see that the Holy Roman Church
firmly believes, professes and preaches that all who die as Jews go to the fires
of Hell. But Mr. Michael Davies
believes, professes and preaches to us that Jews who observe the Old Law can be
saved. Mr. Michael Davies was not part
of the Holy Roman Church, as he obstinately refused to believe, profess and
preach what She does.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the
law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into
ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were
established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to
divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by
them, ceased, and the sacraments of
the New Testament began; and that
whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ
could not save without them, sinned
mortally. Yet it does not deny
that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they
could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for
salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss
of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the
promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other
requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in
the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they
recover from these errors.”
Please note
that this dogmatic definition from
Michael
Davies accepted the SuperChurch Heresy of Dominus Iesus
Besides his
blatant denial of the aforementioned dogma, which made Davies an apostate
(since he held that Jews who rejected the Lord could be saved), Davies publicly
defended the apostate document Dominus Iesus issued by the
Michael
Davies, The Remnant, Dec. 31, 2000: “…I
was much encouraged by the Declaration Dominus Iesus, which,
like Protestant spokesmen in
Dominus Iesus teaches that
schismatic sects (e.g., the “Orthodox” sects) have the
Dominus Iesus
#17, approved by Antipope John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000: "Therefore, the Church of Christ is
present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full
communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic
doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the
Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."
This
is formal heresy. It is Church dogma
that those who reject the Papacy are totally severed from the Church.
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (#
3), April 8, 1862:
“There are other, almost countless, proofs
drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with
great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor
and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32),
April 13, 1791:
“Finally, in one
word, stay close to Us. For no
one can be in the
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896:
“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be
called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this
or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the
Roman See.”
There
are many other heresies in Dominus Iesus, such as its teaching that Protestant sects are a
means of salvation (#17), which is a blatant denial of Outside the Church There
is No Salvation. Dominus Iesus (#14) also teaches that:
“theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religions and
of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is
invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive
elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation.”
Translation:
this means that it’s possible that the false prophets and originators of
non-Christian religions (e.g., the false prophet Mohammed) may have been the
product of the divine plan (i.e., a result of God’s will)! This means that the Holy Ghost may be
responsible for religions of Satan – thus confusing the Spirit of Truth with
the Spirit of lies (the Devil). This
abominable heresy is taught explicitly by Antipope John Paul II in Redemptor Hominis #6
and elsewhere (see our article Why John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope.)
But
Michael Davies thought that Dominus Iesus was an orthodox statement of Catholic teaching,
and he was even prepared to defend it publicly in a debate. This shows again that Michael Davies was not
a defender of the Faith, but a faithless heretic.
By
the way, here is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s note about
Antipope John Paul II’s solemn approval of Dominus Iesus.
Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, Aug.
6, 2000:
“The sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the audience of 16
June 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and
confirmed this Declaration adopted in plenary session, and ordered its publication.” (L’Osservatore Romano,
Sept. 6, 2000)
Michael Davies thought that “Cardinal” Ratzinger
was a pillar of orthodoxy
When
he was asked about which people in the
Ratzinger openly admits that the
Michael Davies on the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination
By far the
most extensive sphere of Davies’ influence was in the area of the liturgical
change. Davies definitely possessed a
tremendous amount of knowledge and performed a tremendous amount of research on
the liturgy in general, on the changes in the liturgy in particular, and on how
those changes paralleled the 16th century Protestant
revolution. His research in these areas documented that the New Mass and New Rite
of Ordination of Paul VI correspond almost exactly to what the Protestants did
with these sacraments when they separated from the Church. This research and writing has definitely done
much good and caused many to investigate or embrace the traditional
Yet, at the
same time, his false conclusion in his writing that, despite their problems,
the New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination can be considered valid,
undoubtedly caused countless people to remain in the New Mass and receiving the
New Sacraments of Antipope Paul VI.
