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 St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and St. Edmund Campion, according to Mr. Matt.  Another false traditionalist website arrogantly proclaimed: “The Catholic Church mourns the death of Michael Davies,” as if the webmaster of this site had the authority to give his heretical opinion in the name of the Catholic Church.  The question is: was Michael Davies really a defender of the Faith or was he, in fact, a faithless heretic?

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 blatant 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.  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 because 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 Florence is a distinct paragraph from the one quoted above.  It is a separate definition dealing just with the question of the Jews and the Old Law.  It defines that all those who observe the Old Law (i.e. Jews) cannot be saved and it does so in three different ways!  Yet, Mr. Michael Davies tells us that they actually can be saved.

Michael Davies accepted the SuperChurch Heresy of Dominus Iesus

Besides his blatant denial of the aforementioned dogma, which made Davies a heretic (since he held that Jews who rejected the Lord could be saved), Davies publicly defended the heretical document Dominus Iesus issued by the Vatican (and approved by Antipope John Paul II) in August, 2000.

Michael Davies, The Remnant, Dec. 31, 2000: “…I was much encouraged by the Declaration Dominus Iesus, which, like Protestant spokesmen in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland, I consider to be an unequivocal reaffirmation of the nature of the Catholic Church as the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ.”

Dominus Iesus teaches that schismatic sects (e.g., the “Orthodox” sects) have the Church of Christ present in them, even though they reject the Papacy.

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 blatant heresy.  The Church dogmatically teaches that those who reject the Papacy are 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 Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”

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)!  It means that the Holy Ghost may be responsible for religions of Satan.  It confuses 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 proves once 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 Vatican “traditionalists” could consider to be friends of the traditional faith, Michael Davies responded with the name “Cardinal” Ratzinger.  On another occasion Davies also stated that people like Ratzinger are a sign that the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Catholic Church!  For those who don’t know, “Cardinal” Ratzinger is one of the most wicked apostates in the world.  Ratzinger has publicly praised the abominable Assisi prayer meetings; he has said that he has “nothing against” those who attend Mass once a year (Zenit News interview, Oct. 1, 2001); he has publicly stated that Jews do not need to believe in Christ to be saved.

Ratzinger openly admits that the Vatican II documents Dignatitis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes are a “countersyllabus, a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX” which corrects “the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X”! (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 381).  So, Ratzinger admits that Vatican II revised the authoritative Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and changed its teaching!  Ratzinger is also the apostate who is the principal author of the satanic Vatican document called The Message of Fatima, which deceives the world about the Third Secret of Fatima, etc.  Yet, the apostate Michael Davies, who was apparently swept off his feet when he met Ratzinger, tells us that Ratzinger is a pillar of orthodoxy.

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 did substantial 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.  His research and writing have caused many to investigate or embrace the Traditional Mass.

Yet, at the same time, the 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 at the New Mass.  It caused many to continue to receive the 'new sacraments' of Antipope Paul VI.  Thus, it's debatable whether Davies did more good or more harm in this area.  He probably did more good with those completely unfamiliar with the Traditional Mass or the liturgical revolution after Vatican II.  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.  The harm was considerable because he was considered by many 'traditionalists' to be a reliable source on those matters.  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 that the New Rite of Ordination generally excises [cuts out] the same prayers and concepts that the Anglican Rite excised.  The Anglican Rite was declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII on the basis that it removed those prayers and elements.  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 repeatedly stated 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 to the Anglican Rite - and the Anglican Rite was declared invalid because it made those changes!  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 comparable to the invalid Anglican in what it removes, Davies held that the New Rite is definitely valid!  How’s that, you may ask?  He repeatedly gives us his reason for holding it to be valid: 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, 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.  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 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 to almost any of the ordinations performed today in the New Rite?

I hope that the evil at work in Michael Davies’ writing is clear.  He wants to be able to guarantee that the invalid new rites are valid.  When pressed, however, 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.  However, as a result of the dishonest way in which Mr. Davies slides it in, they remain ignorant of the part where he stated 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 to be considered valid in Latin or in English.  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, Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty: “PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY… This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom … THIS RIGHT OF THE HUMAN PERSON TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECOGNITION IN THE REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHT… Each and every one of the things set forth in this decree has won the consent of the Fathers.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 675, 679, 696, etc.)

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 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.  I pointed 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.  But she refused to accept it.  That's 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 on faith to the entire Church by their apostolic authority.  Is this possible?  No.  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.  That is precisely why the New Rite of Ordination that 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 Augsburg accord?  If my memory serves me rightly, it was denounced by one Lutheran Synod as a surrender to Catholicism.”

Note the subtle dishonesty in this response.  In order 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.  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.  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 demonstrates 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.  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.  Michael 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 due to human respect or human attachments.