Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church Since Vatican 2
The Angelus ^ | January 1985 | Michael Davies

Posted on 11/25/2004 10:27:28 PM PST by AskStPhilomena

"BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them," the Bible tells us. If we are totally objective we must admit that up to the present Vatican II has produced no good fruits at all. This might appear to be an outrageous and irresponsible allegation, but a careful examination of the facts will prove that it is totally objective. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has stated that the reforms enacted in the name of Vatican II "have contributed and are still contributing to the demolition of the Church, the ruin of the priesthood, the destruction of the Sacrifice and the sacraments, the disappearance of the religious life, as well to the emergence of a naturalist and Teilhardian doctrine in universities, seminaries, and the religious education of children—a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism, and condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church."

I have no doubt that there are many who would consider such an allegation unworthy of consideration simply because it had been made by Archbishop Lefebvre. Well, for those who are unwilling to accept this gloomy assessment of the fruits of the Council, let us quote another authority who, one might hope, would not be dismissed so lightly. I refer to Pope Paul VI. The Council had no more ardent advocate than this unhappy Pontiff. But by 1968 he had reached the stage of lamenting the fact that the Church was engaged in a process of self-destruction (autodistruzione). On the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, 1972, he went as far as saying that somehow or other Satan had found an opening into the Church and was suffocating the fruits of the Second Vatican Council. Father Louis Bouyer, the French Oratorian, is one of the most distinguished theologians and liturgists in the Church today. He had been an expert adviser at Vatican II, a peritus (some of the periti were orthodox). Soon after the Council closed, Father Bouyer wrote an enthusiastic book explaining the great benefits it would bring. In 1969 he wrote another book, The Decomposition of Catholicism, in which he set out the reality of the Council as opposed to the hopes it had engendered. "Unless we are blind," he wrote, "we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped for regeneration of Catholicism than its decomposition."

The self-destruction of the Church according to Pope Paul VI, the decomposition of Catholicism, according to Father Bouyer—that is the reality of the Church since Vatican II. And as for the liturgy, here is Father Bouyer's assessment: "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church."

Fantasy versus Fact Officially, of course, the Church is not undergoing a process of self-destruction. We are witnessing not decomposition but renewal. In an article in the Toronto Star this month, 6 October 1984, Cardinal Emmet Carter, an aging and rather silly liberal, heaped praise upon Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Carter writes:

He was wonderful. It was he who brought the Second Vatican Council to fulfilment and fruition. He implemented its decrees with remarkable insightful application and faithful interpretation. He was harried, hounded, and harassed by small-minded people who were making the fatal error of thinking that the Council had abolished the Catholic Church instead of renewing it. Well, according to my dictionary, "renewal" involves transferring to new life, invigorating, or regenerating. It would be interesting if Cardinal Carter could tell us exactly where this renewal or regeneration is taking place—certainly not in his own country of Canada where the Catholic Church is characterized by what can only be described as an accelerating degeneration. This is true of almost every country in the western world. In every aspect of the life of the Church subject to statistical evaluation the renewal of which the Cardinal speaks exists only in the realm of fantasy. In the real world Mass attendance has decreased by percentages ranging from a modest 22% in England to 70% in France and Holland; there has been a catastrophic decline in baptisms, as much as 50% in Britain and the U.S.A. Conversions has declined by anything from 25% to 80%, while ordinations have declined by as much as 97%. To make matters worse there has been an exodus from the priestly and religious life. In the U.S.A. alone, 10,000 priests have abandoned their vocation and over 50,000 nuns have left their convents. I might add that the decline in seminary enrollment and exodus from the priesthood is much less alarming than the fact that many of those being ordained appear to have a very inadequate grasp of the Catholic Faith, which is putting it mildly!

The majority of laymen will have felt the effect of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in six main areas: the liturgy; the religious education of Catholic children; the moral teaching of the Church; the increasing political involvement of the clergy, principally on behalf of left-wing causes; ecumenism; and what I will term "democratic dialogue."

Before making a brief comment on each of these areas, I must mention once more the distinction I made earlier between the Council itself and the Council as an event. The abuses, abominations, and imbecilities which now proliferate throughout the Church can rarely be justified by citing a direct instruction of the Council. They originated rather in the ubiquitous "Spirit" of the Council which emanated from the Council as an event, but those who complain about any post-conciliar aberration will be condemned for opposing the Second Vatican Council by the priest, bishop or religious sister perpetrating the abuse; yet in many cases these abuses are diametrically opposed to what the Council actually ordered.