Thus, whether Davies did more good or more harm in this area is
debatable. He probably did more good
with those completely unfamiliar with the traditional Mass or the liturgical
revolution after Vatican II. And he
probably did more harm with the “traditionalists” – in fact, he did devastating
harm – with his conclusion that the New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination can
be considered valid, because he was considered basically the main and most
widely read expert in this area. In a public answer at The Remnant Forum, Mr. Davies said that his association [Una Voce] supports the Novus Ordo Mass (as referenced in The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001).
Michael Davies’ dishonest, false and poisonous conclusions
I would like
to illustrate the poison of Mr. Davies’ writing in the area just mentioned with
the following example. In his book, The Order of Melchisedech,
Davies shows again and again that the New Rite of Ordination generally excises
[cuts out] the same prayers and concepts that the Anglican Rite excised, which
Rite was declared invalid for that very
reason by Pope Leo XIII. Watch how
Davies’ writing lures his reader in with very true and very alarming facts, and
then he poisons them with his evil conclusions.
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 83: “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically
the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory
sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul
VI]. In most cases these were the
precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely
the same there are clear parallels.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 99: “As a final comment on the
new Catholic ordinal, I would like to
quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and
to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote
of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new
Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 109: “... the differences between the 1968 Catholic rite and the new Anglican
Ordinal are so minimal that it is hard to believe that they are not intended
for the same purpose… It will be
found that every imperative formula which could be interpreted as conferring
any specifically sacerdotal power denied to the faithful at large has been
carefully excluded from the new rite.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
pp. 94-95: “When the changes [to the
Rite of Ordination] are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe
that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform [the Anglican reform] is evident and
alarming. It is quite obvious
that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various
Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs…
The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals
because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Archbishop
Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman
Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no
difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae [of Leo
XIII].”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 97: “If the
new Catholic rite is considered satisfactory, then the entire case put by Apostolicae Curae [of Leo
XIII] is undermined… If the new
Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of
the priesthood, is valid, then there seems no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite
should not be valid too, and still less can there be any possible
objection to the 1977 Anglican Series III Ordinal.”
We see that
Michael Davies stated again and again that the radical change in the Rite of
Ordination with the introduction of Paul VI’s New Rite corresponds precisely to
the changes that were made which invalidated the Anglican Rite! So, one would think that Davies definitely held that the New Rite of
Ordination is invalid or at least doubtful, right? No! … and here is
where the poison (the false and evil conclusion) enters the picture. Despite
copious documentation that the New Rite of Ordination is just another version
of the invalid Anglican, Davies held that the New Rite is definitely valid! How’s that, you may ask? He gives us his reason for holding it to be
valid over and over again: because it was promulgated by Paul VI – the man he
believed to be the Pope.
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 95: “The doctrine of the Church’s
indefectibility… requires us to accept the validity of any sacramental rite
promulgated by a pope.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 227: “The decisive factor where the validity of any sacramental rite is
concerned is the approval given to it by the Pope… no Pope could authorize any sacramental rite that was either invalid or
intrinsically harmful to the faith.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 234: “When Pope Paul VI promulgated
the New Mass he ‘gave sentence’ and guaranteed its validity.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 238: “The doctrine of indefectibility…
renders untenable any argument alleging the invalidity of the New Rite of
Ordination as it was approved
specifically by Pope Paul VI, and promulgated with his authority.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 239: “…the fact that the doctrine of
indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being
invalid…”
While it is
true that no true Pope can authorize an invalid or evil rite, Mr. Davies dishonestly fails to even bring
up the possibility that Paul VI was not a Pope! He pins the entire validity of the New Mass
and the New Rite on the assurance of the abominable Paul VI! – the man who consistently wore the breast-plate
of a Jewish High-Priest! In other
words: rest assured, you indult Mass supporters, your sacraments are valid;
sleep well, you “priests” ordained in the New Rite, you are validly ordained;
and don’t be worried, you “traditionalists” who insist on receiving at the Novus Ordo, it is valid – for
Paul VI has guaranteed that the New Rites are valid, and we can be sure in his
safe and [Jewish] hands (see our Paul VI Photo Gallery to see just how evil
this “assurance” is). I recall the
speech of one “traditionalist” to a large audience who assured them that he believed
with Michael Davies that the New Mass
is valid.
