The Catholic Book Club discussion
This topic is about
C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church
Lewis and the Catholic Church
>
As we read
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
John
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mar 07, 2018 03:20AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
We must not consider a biography. We must consider that this book has a fixed idea. Spiritual nature of C.S. Lewis to the catholic church, and why he did not convert to the catholic church, and what it was the result of C.S. Lewis`s decission. The calimity of the Anglican Church we must read it as epilogue, and the final list the evidence that despite C.S. Lewis did not convert to the Catholic Church,however he was positive to the catholicism and thanks to him a lot of people found the way to Rome.
In fact, Protestants read Lewis precisely because he is not Catholic, and get drawn to the Catholic Church because his beliefs were basically Catholic. It looks like Providence is making good use of the fact that Lewis never converted.
Mariangel wrote: "In fact, Protestants read Lewis precisely because he is not Catholic, and get drawn to the Catholic Church because his beliefs were basically Catholic. It looks like Providence is making good use o..."About the conection between C.S. Lewis and the Catholic we must read the final appendix with the persons, who met the way to Rome, reading C.S. Lewis, , between them C.S. Lewis`s Friends (i am thinking in George Sayer, or Christopher Derrick), and his secretary Walter Hooper. PD. Certainly we must look for the book of Belmont, who spoke about catholic converts. If Pearce spoke praisily this book. It must be very good.
Mod
Pearce also speaks in this chapter about Lewis's "Allegory of love" and takes exception to two things:
1. That he mentions twice "the worship of the Blessed Virgin." Here he is right, he should have said "the cult," not the worship.
2. That he asserts that "there is no evidence that the quasi-religious tone of medieval love poetry has been transferred from the worship of the Blessed Virgin: it is just as likely -it is even more likely- that the coloring of certain hymns to the Virgin has been borrowed from the love poetry." But Pearce does not provide any argument that Lewis was wrong here. In fact, the history of Spanish medieval poetry rather supports Lewis assertion.
Then he states that in Lewis book "Selected Literary Essays" there is a single reference to the Virgin Mary, and it has to do with a quotation from a literary work. What did he expect in a book with this title? A treatise on the Virgin Mary?
Manuel wrote: "I think Pearce is not fair with Lewis in his review of "Mere Christianity" in chapter 8. He takes to heart that Lewis does not mention the Virgin Mary in this book. However, when I read it in 1974 ..."However i must confess that C.S. Lewis was not the only critic, who was against Lewis for the question of the Virgin Mary, also Leporjavi criticized the elimination of the Virgin Saint Mary of the text of Mere Christianity, perhaps the problem of the book was , meanwhile Lewis wanted to write a book with the essential of the christianity he could not explore more ways, and he felt too comfortable in the Anglo-Catholic rite. Lewis was too critic with T.S. Eliot, but it could be that he was hostile with T.S. Eliot, because he was very similar to C.S. Lewis. PD. However i must confess that i absolutely agree with Alfonseca in one thing, and it is that Pearce is too hard with C.S. Lewis in this chapter, overall when Pearce comented "Mere Christianity".
I had no idea Lewis was born in Belfast. That puts things in a different light, though I certainly don't think he betrayed the prejudice against the Catholic Church one might expect from that background.interesting commentary on the importance of attending St. John's while he was in secondary school in England. Lewis says it was refreshing to meet people who actually believed Christian doctrines rather than some uplifting pablum. (I once had a relative comment, with some amazement, "You actually believe all that stuff, don't you?") I can't help thinking the "high" liturgy itself exercised a strong influence on him as well.
ironic comment as a young man that we nowadays "know too much" to take religious faith seriously. Reminds me of a comment I heard recently that the first sip of science may lead to atheism but drinking the whole cup to the bottom necessitates wonder and faith. (Who said that? I'm not quoting it right either, sorry.)
interesting that he seems to have come to faith more through literature than through theology -- but of course that's a powerful way he chose to evangelize others later.