The outrages which scandalize the faithful were not envisaged, let alone mandated, by the bishops who voted for the Council document on the liturgy. In some cases they were initiated by the zealots who took control of the Commissions set up to implement the Council after the bishops had returned to the dioceses. The late Archbishop R.J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, the most cultured and erudite American bishop of the post-war era, considered that the greatest mistake of the Council Fathers was to allow the implementation of the Council to fall into the hands of these men, taken in the main from the ranks of the periti. God forbid that the interpretation of the Council should ever fall into the hands of these men, England's Cardinal Heenan had warned. But this is precisely what happened. Other abuses were initiated by rebellious priests, and rather than discipline them the Vatican eventually capitulated and legalized their rebellion. Communion in the hand provides such an example. As every student of history knows, surrendering to the demands of rebels never brings about an end to the rebellion, it simply prompts further demands. In 1980 I had a long discussion with Cardinal Seper who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. He admitted to me that the Pope no longer exercised effective control over the bishops in the U.S.A. A good number of American dioceses are now, to all intents and purposes, autonomous Modernist enclaves where the only crime is to be loyal to the Pope or to Tradition.

1. Liturgical Abuses But to return to the subject of the liturgy, Father Louis Bouyer, whom I have already cited, claims that there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name in the Catholic Church today, and that what has been imposed upon us in the name of the Council represents, in fact, a contradiction of what the Fathers of the Council and the great figures of the Liturgical Movement desired. The Council authorized no more than a moderate liturgical reform which no reasonable person would have opposed. It stated that all lawfully acknowledged liturgical rites were to be preserved and fostered in every way, and that there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them. But what has happened? Let Father Joseph Gelineau tell us. Father Gelineau was a peritus at the Council and he has been in the vanguard of the elite corps of liturgical commisars which has been imposing liturgical changes on us since it ended. Father Gelineau is, however, an honest commissar. He makes no secret of what has happened since the Council; and I quote:

To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.

The rite of Mass as you knew it until the post-conciliar revolution began in 1965 was the culmination of a gradual and natural development under the influence of the Holy Ghost which lasted for fifteen hundred years. By the year of Our Lord 1570, it had reached a near perfection as anything upon this earth can ever be. Father Faber described it as "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven." In the year 1570, Pope St. Pius V codified the Roman Rite of the Mass as it then existed forever. No priest, he said, could ever be forced to say any other form of Mass. Vatican II ordered that all lawfully acknowledged rites should be preserved and fostered in every way. That is what the Council ordered. Father Gelineau boasts that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. That is what has happened.

There are two categories of people whose views are listened to with the greatest respect by Catholic bishops today: Protestants and sociologists. Well, here is the testimony of a man who is a Protestant and a sociologist. Professor Peter L. Berger is a Lutheran professor of sociology. In a lecture delivered at the Harvard Club in New York on 11 May 1978, he commented upon the changes in our liturgy from the dispassionate standpoint of a professional sociologist. He remarked that if a thoroughly malicious member of his own profession, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible, had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, probably the greatest Catholic philosopher and lay theologian in the English-speaking world this century, made an almost identical remark: "Truly," he said, "if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."

Malcolm Muggeridge is one of the most distinguished converts received into the Church since the Council. He held back from this step for many years largely due to the crazy antics of so many Catholic clerics. He made the mistake of confusing the Church itself with individual churchmen. He told me in a long interview I had with him last year that he now recognizes this was a mistake, but that he still holds to an opinion he expressed before his conversion, that if our bishops stationed men with ships outside our churches to keep people away they could not be doing a more effective job.

I have cited these three men because they are not ignorant, they are not illiterate; their opinions cannot be dismissed as of no consequence as are those of us of lesser intellectual stature who dare to suggest that the new clothes worn by the Emperor of the great conciliar renewal do not exist, that the alleged renewal is no more than a delusion concocted by those in authority who dare not face up to the fact of a disintegrating Church.