But when you
read the “fine print” of Davies’ book, he backs off his statements above. There is a very subtle and evil dynamic at
work here so please bear with me as I attempt to illustrate it.
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 232: “The doctrine of indefectibility
guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could
never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any
liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could
invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief… But only the Latin typical editions of sacramental rites come within
the scope of the Church’s indefectibility.
Vernacular translations are, by their very nature, not imposed or
authorized for the universal Church, and the possibility that they may contain
erroneous or harmful elements cannot be excluded. A
vernacular version of a sacramental form could result in invalidity if it
did not reproduce the exact sense of the Latin text. ”
So what are
you saying, Mr. Davies? People are
reading your work and are deciding soul-deciding matters in part because of
your opinions. You told us above again
and again (five times, in fact) that Paul VI’s approval of the New Rites rules out any question of invalidity. Now, you are saying that this only applies to
the Latin versions. How many people do
you know attend the New Mass in Latin? Almost no one. How
many of the Ordinations performed today are done in the Latin version? Very few. So, why does he mention at least five times
that, in his view, indefectibility rules out any chance of invalidity, when he
knows that – even if his argument were correct – it wouldn’t apply to almost any of the New Masses today or almost any
of the Ordinations performed today in the New Rite?
I hope that
the evil at work in Mr. Davies’ writing is clear. He wants to be able to guarantee that the
invalid New Rites are valid, but when pressed, he admits on page 232 that this guarantee doesn’t really apply to
almost any of the cases! So, the
heretics and false traditionalists with “itching ears” are pleased to hear that
Michael Davies thinks that the New Rites are valid; but, because of the
dishonest way in which Mr. Davies slides it in, they remain ignorant or forget
about the part where he said this only applies to the “Latin versions” and has
nothing to do with, for instance, 99.9% of the Novus Ordo Masses in the country.
The fact is
that the New Rite of Ordination is not valid either in Latin or in English, and
Antipope Paul VI’s approval of it means nothing. Antipope Paul VI also solemnly approved of
all the Vatican II documents, which Davies admitted contained errors. The Novus Ordo sect has also approved of the vernacular translations
of the liturgical texts.
Michael Davies’
illogic
As stated above, while Davies tells us that no one
can doubt the validity (at least of the Latin version) of the New Rite of
Ordination because Paul VI approved it, he held that Vatican II’s teaching on Religious liberty was erroneous. But every document of Vatican II was solemnly
approved by Paul VI’s supreme “apostolic authority.”
Antipope Paul VI,
Those who hold that the New Sacramental Rites must be valid because Paul
VI approved them must also hold that Vatican II contains no theological error
or heresy; for Paul VI approved each Vatican II document
from his throne, “decreeing, approving and establishing” all of them by his
“apostolic authority.” But no… Michael
Davies and many of the other false traditionalists demonstrate their illogic
(or rather, their deliberate illogic, i.e., their dishonesty) again. I recently spoke to a woman who goes to an
Indult Mass celebrated by a “priest” ordained in the New Rite. She told me that she’s sure that the “priest”
is valid because Paul VI approved it; yet the same woman holds that there are
various heresies in the documents of Vatican II. When I tried to point out the contradiction,
that if there are heresies in Vatican II (as she correctly insists) then the
New Rite (approved by the same man) could also be invalid, she refused to
accept it. This is an example of bad
will (i.e., deliberate inconsistency).
Since it came up, I should note again that in his
encyclical Quanta Cura,
Pope Pius IX infallibly condemned the heretical doctrine that the civil right
to religious liberty should be guaranteed by all States. Whereas Pope Pius IX condemned, reprobated and
proscribed (outlawed) this idea by his apostolic authority, Antipope Paul VI
approves, decrees and establishes this condemned idea by his “apostolic
authority” (see above)! In other words,
that which Pope Pius IX solemnly condemns by his apostolic authority, Antipope
Paul VI solemnly teaches by his “apostolic authority”!
