C. S. Lewis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tshort
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
Fair point.

But of course, that didn’t mean he couldn’t have converted to Roman Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, he COULD have, but I don’t think he ever would have. Culturally, his Irish Protestant upbringing drew a line in the sand. Socially, his place in academia was too rooted in the Church of England ethos. And theologically, he was exactly where he needed and wanted to be. A good broadchurch Anglican layman.

The quote from his wife Joy in a letter pretty much confirms this:

‘Lord, no; Jack is about as likely to turn Roman Catholic as I am to be made Pope.
That canard is a hardy perennial; the Romans always indulge in wishful thinking about anyone who has theological influence.But Jack isn’t even High Church.’ (Out of my Bone, Eerdmans, 2009)
 
Contarini said:
Yes, somebody (Dave Armstrong, I think) quoted Sheen on Facebook the other day and I thought it was Chesterton at first (though by the time I got to the end it didn’t sound so much like Chesterton).

Edwin
Click to expand...
Have I ever told you of the rather odd stuff I found in Sheen’s MOODS AND TRUTHS?
 
7_Sorrows said:
Wasn’t he a contemporary and friend of Tolkien?
Tolkien was Catholic. Some wonder if eventually he might have converted following in Newman’s footsteps.
Click to expand...
That’s a topic often raised here.

As a collector and student of Lewis for lo, these 50 years, no, he would not have converted.

And yes, he was a friend of Tolkien, though that faded out a little, in the 50s.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Yes, of course, he COULD have, but I don’t think he ever would have. Culturally, his Irish Protestant upbringing drew a line in the sand. Socially, his place in academia was too rooted in the Church of England ethos. And theologically, he was exactly where he needed and wanted to be. A good broadchurch Anglican layman.

The quote from his wife Joy in a letter pretty much confirms this:

‘Lord, no; Jack is about as likely to turn Roman Catholic as I am to be made Pope.
That canard is a hardy perennial; the Romans always indulge in wishful thinking about anyone who has theological influence.But Jack isn’t even High Church.’ (Out of my Bone, Eerdmans, 2009)
Click to expand...
He was, in fact, moving toward the Anglo-Catholic side of Anglicanism, in the latter part of his life, but never much a party man, but did affirm auricular confession, purgation, the Real Presence (possibly), and other points consistent with Anglo-Catholicism, though he himself did not consciously identify with any particular part of Anglicanism.
.
His principled objections to doctrines of the RCC are most clearly stated in a letter he wrote 8 May 1945 (which may be read in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C.S. LEWIS, vol II, ed. Hooper, pp. 645-646. In brief, he says 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 a posthumous (and, to some, a little suspect) essay (“Christian Reunion” 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. Like many orthodox Anglicans today, I doubt Lewis would be making the trip over.
 
GKC said:
He was, in fact, moving toward the Anglo-Catholic side of Anglicanism, in the latter part of his life, but never much a party man, but did affirm auricular confession, purgation, the Real Presence (possibly), and other points consistent with Anglo-Catholicism, though he himself did not consciously identify with any particular part of Anglicanism.
.
His principled objections to doctrines of the RCC are most clearly stated in a letter he wrote 8 May 1945 (which may be read in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C.S. LEWIS, vol II, ed. Hooper, pp. 645-646. In brief, he says 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 a posthumous (and, to some, a little suspect) essay (“Christian Reunion” 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. Like many orthodox Anglicans today, I doubt Lewis would be making the trip over.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your opinion GKC. I know you are the expert on Anglicanism here - and Hank.
 
Tshort said:
How do you all feel about C. S. Lewis’ writings?
Click to expand...
He’s the greatest modern Christian apologist that I know. I wish I could write like him.

He was also fair handed, and did not attack Catholicism. He had his reasons for not becoming Catholic, and there was a quote of his I was just trying to find in relation to his position on the Catholic / Protestant divide, but I can’t find it at the moment.

PS - I found it - on the net.