2. Irreligious Education The second way in which many Catholic laymen have been affected by the spirit of the Council concerns the education of their children. In place of the Catholic Faith bequeathed to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and which He commanded His Church to teach, we are gradually seeing a mish-mash of philanthropy and sociology. Many of the defective texts used today are clearly the progeny of the notorious Dutch Catechism which was published in 1967, within only two years of the closing of Vatican II. The state of the Church in Holland has now degenerated to the extent that being an orthodox Catholic there is akin to being a Catholic in England in penal times. Professor van der Ploeg, one of Europe's most outstanding Biblical scholars, assessed the Catechism as follows:

The Dutch Catechism is, from one end to the other, a manual of Modernism for which it aims to win an acceptance everywhere. In order not to alarm its readers the true import of its teaching is frequently concealed by deceptive and ambiguous phrasing, although at times the authors have the insolence to flaunt it openly. The Dutch Catechism has already caused incalculable harm throughout the world, as a Roman Cardinal confided to me recently. The Dutch Catechism was written for adults; but it became the model for countless textbooks for adults and children. Its influence upon the quite deplorable Veritas series, which is widely used in Ireland and Great Britain, is obvious. In a lecture given in Paris on 8 January 1983, Archbishop Ryan of Dublin, lamented the fact that in spite of the time, money and energy spent on the production of elaborate textbooks and tapes many children emerge from the primary and post primary schools without a basic knowledge of the Faith and the Christian way of life. Canon George Telford is a priest of my own diocese of Southwark. He was at one time our Catechetical Director, as well as being Vice Chairman of the National Department of Catechetics. Canon Telford is a very orthodox priest who believed that children in Catholic schools should be taught the Catholic Faith. He fought an almost lone fight for a number of years, enduring much criticism and even abuse, but finally resigned when it was clear that he could expect no backing whatsoever from the bishops in his attempt to uphold orthodoxy. In his letter of resignation he made a statement which says all that needs to be said about contemporary catechetics:

Modern catechetics is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its strictures and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for Catholic Faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution. The authentic renewal of catechesis will come not from them but from the faithful. "Theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt"—that is the religious education being given to the generality of children in our Catholic schools today. I cannot imagine anyone better qualified than Canon Telford to make such an assessment.

Cardinal Ratzinger, the present Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke at the same conference as Archbishop Ryan. He admitted candidly that there is a crisis in catechetics; that it had been a fundamental and grave mistake to suppress the catechism; that the method of teaching the Faith had come to be considered as more important than what was taught; this resulted in the attitude that religion must be adapted to what is acceptable to man, rather than man adapting his life to the demands of the Faith; behind the rejection of the catechism and the collapse of traditional religious instruction lies a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma; and that the experience of the community is the ultimate criterion for deciding belief. The Cardinal had no hesitation in telling us where we must go to discover what it is that we must believe—it is the Catechism of the Council of Trent published by St. Pius V.

Cardinal Ratzinger's courageous declaration has given new heart to many parents throughout the world who have been fighting the dilution of the Faith for almost twenty years now, and had been ridiculed for making precisely the claims that the Cardinal has now made. Almost invariably, diocesan bishops had sided with the catechetical directors who were destroying the faith of Catholic children. Parents or teachers who protested at the new textbooks were told that they were against the Council, that they were ignorant, that they were unchristian—or all three, and a few other things besides! Yet now the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has endorsed their stand, just when some of them were beginning to fear that perhaps they really were ignorant and unbalanced.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: carnage; catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last
This article was written way back in 1985. There are still only rotten fruits - unless of course you consider the continued growth of traditional Catholicism.
1 posted on 11/25/2004 10:27:28 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish; bornacatholic; gbcdoj; Salvation; NYer; Unam Sanctam

Related....
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040119.html
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20030915.html


2 posted on 11/25/2004 10:32:28 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena; sinkspur; latae sententiae; nonsumdignus; sevry; AAABEST; bornacatholic; ...

Very good article, considering that it was written in 1985, the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church continues. It will be reversed by the repeal of Vatican II and a return to the Laws and Rites prior to V2. SSPX priests are now practicing the Tridentine Mass. The time has come to take back our Religion and the Church.


3 posted on 11/25/2004 11:21:59 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie

Archbishop Lefebvre was a traitor - and Michael Davies dumped him three years later in 1988 after Lefebvre and Company were excommunicated for the crime of schism.

Bleat all you want - those who adhere to the schism are also in schism and in the state of excommunication.

So-called "traditionalists" are the present-day "rats" who have deserted the Barque of Peter. The Church established by Christ will last until the end of time - battered, yes; deserted by rats - yes; but destroyed? NO! And, there will always be a Peter who will always be the Bishop of Rome. That is Catholic Dogma.

