Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Who is Shift?

Expand Messages
  • juliet@firinn.org
    ... ... I m with you. Shift and Roman Catholicism have some things in common, and Lewis likely meant to point out that anyone who claims to be the only
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:12:45PM -0500, Stolzi wrote:
      > Here's something interesting, with a clever (I have to say) title:
      > =========================
      > PUZZLED [John J. Miller]

      <snip>

      > ================================
      >
      > Discuss.
      >
      > Personally, I distrust A.N. Wilson deeply, and in a zillion readings of LAST
      > BATTLE, the interpretation suggested never occurred to me. I think Shift
      > says what he says because he is a proven and inveterate LIAR and portrayed
      > as such.
      >
      I'm with you. Shift and Roman Catholicism have some things in common,
      and Lewis likely meant to point out that anyone who claims to be the only
      way to God should be highly suspect--but to call Shift a satire of Roman
      Catholocism seems overly exclusive. There are many people besides the
      Pope who claim to be the mouthpiece of God. The Pope is at least probably
      more sincere than most. Shift, as you point out, is not the least bit
      sincere.

      I also think people who assume the Calormenes are Muslims aren't reading
      very carefully. That all just sounds like people trying to read their
      own ideas into the story and missing the deeper truths Lewis is trying
      to discuss.

      Julie
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... These supposed claims attributed to the Pope come as a surprise to this lifelong Catholic. Neither the Pope nor the Church has ever claimed or taught that
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:53 PM, juliet@... wrote:

        > Shift and Roman Catholicism have some things in common, and Lewis
        > likely meant to point out that anyone who claims to be the only way
        > to God should be highly suspect--but to call Shift a satire of
        > Roman Catholocism seems overly exclusive. There are many people
        > besides the Pope who claim to be the mouthpiece of God. The Pope
        > is at least probably more sincere than most. Shift, as you point
        > out, is not the least bit sincere.

        These supposed claims attributed to the Pope come as a surprise to
        this lifelong Catholic. Neither the Pope nor the Church has ever
        claimed or taught that the Pope is either God's "mouthpiece" or "the
        only way to God" (indeed, the Church has taken flak from some of its
        members for quite specifically _denying_ that it claims to be "the
        only way to God").

        > I also think people who assume the Calormenes are Muslims aren't
        > reading very carefully. That all just sounds like people trying to
        > read their own ideas into the story and missing the deeper truths
        > Lewis is trying to discuss.

        How ironic.
      • Patrick Wynne
        ... If I might play Devil s Advocate ... ;-) In 1302 AD, Pope Boniface VIII wrote the following _ex cathedra_ (i.e. infallible) statement in the bull _Unam
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

          > These supposed claims attributed to the Pope come as a surprise to
          > this lifelong Catholic. Neither the Pope nor the Church has ever
          > claimed or taught that the Pope is either God's "mouthpiece" or "the
          > only way to God" (indeed, the Church has taken flak from some of its
          > members for quite specifically _denying_ that it claims to be "the
          > only way to God").

          If I might play Devil's Advocate ... ;-)

          In 1302 AD, Pope Boniface VIII wrote the following _ex cathedra_
          (i.e. infallible) statement in the bull _Unam Sanctam_:

          "Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it
          is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature
          to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

          (Cited by Henry Bettenson, Ed., _Documents of the Christian
          Church_ (London: Oxford University, 1963), p. 116.)

          This was later reaffirmed by the First Vatican Council in 1869-70,
          and seems pretty close (at least to this Lutheran's ears) to saying
          that the Pope is "the only way to God". However, I gather from
          what Carl has told me in conversations on this topic that the
          modern Catholic Church no longer holds to this teaching. When
          was it specifically changed, I wonder? At Vatican Two?

          -- Pat

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ginger McElwee
          I agree with Carl. Additionally I see no evidence in any of Lewis’ writings that he misunderstood Catholicism so profoundly. Granted he had issues with the
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree with Carl. Additionally I see no evidence in any of Lewis�
            writings that he misunderstood Catholicism so profoundly. Granted he
            had issues with the church, but I think he understood the church�s
            position well enough not to equate it with a weak and manipulative ape
            whose main characteristics are selfishness, stupidity, and disbelief.

            Ginger McElwee

            -----Original Message-----
            From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            Of Carl F. Hostetter
            Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:34 AM
            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Who is Shift?


