Tan

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Sep 27 2004, 08:29 PM'] Never mind. I already said it is not time for debate. It is time for prayer. We can debate later. [/quote]
Word.

[Donna]

[i]"I've never read any of their books."[/i]

Well said. I know you were talking about TAN, but I venture not many folks on this thread have read Michael Davies, who was a member of the Church in good standing.

Might I suggest TAN's [i]The Rise and Fall of the Anglican Schism[/i]? Or, the St. Theresa of Avila biography? And my favorite: [i]The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita[/i], about the only place I have EVER seen the Masonic document excerpts confiscated by the Holy See in Europe many decades ago, re: that work of messing with the Church.

Will anyone listen to what the Holy See has said, either?

Get a grip, people. You cannot find Msgr O'Hare's [i]The Facts About Luther [/i]anywhere else. You cannot get the 16th century account of the rise and fall of the Anglican Schism. Not anymore and not without TAN.

They mostly publish old, old, authors who are dead. Tons of saint books and doctrine, and devotional. Their catalogue is a feast. Do I agree w/ everything? No. Not even with Saints' writings. Does that make me anti-Saint?
_____________________________________________________________

Michael Davies had 3 chapters re: Time Bombs in [i]Pope John's Council[/i], published in 1977. OK, in the public record 27 years already.

You don't know of what you speak; these 3 chapters (which I gather are the source from which the TAN book is made up of) are not reactionary. Why are people scandalized by bishops and official documents, including info re: those who wrote the original shcemas (drafts) of VII for 2 years prior to the Council, brought to light?

I for one had no idea how the various declarations, constitutions and etc; were put out, then reformulated. As happens at Councils. And why VII was different. And why it wasn't, tho' anyone looking at their [i]Denzinger [/i]on various Councils could easily put the piecs together. Didn't Popes John and Paul shout it from the rooftops? The uniqueness of VII in the history of Church Councils.

Pope Paul can come out with a long speech about the seeming insanity of getting rid of liturgical Latin (which he did)...but if Michel Davies quotes him, then Mr. Davies is a rat's ass bully.

Anyone who loves doctrine and the Church has a wealth of sound sources herein ([i]Pope John's Counci[/i]l)...look at his sources, they are princes of the Church, the Acts of the Holy See, why would people trash these?

Why aren't they trashing [i]The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber?[/i]

They can read Davies and think for themselves, just as they would re: the Boston scandals, and where the removed Prelate ended up.

And how could he be such a rad-trad, the President of Una Voce International? This man had been in the audiences w/ and around the [i]Ecclesia Dei Commission[/i], et al, for many years.

If he was that bad, why didn't the Vatican throw him out? If he was, and they didn't, what does that make the Vatican?

I was just reading Mr. Davies today (before I knew of his passing). I think you all might be surprised at how mild and scholoarly he is. And, in no uncertain terms, the passages I was reading, he wrote that it is ridiculous to disregard VII, that it is an official Council, duly promulgated, an authentic act of the Magistrium - and points out reasons A-D, why rejecting it outright is only emotional twiddle.

The Church is greatly indebted to this scholar.

Even if he did rant (and I don't know that he ever did in print - but I'm sure someone'll post it herein gleefully, IF he did), no one is perfect.

Anyone who says this man didn't love and defend Holy Mother Church, the Papacy, all of it, certainly has not read his work.

Edited September 28, 2004 by Donna

[Theologian in Training]

You must also keep in mind that TAN focuses on resurrecting out of print and hard to find spiritual classics and stories of the Saints. If you have not noticed most of the books are photocopies. They take an old book whose copyright has expired and given it a new life, as it were.

Granted, their liturgical stance is debatable and sometimes Schismatic (you will not find any books that are pro-Vatican II) but to stop buying from them might not be the most prudent decision. You will notice that apart from their liturgical approach, you cannot find the majority of saints and spiritual classics that only TAN have the rights to unless you scour the globe looking for antique dealers or those that specialize in such out of print books and, even then, it is 50 / 50 that they will even carry them.

BTW, when I speak about liturgical approach I am not including Davies because from what I read of him, though he had the ability of being quite polemic, you can tell that he did do his research and did not just throw things down on paper slipshod.

I would also add that the history books that TAN carries are of a forgotten era where we actually focused on history in light of Catholic belief, which actually does an excellent job in following and placing historical events against those things that were occurring within the Church as well. I have enjoyed a couple of their historical books. As with anything, be prudent when you read, and don't take it all at face value. I am sure I am speaking to the choir on this one, but I am sure you guys do it with other publishing companies as well.

Just my .02

God Bless

[BLAZEr]

TAN is fine.

There is a danger in becoming too critical in your catholicism. That no one quite understands the church like you do (or Catholic Culture does, or whatever).

Take Theo's advice . . . but most of all, lighten up!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I like the fact that they publish old works. Sophia Institute Press does that too (only place you can get Aquinas' own summary of the Summa Theologica). I wish more publishers would do that.

[popestpiusx]

Thank you Theo, Blazer, and thedude (and Donna) for defending common sense!

God Bless!!