There is NO "good" reason for schism!


4 posted on 11/26/2004 3:29:15 AM PST by Sean O L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sean O L
There is NO "good" reason for schism!

Defend Karol Jozef Wojtyla's open support of China's official 'Catholic' Church, which does not recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. The false Chinese church is in schism, and is embraced nonetheless by Wojtyla and his Vatican lapdogs.

Who is in schism? Those who have declared themselves Latin Roman Catholics who hold great reverence for the Sacred Dogma, or a pope who rules in error publicly embracing those who have not converted to the One True Faith!!!

5 posted on 11/26/2004 4:49:44 AM PST by Robert Drobot (God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena

I did not realise Davies was such a fan of Ratzinger back then. However, this article begs the question that, if those in authority regretted the consequences of Vatican II, they have since shown great impotence in their ability (or desire) to arrest the reforms. Such bleating can of course become an industry and is in fact part and parcel of the conservative approach which is nervous of both the past and of the future. Even strong traditionalists are inclined to believe that the new order is an unstoppable force and some kind of comfortable resignation is preferable to the long harsh winters of exile.


6 posted on 11/26/2004 4:52:29 AM PST by Wessex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie

I don't know if one can "repeal" Vatican II as nothing there particularly went to dogma. And suggestions were vague and taken to support an unholy 'reform'. It's that which will be stopped. Vatican II was a pointless council to be sure. It was purely dogmatic, unlike all that claimed to be ecumenical councils before it. It may not, therefore, even be a general council, but a lesser council instead. But the "repeal" must start with the 'new order'. Its destruction of the outward institutional body was predicted by many at the time, not the least of whom were von Hildebrand and Ottaviani, Bacci and those who composed and would have signed the Critical Study. Paul VI posted platitudes and likely lies in exhorting public acceptance of what even he referred to as his - innovation. JP II has simply promoted and maintained this unholy thing. And many Catholics are at the point where they pray that JP II simply dies - tomorrow, so that a new Pope, better, or far worse, will help draw the divisions clearly, or begin to reconcile the institutional church with The Catholic Church.


7 posted on 11/26/2004 5:00:16 AM PST by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wessex
Even strong traditionalists are inclined to believe that the new order is an unstoppable force

Yeah, pal, so was the LM and their dominance. So seems the ACLU, NEA and gubment schools. So seems last year's NFL division champs. All seem unstoppable - until they are stopped.

This will also be stopped, dead. The 'new order' is an abomination spoken of by Our Blessed Mother in apparitions. It's manifestly unholy. It's self-evidently self-destructive of the institutional church. It's a mockery of the Faith, and an enticement away from salvation. Believe me, its days are numbered.

8 posted on 11/26/2004 5:04:22 AM PST by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sean O L
and Michael Davies dumped him three years later in 1988 after Lefebvre and Company were excommunicated for the crime of schism.

"Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint." - Michael Davies, at his last conference in the U.S. January 2004
9 posted on 11/26/2004 5:52:24 AM PST by sempertrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sevry
Its destruction of the outward institutional body was predicted by many at the time, not the least of whom were von Hildebrand and Ottaviani, Bacci and those who composed and would have signed the Critical Study.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and the Novus Ordo after Paul VI's elucidations regarding the dogmatic presuppositions / foundations of the Roman Missal of 1970

TCR Note: Here we see how Cardinal Ottaviani ended up repudiating the so-called "Ottaviani Intervention" initiated and written by men who would later fall into schism & Sedevacantism (Lefebvre, M.L. Guerard des Lauriers, et al) after Paul VI's declarations and elucidations. Integrists have been vainly trying to explain away Ottaviani's action ever since. For more see Pope Paul VI's Credo of the People of God, Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, etc., at TCR

"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the discourse by the holy father on the question of the new ordo missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public audiences of november 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘doctrinal note' [on the novus ordo] and the activity of the militia sanctae mariae wide diffusion and success." -- Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani

----from James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, The Pope, The Council and The Mass, The Christopher publishing house, w. Hanover, Massachusetts, 1981, p. 74.