Pope Pius IX, Quanta
Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex
cathedra:
“From which
totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous
opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of
souls, called by Our predecessor,
Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY,
THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH
OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED
SOCIETY… But while they
rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching
liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND
EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND
COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” (Denz. 1690;1699)
So, if Pius IX and Paul VI were both valid Popes, we have two different
Popes decreeing two opposite things by their apostolic authority. Is this possible? Of course not. Is it possible that Paul VI possessed the
“apostolic authority” that Pius IX possessed?
No, and it would heresy to say so.
Paul VI was an Antipope, and that is precisely why the New Rite of
Ordination which he approved can be and is invalid.
Other
thoughts on Michael Davies
It should be noted that Michael Davies was also a defender of the sinful
practice of birth control by means of Natural Family Planning. He once stated publicly that the Catholic
Church is not against “birth control” (referring to Natural Family
Planning). In an exchange in The Remnant, Michael Davies also stated
that it is reprehensible to term the Schismatic “Orthodox” sects as
“Schismatic”!
Michael Davies, The
Remnant, May 31, 2001: “It is particularly
reprehensible to term the Orthodox Churches as schismatic, in view of the fact
that they are authentic particular Churches.”
This is
heretical.
Michael Davies, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “The consensus of theologians is that the only two pronouncements that
are certainly ex cathedra are the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
When, however, the Pope makes an authoritative pronouncement on a matter
of faith or morals we can be morally certain that he is correct.”
This is false,
Modernistic nonsense. There are two ex cathedra pronouncements from the
Council of Florence cited above.
Michael
Davies’ insincerity
Michael Davies
publicly defended his position that none of the documents officially
promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, such as Dominus Iesus,
contained a denial of Catholic dogma.
Another person responded to this assertion by pointing out that the
Vatican-Lutheran Agreement on Justification (also called “The Augsburg Accord”)
was promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, July 31, 2001: “On October 31, 1999,
Cardinal Edward Cassidy and the Lutheran Bishop Christian Krause signed the
sadly famous Accord of Augsburg, in which the Catholic doctrine of the Council
of Trent was, at the very least, put in the shadows in order to please the Protestants. The
text of the accord was approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith…”
Here
is what Davies said in response to this:
Michael Davies, The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “He refers to
the Accord of Augsburg [the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on
Justification]. To the best of my
knowledge, this is not a CDF document and the approval of the CDF merely
guarantees that it contains no heresy, no denial of de fide teaching. Is there such a denial in the
Note
the subtle dishonesty in this response.
In order to attempt to evade the issue of the devastating Joint Declaration,
Mr. Davies says that: “If my memory serves me rightly, it was
denounced by one Lutheran Synod as a surrender to
Catholicism.” First, the
statement “If my memory serves me rightly” allows him to avoid addressing any
of the specifics of the heretical Joint Declaration; and his response was supposed to deal with that question
specifically. Second, Davies
cites what a Lutheran Synod thought of the Joint Declaration. Frankly, who cares – and what does it prove –
what he thinks he remembers some Lutherans saying about the Joint
Declaration? The question was about the
actual teaching in the Joint Declaration.
His opponent in the discussion noted Mr. Davies’ dishonesty:
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “Another frequent ploy [of Davies] is that of fleeing from the topic at
hand because of his uncomfortable situation… Davies defied me to cite one
CDF document that contained error. I
cited, among others, the Augsburg Accord,
which was a tacit negation of the doctrine of Justification of the Council of
Trent. The practical negation of the
doctrine of justification is a doctrinal error.
It constitutes what habitually is called a text with the ‘flavor of heresy.’”