I don't understand what Tolkien says about Myth being more true than science.
I don't understand how his "first communion" was Christmas 1931 if he was confirmed and received communion in 1914, albeit insincerely.
Jill wrote: "I don't understand what Tolkien says about Myth being more true than science."Maybe you are referring to something different, but I think what Tolkien said is that the story of Christ is a myth like many myths in other cultures, except that this one actually happened in history. In Lewis's words:
"Now what Dyson and Tolkien showed me was this: that if I met the idea of sacrifice in a Pagan story I didn’t mind it at all: again, that if I met the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself . . . I liked it very much and was mysteriously moved by it: again, that the idea of the dying and reviving god (Balder, Adonis, Bacchus) similarly moved me provided I met it anywhere except in the Gospels. The reason was that in Pagan stories I was prepared to feel the myth as profound and suggestive of meanings beyond my grasp even tho’ I could not say in cold prose ‘what it meant’.
Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened."
Jill wrote: "I don't understand how his "first communion" was Christmas 1931 if he was confirmed and received communion in 1914, albeit insincerely. "
Probably Lewis didn't count the 1914 one as a real first communion, and he meant the first communion after he converted.
I found the quote here in Goodreads:“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
Mariangel wrote: "Jill wrote: "I don't understand what Tolkien says about Myth being more true than science."Maybe you are referring to something different, but I think what Tolkien said is that the story of Chris..."
I totally agree with Mari Angel. I have nver explained better than her.
Mariangel wrote: "I found the quote here in Goodreads:“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg"
I heard a similar sentence, but i thought that it was pronounced by Waizsacker (the brother of the President of Federal Geramany Republic).
Mod
I take this as a combination of things. I have had people say to me that they don't read fiction because it isn't true, and they don't want to waste their time with lies. My response is that they have lost the distinction between facts and truth, that literature is non-factual statements, lies if you insist, that aim at saying something true about the human condition.
Science is about discovering facts, but a pile of facts that by itself give you no help at all in discovering truth.
I think Tolkien is saying something more, as well. He is saying that one truth about human beings is that we are designed to appreciate myth, stories, even if not factually accurate (there have never been elves) that teach some aspect of truth about humanity. The brilliant thing about Christianity is that it is not just myth that aims at truth, but myth that is Truth.
Science consumes with pursuit of "what" or "how." But at the cost of ignoring "why" completely.
Mod
Jesus made fiction in his parables. Dare anyone call them lies?
Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "I take this as a combination of things. I have had people say to me that they don't read fiction because it isn't true, and they don't want to waste their time with lies..."Jesus mad..."
I totally agree with Alfonseca a myth is a way to tell a story using the imagination, and the fantasy, and he says Alfonseca nobody couly that Christ lies telling the parables.. If the people only read true stories, now they eliminate the fiction books, because they are not truth following their criterion. Even in the real stories, really happen the thing that the books told us. There is a story the grove by Rynosuke Akutagawa, where a different group of persons told the story were different, depending who told them. This book converted in a movie called Rhosomon. Sometimes the person does not lie, he only telle the story from his point of view, and sometimes this is wrong.
In my opinión lie is when you tell a story with the intention to lie, or causing damage to other person. The catholic casuistic said that there are three kinds of lies humorour, or jocuse you tell a small lie for example i drank another day six glasses of beer (me that i do not drink alcohol), or i saw the King of the faries, knowing that it is imposible only you look for the people laugh of your story. The other lie is oficious in ocassion is not a sin, for example we have the case of Marlow in the Heart of Darkness. You had had the heart of saying the truth to the Kurtz`s widow, saying that her husband got crazy, thathe has a lover, and he did remember of his wife, when he died. This lie you say for avoiding a big damage. The oficious lie can be sin, and the pernicious lie it is a ever a sin, and very severe, it is when you calumnies one person. In ocassion is a mortal sin.