And later: "The beauty of the church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors. . . the purity and unity of the faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme magisterium of the pope through the liturgical laws." ---ibid, ibid., p. 129, ‘letter from his eminence alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, o.s.b., in Documentation Catholique, ‘#67, 1970, pp. 215-216 and 343

10 posted on 11/26/2004 7:18:12 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
"BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them

Davies wrote a lot for schismatic rags encouraging schismatics to remain in schism thereby putting their souls on the road to eternal perdition.

11 posted on 11/26/2004 7:20:06 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
"BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them

Davies wrote a lot for schismatic rags encouraging schismatics to remain in schism thereby putting their souls on the road to eternal perdition.

12 posted on 11/26/2004 7:20:06 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sempertrad
"Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint." - Michael Davies, at his last conference in the U.S. January 2004

"Anyone who thinks an excomminicated man is a Saint is a nut and Davies was a nut." Bornacatholic, at his computer" Nov. 26, 2004

13 posted on 11/26/2004 7:22:44 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Whatever happened to Bugnini...how is his case for canonization progressing?


14 posted on 11/26/2004 7:49:35 AM PST by Pio (There is no salvation outisde the Roman Catholic Church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
I think it is fair to say that there have been some positive developments in the post-concilar era. It's my understanding that the Church has grown tremendously in Africa in the past 40 years.

That said, the situation in the West has certainly not been positive.

I am certainly a critic of some of what has come about since Vatican II, but I'm not sure it's a "cause/effect" relationship. Pope St. Pius X wrote of the modernism that was threatening the Church from within nearly a hundred years ago.

I am more inclined to think that some of the nonsense we've seen in the years since Vatican II is really just a reflection of the sickness of modernism that predated it. At worst, Vatican II acted as a conduit, and was misused by people that would have used anything available to them to further their ends.

In other words, I'm not sure that even without Vatican II, we wouldn't be facing the same sorts of problems. I'm afraid that sometimes, by focusing too much energy on the perceived faults of Vatican II, we miss the real source of the problem.

15 posted on 11/26/2004 8:04:20 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I am more inclined to think that some of the nonsense we've seen in the years since Vatican II is really just a reflection of the sickness of modernism that predated it.

Right on.

In Rome and throughout the world there is a whole hive of ceaseless activity on the part of termites toiling away feverishly in the shadows. This compels us to intuit the active presence of a complete plan of trickery bent on disintegrating those doctrines which form and nourish the Catholic faith. An ever-increasing number of 'straws in the wind' coming from various quarters bears witness to the gradual unfolding of a broad and progressive plan of manipulation, under the extremely capable leadership of seemingly devout men, calculated to uproot Christianity as it has been known and lived for 19 centuries, in order to replace it by a Christianity of the "new age." (Msgr. Antonino Romeo, Divinitas 4 (1960), p. 454)

16 posted on 11/26/2004 8:56:24 AM PST by gbcdoj ("I acknowledge everyone who is united with the See of Peter" - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
"Anyone who thinks an excomminicated man is a Saint is a nut and Davies was a nut." Bornacatholic, at his computer" Nov. 26, 2004

A poster above said that Michael Davies had "dumped" Abp. Lefebvre back in 1988. I provided a quote from Davies given in a conference from January of this year which contradicts the poster's claims. I provided the quote solely to demonstrate the poster was incorrect; not to make a case in favor of the Archbishop or M. Davies.

Your soapbox rant was completely irrelevant...But don't let such a reasonable thing such as understanding what's being discussed stop you from reminding us all that the final judgment as to who is "nuts" belongs to you alone...
17 posted on 11/26/2004 9:07:07 AM PST by sempertrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sempertrad
Your soapbox rant was completely irrelevant...

*LOL

Of course, I could point out that one's particular judgement has nothing to do with my noting Davies was a nut, but, that would be a bit touchy :)

18 posted on 11/26/2004 10:25:28 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sempertrad
Your soapbox rant was completely irrelevant...

*LOL

Of course, I could point out that one's particular judgement has nothing to do with my noting Davies was a nut, but, that would be a bit touchy :)

19 posted on 11/26/2004 10:25:28 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sempertrad

No unrepentant excommunicant has yet been declared a saint. No sainthood has been declared by the Church on the basis of one layman's say-so. Lefebvre was NO Athanasius! Even though Davies dumped lefebvre - he (Davies) still had a business to operate - selling his books to the "trads". "Business is business"! May God have mercy on the souls of Marcel Lefebvre and Michael Davies.


20 posted on 11/26/2004 1:55:00 PM PST by Sean O L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson