Why C. S. Lewis didn't become Catholic (even if everyone thought he would become one)
Gospel Simplicity | 2 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXsyqFRVIh4
2:44 "Orangeman" ... Tolkien's "Ulsterior motives"
- ev9pfqwerty
- @ev9pfqwerty
- Underrated comment
- jzvwkqvisl
- @jzvwkqvisl
- mere wordplay, equalling 'not RC'
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @jzvwkqvisl No, the woman of his life confirmed what the friend said.
6:34 He was somewhat prophetic about "John Paul II" in 1990, who changed the profession of faith after I had already converted.
I just said:
"whatever the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims as being revealed by God, that I believe and confess" ...
The Catholic Church obviously believes that all of the faith was given before the death of the last Apostle.
This means, in order to reach as high a bar as "proclaim to be revealed by God" it obviously has to be at least one side in a longstanding quarrel, it cannot be an obviously new invention.
Back in 1944 it was:
Besides I accept, without hesitation, and profess all that has been handed down, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and by the general Councils, especially by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Vatican General Council, and in a special manner concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. At the same time I condemn and reprove all that the Church has condemned and reproved. This same Catholic Faith, outside of which nobody can be saved, I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, the same I promise and swear to maintain and profess with the help of God, entire, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life; and I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same Faith shall be held, taught, and publicly professed by all who depend on me and by those of whom I shall have charge.
However, "John Paul II" in 1990, well after 1963, changed the profession of faith, adding to a basic repeat of above also:
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
In other words, what CSL was afraid of ...
Seriously, adherring to Jesus meant for the Apostles to adher not just to what He had already said, but what He was going to say. If one believes a man is the vicar of Christ and enjoys His assistance, that should, per se, be no problem, especially with above mentioned safeguards (one reason I do not believe "John Paul II" was Pope).
- Kevin Clement
- @kevinclement1533
- There's a fine line between unconditional acceptance of what Jesus will teach VS what a follower of Jesus will teach. Jesus is infallible, but a follower of Jesus isn't.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @kevinclement1533 If he represents all of the Church, he is, because all of Jesus' Church is infallible.
The task was teaching all Jesus taught and commanded. The help was Jesus as God Almighty. The time for that help was every day or all days and the limit for that time is Doomsday.
7:52 Jesus was telling the woman to give His Mother the compliment She preferred.
Bad exegesis, CSL ...
7:59 St. Paul on exactly one occasion in the epistles showed an attitude which many (not least in the West) have stated as being an "attitude to St. Peter" (others further east say that the Cephas in Galatians 2 was called Cephas, because he was different from the Peter in Galatians 1, that being St. Peter).
8:05 There seem to be semantic reasons in Matthew 26:26 against Consubstantiation.
There is no case at all for Symbolism-Only or for Spiritual Presence of an actual Body.
9:21 I'll take that as a less than endorsement of Vatican II, and as a compliment to Mgr Williamson, who died earlier this year.
I think he was buried in Canterbury.
No comments:
Post a Comment