We are speaking about the lie. I want to remember that one of our posible readings Apologia Pro Vita Sua was written by the Blessed John Henry Newman with the objective to defend of the accusartion of the anglican novelist Kingsley he accussded John Henry Newman of being a liar. His action was pushed by the envy. For this reason be careful when you accuse somebody to be a liar, or being a lie. We must avoid being a puritan. And i am prasing the art of lie.
I don't remember hearing of the Refrigerium before. Kind of a fun idea, but not possible according to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.God doesn't condemn anyone to hell; but we can choose it.
He could become Catholic without having a devotion to Mary, which the Church regards as desirable but optional. "Mere" Christians and Catholic Christians agree she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and find her worthy of admiration and perhaps imitation. Praying to or with her isn't a "core" belief necessary for salvation.
What's wrong with looking forward to good theological conversations with St. Paul or other saints? Presumably when we get to heaven we move beyond paralyzing awe to a place where conversation to grow in understanding would be delightful.
Reformers' main problem with purgatory isn't its existence but the notion that we can "earn" our way (or others') out of it or speed up their time there. The crass notion of indulgences being for sale.
Mod
That was the origin of the discrepancy, but the result was that most Protestants came to deny the existence of Purgatory and forbid prayers for dead people.
Mod
Jesus mad..."
:-)
Certainly not me.
Manuel wrote: "Jill wrote: "Reformers' main problem with purgatory isn't its existence but the notion that we can "earn" our way (or others') out of it or speed up their time there. The crass notion of indulgence..."I totally agree, the protestant in his majority did not accept the purgatory. I agree with Pearce that the C.S. Lewis refrigerium, could be the purgatory. It is very logical.
Mod
I beg readers to remember that this is a fantasy. It has of course -
or I intended it to have - a moral. But the transmortal conditions are solely an imaginative supposal: they are not even a guess or a speculation at what may actually await us. The last thing I wish is to arouse factual curiosity about the details of the after-world.
The Refrigerium was a medieval fantasy. Lewis never intended it to be taken in any other way.
Manuel wrote: "In the preface to "The Great Divorce" Lewis wrote this: I beg readers to remember that this is a fantasy. It has of course -
or I intended it to have - a moral. But the transmortal conditions ar..."
I have the impression that it was the Christian Poet Prudentius. I would recomend that the users read the C.S. Lewis`s book allegory, where C.S. Lewis spoke about the Church Father`s allegories. It is a very recomended book. It is also to know the C.S. Lewis`s influence closer to the Neoplatonism to the Chartres School. It is closer to Benedict XVI. For example other writers Garrigou Lagrane, Maritain, Gilson, Coplestone, Columba Marmion and in United States Mark Van Doren, Mortimer Adler, Ralph McInnerny, and Peter Kreeft it would be closer to the nethomism, even my beloved G.K. Chesterton, and Hilaire Belloc are very close to the mute Ox (Saint Thomas Aquinas).
Mod
I wonder if there is a clue here of the answer to the other question. While devotion to Mary is optional, there can be no denying its critical importance in Catholic spirituality. Could his Belfast upbringing simply have been too much a barrier for Lewis to overcome, a barrier that prevented Lewis from entering a Church in which veneration of Mary surrounds you, even if there is no obligation for you to participate in it.
In a conversation between cradle Catholics and converts from Protestant churches, several people mentioned Mary being the last thing holding them back to join the Catholic Church. One said that only after a friend told her that Mary just wants only to point the way to her Son, and all the confusion about Mary's role is likely the devil's work. This was the decisive point for her: she didn't want to let the devil win. But years later she still feels uncomfortable around Marian devotions.
Mod
Perhaps the fact that Lewis mentions so little the Virgin Mary (as indicated in chapter 8) is a symptom that this may be precisely the reason that prevented him from becoming Catholic.
Yes it is posible but it is a big problema. All popes urges to the believers to bless the Virgin Saint Mary, even she inspired the second Vatican Council, and her influence in the future of the church will be crutial.