Before
I proceed with Guimaraes’ response to Davies, I must
make a comment. Guimaraes
(who is also a heretic, unfortunately) does a pitiful job in actually producing
heresies from the Joint Declaration to prove his point to Mr. Davies. Guimaraes
incorrectly says that the Joint Declaration was a “tacit negation” (a silent negation)
and a text with “the flavor of heresy.”
Excuse me, but the Joint Declaration is a complete rejection of the
Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification and
contains many bold heresies (see Heresy of the Week from 2/13/04). Mr. Guimaraes
either cannot bring himself to say, or cannot produce the quotes to
demonstrate, that the Joint Declaration is bold, notorious and blatant
heresy. This just shows that one is not
getting the truth from Mr. Guimaraes either. I continue with Mr. Guimaraes
response to Mr. Davies’ dishonest evasion:
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The Remnant, Sept.
15, 2001: “… Ignoring this documentation, Mr. Davies wrote: ‘I am sure that Mr.
Guimaraes cannot cite a single doctrinal error in any
pronouncement by the CDF. He refers to
the Accord of Augsburg [the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on
Justification]. To the best of my
knowledge, this is not a CDF document and the approval of the CDF merely
guarantees that it contains no heresy, no denial of de fide teaching? If my memory serves me rightly, it was
denounced by one Lutheran Synod as a surrender to
Catholicism.’ Mr. Davies is dishonest in
not taking into consideration the sources that I cited that proved the
co-authorship of Ratzinger in the document. Above all, his escape is notorious in his two last sentences, when he skirts away from the important
question of whether there is doctrinal error in the document, which had the
approval of the CDF, by recalling an imprecise fact from memory – and then he
quickly closes the topic. He flees.”
We
can see that Mr. Guimaraes was getting a taste of the
dishonesty and the insincerity of Davies.
In the same exchange, Guimaraes accuses Davies
of dishonestly adulterating his arguments and numerous other things. I quote these to demonstrate that even people
like Mr. Guimaraes could perceive that Michael Davies
was not sincere.
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “Mr. Davies showed himself a master of small fraudulent ruses to
disguise his weakness… When it’s not convenient for him to analyze some
document, one of his recourses is to affirm that he doesn’t have it in his
files…”
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “Another artifice [dishonest tactic] that he [Davies] uses to sidestep
issues is to use his memory as an argument of authority.”
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “Frequently
he [Davies] pretends ‘to forget’ the appropriate documentation that was
presented to him. When referring to it,
he tries to avoid the authority of the cited source. He employs this stratagem in this phrase,
‘Mr. Guimaraes cites statements allegedly made by Cardinal Lustiger…’
Now, I did not use any ‘alleged’ statements, I offered objective evidence for
what I said.”
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “Another vice that appears in his article is his deliberate
adulteration of what I wrote… Once
again, Mr. Davies put himself in the position of a dishonest debater who
adulterates the position of his opponent.”
Atila Sinke Guimaraes, The
Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “Another disappointment was for me to realize that he [Davies] did not
employ intellectual honesty in the debate that he began. He uses various ruses to try to fool the
reader.”
Conclusion
The
facts speak for themselves. Mr. Davies
was, unfortunately, a complete heretic who denied the dogma Outside the Church
There is No Salvation; believed and defended the heresies of Dominus Iesus;
refused to look honestly at the Sedevacantists’ arguments;
defended the orthodoxy of the notorious apostate “Cardinal” Ratzinger;
deceived his readers on the vital questions of the validity of the new
sacramental rites of Paul VI; and was a general defender of the Vatican II sect
who exemplified dishonesty that even fellow defenders of the Vatican II sect
(such as Atila Guimaraes)
could recognize and condemn.
Yet,
in the coming weeks, we will undoubtedly be subjected to a wave of
“Canonizations” of this public heretic, Michael Davies, who held that Jews can
be saved in their religion. Countless
false traditionalists will chime in to show their appreciation for this
heretic. This should tell us how dire
our situation is and how many are being deceived by the false traditionalists
who don’t stand for the truth. It shows
us why we need people of pure Faith who do not compromise with heresy or water
the Faith down because of human attachments or appearances.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com