C.S. Lewis: What were his disagreements with the Catholic Church?

[GKC]

Jospeh Pearce has a good book on Lewis entitled “C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church”. I’d recommend it. Also, the essay mentioned earlier in regards to concerns with the Anglican Church might be the “Fern Seed and the Elephant”. It’s a good essay, but I don’t believe it’s still in print.

If anyone has already mentioned this… There is a rumor that Lewis converted to the Catholic Church on his deathbed when he had a meeting with Tolkien and his son (a priest, I believe). I asked Joseph Pearce about this, and he says that unfortunately this tale has no truth to it. Lewis appears to have died as an Anglican.

I recommended Pearce’s book, far above, but with reservations. Its the best extended treatment of the subject I know of.

Lewis did indeed die Anglican.

“Fern-Seed and Elephants”, alternate title “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”. was originally published in CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS and in FERN-SEEDS AND ELEPHANTS (naturally). Whether it’s in any of the multiple shuffled collections now in print, I can’t say.

While it does mention the RCC, once, it is not pertinent to this topic.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And what does the letter state as Lewis’ disagreements with the Catholic Church? Just what you have said; authority?

God bless you

If you mean the letter I cited, from 1945, I gave a paraphrase of much of his position, above. He said that where the RCC taught as dogma things that were not either scripturally, or traditionally (say, Papal infallibilty - my example ) evident in historic mere Christianity, he rejected it. The points he mentioned as illustrating this were Marian theology (using the BVM abbreviation there), transubstantiation, and Papalism. “In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation (his emphasis) from the central, ancient traditions as any particular Protestant sect is. I must therefore reject their claim, thou’ this does not mean rejecting particular things they say.” I summarized that as an issue of authority.

And he says a few other things.

GKC

 

[Writer]

I recommended Pearce’s book, far above, but with reservations. Its the best extended treatment of the subject I know of.

Lewis did indeed die Anglican.

“Fern-Seed and Elephants”, alternate title “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”. was originally published in CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS and in FERN-SEEDS AND ELEPHANTS (naturally). Whether it’s in any of the multiple shuffled collections now in print, I can’t say.

While it does mention the RCC, once, it is not pertinent to this topic.

GKC

One interesting possibility raised in that essay, however, is the idea that perhaps Lewis was on the road towards the Catholic Church. While the “Fern-seed and Elephants” doesn’t illuminate Lewis’s differences with the Catholic Church, it does make strong arguments against the direction the Anglican Church was taking at the time–priestesses in the church (the name of another essay by Lewis), for example. Had Lewis lived another few years, would he have recognized that the Anglican Church was a lost cause? It’s impossible to say, but it makes for interesting conversation.

C.S Lewis wrote the following on November 10, 1952, as it appears in Letters to an American Lady.

“Though you have taken a way which is not for me I nevertheless can congratulate you – I suppose because your faith and joy are so obviously increased. Naturally, I do not draw from that the same conclusions as you, but . . . I believe we are very near to one another . . . In the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes . . . Let us by all means pray for one another: it is perhaps the only form of “work for reunion” which never does anything but good. God bless you.”

Whether, or not, Lewis was inching closer to the Catholic Church in his lifetime, I’m confident that he is a member now.

 

[kotek]

This is a perennial subject on boards like this. I’m a Lewis collector, have been for 45 years, like unto the subject of my man Chesterton.

There are a number of approaches to this point, and you can find them in a number of places. Tolkien, as reflected in Pearce’s C. S. LEWIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (the best book on this subject from a RC standpont) emphasizes his Ulster background. Which probably had an influence early on in his development, post the return to Christianity. Tolkien’s gradual estrangement from Lewis had a number of reasons behind it, the marriage to Joy Davidman being only one (others could be speculated, beginning with Lewis’ relationship with Charles Williams, or his success as a Christian apologist, in a mode that Tolkien could not approve of, outside the RCC. And while Tolkien played a large part in easing Lewis’ intellectual problems with Christianity, he was not alone in this).