            On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:53 PM, juliet@... wrote:

            > Shift and Roman Catholicism have some things in common, and Lewis
            > likely meant to point out that anyone who claims to be the only way
            > to God should be highly suspect--but to call Shift a satire of
            > Roman Catholocism seems overly exclusive. There are many people
            > besides the Pope who claim to be the mouthpiece of God. The Pope
            > is at least probably more sincere than most. Shift, as you point
            > out, is not the least bit sincere.

            These supposed claims attributed to the Pope come as a surprise to
            this lifelong Catholic. Neither the Pope nor the Church has ever
            claimed or taught that the Pope is either God's "mouthpiece" or "the
            only way to God" (indeed, the Church has taken flak from some of its
            members for quite specifically _denying_ that it claims to be "the
            only way to God").

            > I also think people who assume the Calormenes are Muslims aren't
            > reading very carefully. That all just sounds like people trying to
            > read their own ideas into the story and missing the deeper truths
            > Lewis is trying to discuss.

            How ironic.




            The Mythopoeic Society website HYPERLINK
            "http://www.mythsoc.org"http://www.mythsoc.org



            _____

            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

            * Visit your group "HYPERLINK
            "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc"mythsoc" on the web.

            * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            HYPERLINK
            "mailto:mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"mythsoc-
            unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
            "http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.

            _____


            --
            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 7/11/2005


            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 7/11/2005



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            ... That is an accepted translation of the text of the Bull ( _Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis_ ),
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 12, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Patrick Wynne wrote:

              > In 1302 AD, Pope Boniface VIII wrote the following _ex cathedra_
              > (i.e. infallible) statement in the bull _Unam Sanctam_:
              >
              > "Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is
              > altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be
              > subject to the Roman pontiff."

              That is an accepted translation of the text of the Bull ("_Declaratio
              quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de
              necessitate salutis_"), but is itself open to interpretation: namely,
              as to whether the Bull is stating that 1) every individual human
              being is _de facto_ subject to the authority of the Pope with respect
              to and for the purposes of achieving salvation through Christ's
              Church; or 2) that every individual human being must submit himself,
              knowingly, to the authority of the Pope, in order to achieve his own
              salvation, and without doing so he will of a certainty not be saved?

              The latter interpretation would seem to forbid even an appeal to
              "invincible ignorance" as hope for salvation for any non-Catholic but
              otherwise righteous person. But that would itself contradict the
              constant teaching of the Church (see <http://www.catholicculture.org/
              docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1203>) that those who are invincibly
              ignorant _may_ be saved; and so it would seem to me to not be the
              correct interpretation (if it were, it would "prove too much", as
              they say: namely, that invincible ignorance is no excuse of
              culpability, which is contrary to Catholic teaching).
              To my eyes, a plain reading of the text of the Bull in question in
              its entirety and in its context of a time of looming schism, and of
              revolt by King Philip IV, make it clear that the subject of the Bull
              is the primacy of the Church, and thus of its head the Pope, over
              every other worldly authority; in particular, over that of kings,
              princes, and soldiers. From both the text and the context of the
              whole Bull, what I see is a restatement and definition of what the
              Catholic Church has always taught: that to it and to it alone has
              been given supreme worldly authority (through the Keys of Peter and
              Apostolic Succession), that this authority was granted and guaranteed
              to the Pope and the Church by Christ for the purpose of securing the
              salvation of all mankind, and that the Pope and the Church are not
              subject or subordinate to any other worldly authority:

              "Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the
              spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be
              administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former
              in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and
              soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

              "However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and
              temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the
              Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that
              are, are ordained of God" [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be
              ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the
              inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other."

              "Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power
              surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as
              spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also
              by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the
              acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For
              with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish
              the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good."

              "Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the
              spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be
              judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all
              err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the
              testimony of the Apostle: "The spiritual man judgeth of all things
              and he himself is judged by no man" [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority,
              however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man),
              is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and
              reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter
              confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall
              bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19].
              Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists
              the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two
              beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical....
              Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely
              necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the
              Roman Pontiff."

              (Note the prominent "therefore" underpinning both the negative and
              the positive statements, both of which must be understood in light of
              all the preceding indicated by that "therefore".)

              (<http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B7UNAM.HTM>)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.