does anyone have a copy of Michael Davies Pope Paul's New Mass to spare. If you do please PM me.

   Which one?

   The original (which was a great work)?

   Or the recent Angelus edition of the trilogy (Which contains defenses of the heretical Dominus Iesus; makes the heretical claim that the Orthodox bishops retain formal apostolicity; etc)?

   I have concluded that the recent Angelus updated version was but one more preparation for the sellout (i.e., To show the Pope how "with him" the SSPX was).

Has anyone here read the book?

Has anyone here read the book?

Yes.

Your question?

Publication was only about 3-4 yrs ago.

Preparation is irrelevent, since it was well known that Michael Davies had become an indulter since 1988.

The surprising thig is that, in the post-Fr. Novak Angelus Press era, the SSPX decided to publish the book with the errors intact.

So that makes the book 4 years posthumous.



What's the difference between formal apostolicity and apostolic succession?


Do you have any short list of other "errors" in that edition?

Quote from: Seraphim

Publication was only about 3-4 yrs ago.

Preparation is irrelevent, since it was well known that Michael Davies had become an indulter since 1988.

The surprising thig is that, in the post-Fr. Novak Angelus Press era, the SSPX decided to publish the book with the errors intact.

So that makes the book 4 years posthumous.



What's the difference between formal apostolicity and apostolic succession?


Do you have any short list of other "errors" in that edition?

1) The Orthodox possess mere material apostolicity (i.e., episcopal continuity).

2) Davies grants to them formal apostolicity (i.e., episcopal contunity + jurisdiction).

3) The two errors I founf within the new trilogy are the one just mentioned, and an entire appendix dedicated to defending Dominus Iesus.

1) The Orthodox possess mere material apostolicity (i.e., episcopal continuity).

2) Davies grants to them formal apostolicity (i.e., episcopal contunity + jurisdiction).

3) The two errors I found within the new trilogy are the one just mentioned, and an entire appendix dedicated to defending Dominus Iesus.

Sounds like an appendectomy is indicated!


So, what is lacking in the Orthodox's mere material apostolicity? How could it become formal -- by having a re-union with the Pope of Rome?

Thanks, Seraphim.
I've heard as much about Orthodox, but I've also observed a bit more
of a mix of Modernism. For the synthesis of heresies pervades the very
air we breathe in these days, when no flesh would be saved were they
not shortened. I have seen Orthodox liturgies being changed to
accommodate the pestilent breath of Modernism, and curiously, in my
experience it is usually some Freemason at the lead, showing up
every day to do his little routine that institutes the change.

How can these people be so literally dedicated to their work of tearing
down tradition? What drives them? The mystery of iniquity?

And yet, down deep, the Orthodox rank-and-file desire to keep their
sacred traditions, even while their spiritual leaders rub elbows with
modernizing influences.

They still have that sense of connection with their apostolic patrimony,
and it seems to me that Canonized Traditional Latin Mass attendees
share that sense, while Novus Ordo Catholics have generally
lost it. This is not to say that they all have lost it. But they have not
been given the spiritual milk of salvation from their pastors for many
years. Peter has not been feeding the sheep.

And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give
him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion? (Lk xi. 11-12)

It seems unlikely that the Orthodox would be willing to make amends
with the Catholic Church if the latter persists in its current errors.