Lewis himself has expressed his principled problems with the RCC, and it doesn’t involve the concept of divorce (indeed, his words date from 1945, years before he met Joy Davidman, and the Anglican Church at the time had an even stricter approach to divorce than did the RCC), nor with being English, or Irish, of any color. In a letter to a American, 8 May 1945 (which may be read in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C.S. LEWIS, vol II, ed. Hooper, pp. 645-646, he explains. I don’t have time to quote it all, but what he says there is that he cannot accept what he considers the RCC additions to the universal traditions of historic Christianity. He cites the developed dogmas on the BVM, the technical side of transubstantiation, the office of the Papacy, as developed, as examples. He also said, in another place that escapes me, that it was not so much what he would be asked to affirm, as a RC, as a convert, as that he would be required to affirm whatever might be subsequently required, in the future. It is, therefore, a point on authority that he objected to.

As I said, this is a common subject, and I’ve done this before, and better. I’m in a great hurry, right now. But one point I would insist on. Lewis took his stand on principle, not on prejudice, background, or personal convenience. To suggest otherwise is to pollute the waters of the discourse.

GKC

Speaking of Chesterton , have you heard that a cause for his beatification is going to be introduced in Rome?
Also about C.S. Lewis. Like any Anglican there is no doubt that he had difficulties not only with Papal Infallibility but with a concept of a Papacy to begin with. I belive someone I read (can’t recall who exactly) said why would Lewis become “Catholic”? He already considered himself Catholic.

 

[GKC]

One interesting possibility raised in that essay, however, is the idea that perhaps Lewis was on the road towards the Catholic Church. While the “Fern-seed and Elephants” doesn’t illuminate Lewis’s differences with the Catholic Church, it does make strong arguments against the direction the Anglican Church was taking at the time–priestesses in the church (the name of another essay by Lewis), for example. Had Lewis lived another few years, would he have recognized that the Anglican Church was a lost cause? It’s impossible to say, but it makes for interesting conversation.

C.S Lewis wrote the following on November 10, 1952, as it appears in Letters to an American Lady.

“Though you have taken a way which is not for me I nevertheless can congratulate you – I suppose because your faith and joy are so obviously increased. Naturally, I do not draw from that the same conclusions as you, but . . . I believe we are very near to one another . . . In the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes . . . Let us by all means pray for one another: it is perhaps the only form of “work for reunion” which never does anything but good. God bless you.”

Whether, or not, Lewis was inching closer to the Catholic Church in his lifetime, I’m confident that he is a member now.

I agree with your conclusion, though not necesarily for the same reason, as to Lewis, now.

But there is no reason whatsoever to conclude he was inching toward the Tiber, though he certainly was inching toward the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican world, from 1931 until his death. The letter you cite was the 2nd in his correspondence with Mary, and, as he further said, there was no need for them “to start a controversial correspondence”.

And while he felt that they were near to another, as you quote, he added, in the ellipsis, “not because I am at all on the Rome-ward frontier. of my own communion”. He says that those at the heart of each division are closer than those at the fringes, as you quote, and feels the same about the closeness of Christians to a real Jew or Muslim (a sentiment I recall Russell Kirk sort of echoing, somewhere).

In short, I don’t see much here to advance a thesis of a Rome-ward drift. Any more than in the letters he exchanged with Don Giovanni Calabria, between 1947 and 1961.

I mentioned “Priestesses in the Church”, above.

And I personally am not much concerned with what Lewis would or would not have done, only with an accurate reflection, not sectarian, of what he actually did. Had he gone to Rome, as Chesterton did, I still would be as much a devotee of the one, as the other. As I am now. IOW, I have no axe to grind.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Speaking of Chesterton , have you heard that a cause for his beatification is going to be introduced in Rome?
Also about C.S. Lewis. Like any Anglican there is no doubt that he had difficulties not only with Papal Infallibility but with a concept of a Papacy to begin with. I belive someone I read (can’t recall who exactly) said why would Lewis become “Catholic”? He already considered himself Catholic.

What I know of Chesterton, in that regard, is that, as for a number of years, there is a small grass level movement of no great consequence, that advocates that. It is currently being talked up by Dr. WIlliam Oddie, the author of the absolutely essential, fairly recent book on Chesterton, CHESTERTON AND THE ROMANCE OF ORTHODOXY. I doubt much will come from it; no backing in the Church.

GKC

 

[Jerusha]

I knew the discussion would get good once the authorities on the subject notice the thread.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Based on what GKC says about Lewis’ scepticism of papal authority, recent Marian dogmas and transubstantiation, I suspect he would have found Orthodoxy more palatable. He evidently found the Greek Orthodox liturgy to be the most beautiful of all he had experienced.

