It is currently Mon May 25, 2020 2:54 pm

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
 Michael Davies' final heresy 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Michael Davies' final heresy
From "Seraphim" on IA:

On another thread, I mentioned one of the troubling things coming out of the newAngelus Press was the Michael Davies revised Liturgical Revolution, which I claimed presented not only an heretical notion of apostolicity, but also lengthy tracts defending the new ecclesiology of Dominus Iesus (ie., varying degrees of communion, and the implication that non-Catholics can be saved by those elements of truth contained in their false religions).

The volume in question is Pope John's Council (Angelus Press, 2nd Edition, 7th Printing, June 2008).

1) Regarding the claim that this edition contains an heretical notion of apostolicity:

A) Page 97: "To be an authentic local church it is necessary to have a clergy with valis orders, FORMAL APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, and a valid Eucharist, all of which are possessed by the Orthodox churches (dioceses)."

B) Comment: Davies makes the same error as the theology of Dominus Iesus, which he is shortly to defend.

C) As can be seen by a quick reference to the old Catholic under the heading "Apostolicity," formal apostolicity requires not merely episcopal continuity (ie., material apostolicity), but also jurisdiction. The idea that jurisdiction is found amongst schismatic once-apostolic "churches" is squarely against traditional ecclesiology, especially as represented most recently by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of 1943.

D) Note that this entire line of thinking is absent in his original edition, as a side x side comparison will bear out.

E) Davies attempts to justify his new thoughts by appealing to an apostolic letter of Bl. Pope Pius IX (Arcano Divinae Providentiae) on p. 98.

F) He claims that, since this letter is an invitation to the schismatics to be present at the 1st Vatican Council, it proves the theology of Dominus Iesus, since it would be unthinkable that the pope would invite schismatics to be present.

G) What seems lost on Davies, however, is that the schismatics were not invited to attend as schismatics, but as an invitation to rejoin the one true Church.

H) Conclusion: The theology Davies embraces to underpin his new ecclesiology is that contained in Dominus Iesus, and is squarely contradicted by papal encyclical and the Catholic Encyclopedia (Not to mention, every manual on ecclesiology ever approved by the Church before 1962).

2) Davies' new edition features an appendix (beginning at p. 403) explicitly defending Dominus Iesus.

A) His commentary begins on p. 406, in which he claims:

I) "Some traditional Catholic have questioned the possibility as to how there can be true churches not in communion with the pope..."

II) He then repeats his recourse to Arcano Divinae Providentiae of Bl Pius IX

III) and goes on to claim, despite infallible doctrine teaching the opposite, that "there is no doubt whatsoever that dioceses of the Easternp Orthodox churches constitute true particular churches despite being schismatic."

IV) This error he shares with Cardinal Ratzingers letter Dominus Iesus, which he is here defending, stems intellectually from the failure to distinguish (as the Catholic Encyclopedia and ecclesiology manuals do) between formal and material apostolicity.

V) Emotionally ans politically, it stems from a preconceived desire to construct a theology capable of unifying churches without doctrinal conversaion, a la ecumenism.

VI) Why Davies made this shift, and why Angelus published this, is open to speculation.

VII) Was Davies scrupulous as he approached death? Was the new Angelus already in 2008 producinpg materials with the goal of conditioning the laity for a reconcilliation?

VIII) Who knows. But the point is that Angelus told me when I called to complain, that 3 priests had read the book before it was approved for publication. Nevertheless, I said, the book contains an heretical notion of apostolicity. Eventually, I received a verbal acknowledgement from a priest high up in the district, who said "it seems you may have a point." I was then told that perhaps there would be an insert stuck into the front cover to warn against the error in future sales.

IX) I would be curious to learn whether anyone has bought this book in the last 2 years, to see if either the book has had the errors edited out, or if not, whether an insert warning against the error has been inserted.

X) But even leaving the heretical notion on apostolicity aside, why would the Angelus WANT to publish a book containing a lengthy appendix committed to defending the heretical ecclesiology of Dominus Iesus (which itself is based on the "subsistit" heresy of Lumen Gentium)?

At any rate, I have made good on my promise to provide the citations, and you are free to do with this information what you will?

Pax tecum,


In Christ our King.

Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:03 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 43 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.