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/why-didnt-c-s-lewis-convert-to-catholicism
C. S. Lewis wrote in Christian Reunion:
Click to expand...
The real reason, I take it, why you cannot be in communion with us is not your disagreement with this or that particular Protestant doctrine, so much as the absence of any real “Doctrine”, in your sense of the word, at all. It is, you feel, like asking a man to say he agrees not with a speaker but with a debating society.
Click to expand...
And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say.
Click to expand...
To you the real vice of Protestantism is the formless drift which seems unable to retain the Catholic truths, which loses them one by one and ends in a “modernism” which cannot be classified as Christian by any tolerable stretch of the word. To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei - the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda. You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.
Click to expand...
I know no way of bridging this gulf.
Click to expand...
**
It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say.
Click to expand...
**

I think this verse would have been the core of Lewis refusal to become Catholic. If there was ever a man with a brain like a theological knife, it was CS Lewis. And he would adamantly refuse to be told what to believe, unless he could accept it logically and whole heartedly. He would have refused to give carte blanche approval to any doctrine he might not agree with, past, present or future.

Also the most effective tutor he had was William Kirkpatrick, nicknamed the “The Great Knock” by the Lewis family. Kirkpatrick was an atheist, but without him Lewis would quite possibly never have achieved academic greatness, and we would most certainly not have had Lewis the apologist.

Kirkpatrick taught Lewis to think for himself, with relentless onslaughts of logic. And for that reason also, Lewis would henceforth expect to think for himself.

From apilgriminnarnia.com/2013/05/30/poemknock/
In an October 2012 blog, “A Tribute to a Mentor,” I told the story of C.S. Lewis’ great teacher, William Kirkpatrick. He was called “The Great Knock” by the Lewis family, and he absolutely transformed C.S. Lewis’ way of thinking. Without “Kirk,” Lewis may never have found his place in the academy or learned to follow the evidence where it leads in matters of logic and philosophy.
Click to expand...
 
PS - Which means that one of the quirks of history is that the man who was perhaps the 20th century’s most effective Christian apologist owed much of his analytical and logical brilliance to an atheist.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
He’s the greatest modern Christian apologist that I know. I wish I could write like him.

He was also fair handed, and did not attack Catholicism. He had his reasons for not becoming Catholic, and there was a quote of his I was just trying to find in relation to his position on the Catholic / Protestant divide, but I can’t find it at the moment.

PS - I found it - on the net.

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/why-didnt-c-s-lewis-convert-to-catholicism
I think this verse would have been the core of Lewis refusal to become Catholic. If there was ever a man with a brain like a theological knife, it was CS Lewis. And he would adamantly refuse to be told what to believe, unless he could accept it logically and whole heartedly. He would have refused to give carte blanche approval to any doctrine he might not agree with, past, present or future.

Also the most effective tutor he had was William Kirkpatrick, nicknamed the “The Great Knock” by the Lewis family. Kirkpatrick was an atheist, but without him Lewis would quite possibly never have achieved academic greatness, and we would most certainly not have had Lewis the apologist.

Kirkpatrick taught Lewis to think for himself, with relentless onslaughts of logic. And for that reason also, Lewis would henceforth expect to think for himself.

From apilgriminnarnia.com/2013/05/30/poemknock/
Click to expand...
Thanks for those interesting quotes. They definitely give you something to think about.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
He’s the greatest modern Christian apologist that I know. I wish I could write like him.

He was also fair handed, and did not attack Catholicism. He had his reasons for not becoming Catholic, and there was a quote of his I was just trying to find in relation to his position on the Catholic / Protestant divide, but I can’t find it at the moment.

PS - I found it - on the net.

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/why-didnt-c-s-lewis-convert-to-catholicism
I think this verse would have been the core of Lewis refusal to become Catholic. If there was ever a man with a brain like a theological knife, it was CS Lewis. And he would adamantly refuse to be told what to believe, unless he could accept it logically and whole heartedly. He would have refused to give carte blanche approval to any doctrine he might not agree with, past, present or future.

Also the most effective tutor he had was William Kirkpatrick, nicknamed the “The Great Knock” by the Lewis family. Kirkpatrick was an atheist, but without him Lewis would quite possibly never have achieved academic greatness, and we would most certainly not have had Lewis the apologist.