 

[GKC]

Based on what GKC says about Lewis’ scepticism of papal authority, recent Marian dogmas and transubstantiation, I suspect he would have found Orthodoxy more palatable. He evidently found the Greek Orthodox liturgy to be the most beautiful of all he had experienced.

That was his reaction after he experienced the Greek Easter liturgy, while on the vacation trip to Greece in April, 1960, in the Cathedral at Rhodes. He was also favorably impressed by the Greek clergy, as looking more spiritual than Catholic or Protestant counterparts.

GKC

Added: He had also experienced a Russian Orthodox service, in 1956, and was favorably impressed, including with what one might call the spontaneity of the congregation.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That was his reaction after he experienced the Greek Easter liturgy, while on the vacation trip to Greece in April, 1960, in the Cathedral at Rhodes. He was also favorably impressed by the Greek clergy, as looking more spiritual than Catholic or Protestant counterparts.

GKC

Added: He had also experienced a Russian Orthodox service, in 1956, and was favorably impressed, including with what one might call the spontaneity of the congregation.

GKC,

The atheist teacher who Lewis’ father sent him to study under (Kirkpatrick ), did Lewis ever have any discussion with him after he converted to Christianity? Or was he by that time dead? Kirkpatrick that is

God bless

 

[Della]

What I know of Chesterton, in that regard, is that, as for a number of years, there is a small grass level movement of no great consequence, that advocates that. It is currently being talked up by Dr. WIlliam Oddie, the author of the absolutely essential, fairly recent book on Chesterton, CHESTERTON AND THE ROMANCE OF ORTHODOXY. I doubt much will come from it; no backing in the Church.

GKC

As I understand it, it’s not the Church per se that isn’t giving its backing it’s the local bishop, who apparently sees Chesterton as just a secular journalist, never mind that Pope Pius XI named him a defender of the faith–not a title given out to most secular journalists of his day or any other.

Just to stick to the topic of Lewis and the Catholic Church, I think he just had a bugaboo implanted in him as a Northern Ireland Protestant. He could never shake off the prejudices he learned as a child–which were more cultural than religious. His bias was just too deeply ingrained in him. One source tells how he and his brother made jokes about Catholic Irish that we today would consider ethnic slurs, so it isn’t surprising he could never see himself as one of them.

 

[GKC]

As I understand it, it’s not the Church per se that isn’t giving its backing it’s the local bishop, who apparently sees Chesterton as just a secular journalist, never mind that Pope Pius XI named him a defender of the faith–not a title given out to most secular journalists of his day or any other.

Just to stick to the topic of Lewis and the Catholic Church, I think he just had a bugaboo implanted in him as a Northern Ireland Protestant. He could never shake off the prejudices he learned as a child–which were more cultural than religious. His bias was just too deeply ingrained in him. One source tells how he and his brother made jokes about Catholic Irish that we today would consider ethnic slurs, so it isn’t surprising he could never see himself as one of them.

Yes, it was the local bishop I had in mind. And there is no great ground-swell for his Cause.

And yes, I know you have that opinion of how Lewis came to his opinion of the RCC. I think you also know what I think of it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC,

The atheist teacher who Lewis’ father sent him to study under (Kirkpatrick ), did Lewis ever have any discussion with him after he converted to Christianity? Or was he by that time dead? Kirkpatrick that is

God bless

Yes. William Thompson Kirkpatrick. The Great Knock died in 1921, so no chance for a Christian Lewis to talk with him.

GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yes. William Thompson Kirkpatrick. The Great Knock died in 1921, so no chance for a Christian Lewis to talk with him.

GKC

Yea I didn’t think so. A meeting like that would have been something only seen in the movies.

God bless

 

[Bob_Crowley]

A couple of years ago I read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis and remember thinking, “is this man describing purgatory?” as his protagonist journeyed to heaven.

I just finished C.S. Lewis’ *Letters to Malcolm * (thanks for the recommendation GKC ) where he flat out states that, despite the traditional Reformation arguments against it, he believes in Purgatory. He then goes on to give a psychological (not scriptural) defense of the doctrine. In that book he also defends prayers for what he calls, “the dead” and a few other distinct Catholic beliefs. He talks highly of men such as Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas. In another book of his (The World’s Last Night ) he credits G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man as the single greatest Christian Apologetic work ever done.

All of this got me thinking; why did C.S. Lewis never join the Catholic Church? Does anyone know what his disagreements were with the Catholic Church that kept him from converting? I would be interested to know.

God bless

“THe Great Divorce” was a parable, or allegory. He was not making any literal attempt to describe Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, as one character makes clear. At one stage he bumps into a McDonald, who played the part of a deceased Christian pastor and writer who had heavily influenced Lewis himself. The character states “There’ll be no Childe Rowlands …”, that is, he didn’t want Lewis to pretend he was literally describing heaven or hell themselves.

Lewis was, in a sense, trying to show the difference between Heaven and Hell, but mostly the self inflicted attitudes which send us one way or the other. It’s a very clever book. And it had nothing to do with literal divorce. The Great Divorce is in fact the eternal divorce between heaven and hell.

He was also trying to show the transcendent and different nature of heaven from that of earth - one golden heavenly apple in Heaven would not fit into Hell. The most glamorous person in Lewis’s character’s brief stay in Heaven was not some Hollywood star, or politician, but an unknown Christian woman from the insignificant village of Golders Green, who had lived for others.

The self centred nature of Hell was also described . Napoleon was shown as a tormented figure eternally striding back and forth in a gloomy, leaking mansion, and muttering “It was all Ney’s fault! It was all Soult’s fault! It was alll …”.

And of course there was the ultra liberal bishop, insisting on his theological liberalism in the very face of Heaven and Hell themselves.

 

[GKC]

“THe Great Divorce” was a parable, or allegory. He was not making any literal attempt to describe Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, as one character makes clear. At one stage he bumps into a McDonald, who played the part of a deceased Christian pastor and writer who had heavily influenced Lewis himself. The character states “There’ll be no Childe Rowlands …”, that is, he didn’t want Lewis to pretend he was literally describing heaven or hell themselves.

Lewis was, in a sense, trying to show the difference between Heaven and Hell, but mostly the self inflicted attitudes which send us one way or the other. It’s a very clever book. And it had nothing to do with literal divorce. The Great Divorce is in fact the eternal divorce between heaven and hell.

He was also trying to show the transcendent and different nature of heaven from that of earth - one golden heavenly apple in Heaven would not fit into Hell. The most glamorous person in Lewis’s character’s brief stay in Heaven was not some Hollywood star, or politician, but an unknown Christian woman from the insignificant village of Golders Green, who had lived for others.

The self centred nature of Hell was also described . Napoleon was shown as a tormented figure eternally striding back and forth in a gloomy, leaking mansion, and muttering “It was all Ney’s fault! It was all Soult’s fault! It was alll …”.

And of course there was the ultra liberal bishop, insisting on his theological liberalism in the very face of Heaven and Hell themselves.

I think that bishop was present at Anaheim.

Lewis says explicitly in the preface to THE GREAT DIVORCE that it is a fantasy, with a moral. It’s not even a guess or a speculation about what actually may await us.

Not sure what you mean by the reference to “a MacDonald, who plays a part”. He introduces, fictionally, the character of George MacDonald.

GKC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

“THe Great Divorce” was a parable, or allegory. He was not making any literal attempt to describe Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, as one character makes clear. At one stage he bumps into a McDonald, who played the part of a deceased Christian pastor and writer who had heavily influenced Lewis himself. The character states “There’ll be no Childe Rowlands …”, that is, he didn’t want Lewis to pretend he was literally describing heaven or hell themselves.

Lewis was, in a sense, trying to show the difference between Heaven and Hell, but mostly the self inflicted attitudes which send us one way or the other. It’s a very clever book. And it had nothing to do with literal divorce. The Great Divorce is in fact the eternal divorce between heaven and hell.

He was also trying to show the transcendent and different nature of heaven from that of earth - one golden heavenly apple in Heaven would not fit into Hell. The most glamorous person in Lewis’s character’s brief stay in Heaven was not some Hollywood star, or politician, but an unknown Christian woman from the insignificant village of Golders Green, who had lived for others.

The self centred nature of Hell was also described . Napoleon was shown as a tormented figure eternally striding back and forth in a gloomy, leaking mansion, and muttering “It was all Ney’s fault! It was all Soult’s fault! It was alll …”.

And of course there was the ultra liberal bishop, insisting on his theological liberalism in the very face of Heaven and Hell themselves.

Thanks for that Bob. I am planning on reading The Great Divorce again as soon as I finish his Till We Have Faces. Do you have any insight on the disagreements Lewis had with the Catholic Church?

God bless you

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I think that bishop was present at Anaheim.