Kirkpatrick taught Lewis to think for himself, with relentless onslaughts of logic. And for that reason also, Lewis would henceforth expect to think for himself.

From [May | 2013 | A Pilgrim in Narnia /30/poemknock/](May | 2013 | A Pilgrim in Narnia /30/poemknock/)
Click to expand...
The first answer given there is the most accurate and to the point. IMO.

Pearce’s book on Lewis and the RCC is the best of the 3 written on the subject. Don’t agree with it entirely, but better than Derrick’s or Willis’.
 
“You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.”

One of my all time favorite quotes.
 
adrift said:
One of my favorites. His space trilogy was terrific I am sorry he didn’t finish it.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow you here. In what way didn’t he finish the trilogy when we have his three books: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength? :confused:
I recommended the Great Divorce and lent my book to a friend. She brought the book back to me apologizing that she couldn’t get interested in it. I asked her to read the second chapter before she gave up on it. She finished the book and loved it. The first chapter makes sense only after you have read the entire book.
Click to expand...
It can be especially hard for American readers because the references are all contemporary to English society of Lewis’ day. If no one has written a supplementary for it, someone should. But I agree it’s well worth the read. 🙂

As for his comments about Catholicism being in a jungle, it has been in many jungles down through the ages and come out of them quite nicely. I wonder if the same can be said of his affiliation. I highly doubt he’d approve of the decisions his church has made since his passing. And as for not being able to accept whatever the Church might declare as doctrine (he seems not to have understood the difference between doctrine and dogma) it’s just plan silly. He wouldn’t accept a friend not knowing what he would say, so he wouldn’t accept the Catholic Church, either? But doesn’t one put one’s faith in a friend in spite of what he might say? That’s a poor comparison.

No, he meant he would not bow to authority, which is rather odd considering he wrote about obedience as fundamental to being Christian. No, he simply couldn’t get past his Ulster repellency for Catholicism, and wanted to remain independent of any particular association–to be, in effect, a Lone Ranger, a freelance Christian. It appears he didn’t fully grasp the meaning of the Body of Christ and of the Communion of Saints. Having read nearly everything he wrote, including various biographies, I think my analysis unbiased and correct.
 
Della said:
No, he meant he would not bow to authority, which is rather odd considering he wrote about obedience as fundamental to being Christian. No, he simply couldn’t get past his Ulster repellency for Catholicism, and wanted to remain independent of any particular association–to be, in effect, a Lone Ranger, a freelance Christian. It appears he didn’t fully grasp the meaning of the Body of Christ and of the Communion of Saints
Click to expand...
Goodness, do you have citations for these claims, either in Lewis’ writings or in a scholarly work? I’m not sure I would agree with what you stated here.
 
Lewis was instrumental in my reconversion to Christianity and also to my basic understanding of the tenants of the faith.

Chesterton might be the most gifted writer I have ever read. But you have to be able to understand his very unique wit and humor. If you do not, he wont have any effect on you.

A beautiful short essay by Chesterton : chesterton.org/a-piece-of-chalk/
 
St_Redemption said:
Lewis was instrumental in my reconversion to Christianity and also to my basic understanding of the tenants of the faith.

Chesterton might be the most gifted writer I have ever read. But you have to be able to understand his very unique wit and humor. If you do not, he wont have any effect on you.

A beautiful short essay by Chesterton : chesterton.org/a-piece-of-chalk/
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link. That is my first work by G.K. Chesterton to ever read! it is brilliant! I will definitely have to start reading his works. I loved this!
 
St_Redemption said:
Lewis was instrumental in my reconversion to Christianity and also to my basic understanding of the tenants of the faith.

Chesterton might be the most gifted writer I have ever read. But you have to be able to understand his very unique wit and humor. If you do not, he wont have any effect on you.

A beautiful short essay by Chesterton : chesterton.org/a-piece-of-chalk/
Click to expand...
One of the first 2-3 essays of Chesterton’s I ever read, back in 1964, in its republished appearance in TREMENDOUS TRIFLES… One of the things that started me collecting him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top