Lewis says explicitly in the preface to THE GREAT DIVORCE that it is a fantasy, with a moral. It’s not even a guess or a speculation about what actually may await us.

Not sure what you mean by the reference to “a MacDonald, who plays a part”. He introduces, fictionally, the character of George MacDonald.

GKC

From another web site -

George MacDonald (1824-1905) "was the single greatest human influence on C. S. Lewis; indeed MacDonald was Lewis’s “spiritual father.” So, if you wish to understand C. S. Lewis, you must read George MacDonald.

Lewis built MacDonald into “The Great Divorce” as a sort of spiritual adviser.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Thanks for that Bob. I am planning on reading The Great Divorce again as soon as I finish his Till We Have Faces. Do you have any insight on the disagreements Lewis had with the Catholic Church?

God bless you

No, not really. Since he was Anglican, much of the liturgical routine would have been similar, although Lewis was not an avid admirer of Church music of the time.

He was tolerant, and rarely had a harsh word to say about other Christians or denominations.

However he died in 1963, which was about the same time as Vatican II. Had he lived longer, I suspect he might have been more amenable to the Catholic Church. Remember he was brought up in a time when there was still considerable antagonism between Protesant and Catholic (frankly there still is, but it’s left unspoken). The Latin Liturgy of the time would not have done anything to make Protestant enquirers feel welcome.

He was also intellectual, obviously, and unless something made sense in an intellectual way, I think he’d have been suspicious. Someone else mentioned he was supposed to be a bit cynical about the recent Marian apparitions, and I think maybe he thought they were forms of devotion gone wild. As a former Protestant myself I disagree, since they were backed up with miracles.

I think however his main opposition would have been the “Infallibility” ruling regarding the Pope, since I believe Lewis was not prepared to be boxed into a corner on some possible ruling with which he could not possibly agree, and be told he had to believe it. I think his approach would have been “We’ve been given a brain,and God expects us to think for ourselves.”

For myself, I haven’t got much time for the “Infallibility” ruling either, since it is unnecessary. Christ had already told Peter and therefore the Popes that their decisions were “Binding” right at the very start. All the ultra-Montanists did at Vatican I was to create a barrier to church reunification. As long as that ruling stands, you will never get a Protestant reunifcation. And it isn’t even necessary.

However they’re some of my thoughts. After all if a Protestant feels happy in his or her current denomination, why should they change, unless they’ve got something in their makeup which pushes them to keep seeking the truth in its fullness? Or circumstances force them to reconsider?

 

[GKC]

No, not really. Since he was Anglican, much of the liturgical routine would have been similar, although Lewis was not an avid admirer of Church music of the time.

He was tolerant, and rarely had a harsh word to say about other Christians or denominations.

However he died in 1963, which was about the same time as Vatican II. Had he lived longer, I suspect he might have been more amenable to the Catholic Church. Remember he was brought up in a time when there was still considerable antagonism between Protesant and Catholic (frankly there still is, but it’s left unspoken). The Latin Liturgy of the time would not have done anything to make Protestant enquirers feel welcome.

He was also intellectual, obviously, and unless something made sense in an intellectual way, I think he’d have been suspicious. Someone else mentioned he was supposed to be a bit cynical about the recent Marian apparitions, and I think maybe he thought they were forms of devotion gone wild. As a former Protestant myself I disagree, since they were backed up with miracles.

I think however his main opposition would have been the “Infallibility” ruling regarding the Pope, since I believe Lewis was not prepared to be boxed into a corner on some possible ruling with which he could not possibly agree, and be told he had to believe it. I think his approach would have been “We’ve been given a brain,and God expects us to think for ourselves.”

For myself, I haven’t got much time for the “Infallibility” ruling either, since it is unnecessary. Christ had already told Peter and therefore the Popes that their decisions were “Binding” right at the very start. All the ultra-Montanists did at Vatican I was to create a barrier to church reunification. As long as that ruling stands, you will never get a Protestant reunifcation. And it isn’t even necessary.

However they’re some of my thoughts. After all if a Protestant feels happy in his or her current denomination, why should they change, unless they’ve got something in their makeup which pushes them to keep seeking the truth in its fullness? Or circumstances force them to reconsider?

I have no particular objection to these musings; they are more or less in accord with what Lewis said, in 1945, as I have cited. But I do point out that Lewis was quite fluent in Latin. No hindrance, there.

GKC