Did C.S Lewis have a known view on Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter rweidn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rweidn

Guest
Am just starting to explore Lewis’ writings in more detail past Mere Christianity (am reading Miracles at present). I have a growing admiration for this man.Did he ever talk about the Catholic faith?
 
From C.S. Lewis’ essay “Christian Reunion - An Anglican speaks to Roman Catholics”, which was written at the invitation of some Catholic friends and discovered and published after his death:

“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.

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.

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.

I know no way of bridging this gulf.”
― C.S. Lewis, Christian Reunion And Other Essays
 
While I personally found Mere Christianity very useful in my own trips and travails back to the Catholic Faith, there is much in it that can be said to be objectionable or, at best, incomplete.

The Sacraments, the means instituted by God as the main ways to grant us His Grace, are lacking; unsurprisingly so, as he didn’t believe in a divinely instituted Church whose priests - who share in Our Lord’s priesthood - perpetuate Christ’s action and presence to this very day.

The reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Incarnate yet hidden Love that is the Blessed Sacrament are totally lacking in Mere Christianity, despite the reality that these are the bedrock of the Christian Faith - the Eucharistic sacrifice being described as “the fount and apex of the Christian life” (LG11).

By all means read CS Lewis - especially the Screwtape Letters and the Great Divorce - he has some very interesting things to say; but supplement him with some G.K. Chesterton (whom I personally find much wittier than C.S. Lewis) and Fulton Sheen, to name two very accessible, ingenious and, above all, orthodox authors.
 
I would love to ask him, now, if his views have changed. On the one hand he was inclined not to overemphasize current events. But he did take into account some trends in his lifetime. I don’t mean he would jump on whatever band wagon is popular, but he observed what was happening, and took new data from his lifetime into account. If he lived longer, he would observe the data from the extra years.

I believe he regarded Catholicism as good, but carrying some extra baggage. I think he regarded the Anglican solution - balancing High Church and Low Church, balancing the scholars, the bishops, and the sensus fidei, balancing Scripture and Tradition, as ideal. He accurately predicted (see That Hideous Strength, The Abolition of Man, and essays) the rise to power of secularism. He did not predict how rapidly the “balance” of Anglicanism would come apart, and the empowerment of Broad Church, not only there but in Protestantism generally.

Would he, now, say TODAY I see the value of the Magisterium; it is a brake against bad things. It is the absence of a living Magisterium that is a loose cannon. Or loose canon.

He has lots of more important things to do right now than grant interviews to a curious Catholic. But if he did, he probably would tell me to stop spending so much time on religious websites, spend more time on my knees, and get busy with spiritual and corporal works of mercy!
 
afs108 said:
From C.S. Lewis’ essay “Christian Reunion - An Anglican speaks to Roman Catholics”, which was written at the invitation of some Catholic friends and discovered and published after his death
Click to expand...
THANK YOU for referring me to this work. I have a fairly complete collection of Lewis’ writings, but was not aware of this. I have just ordered it from Amazon (for $4.50, delivered).
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...
:rotfl: EXACTLY.
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...
This is a very interesting objection. The Catholic Church prohibits membership in any “secret society” (such as the Masons) using this same reasoning - we cannot ethically pledge our honor to an unknown code of ethics.

In the case of the Freemasons, the code is known to some, but unknown to initiates who must pledge their honor to it. In the case of the Catholic Church, initiates must pledge their honor to WHATEVER the Church teaches, and that teaching might develop over time in a way that NOBODY anticipated when the initiates took their pledge.

This is interesting enough that I think it deserves its own thread. I intend to post such a thread in the next day or so.
 
I think Jack’s post-mortem intercessions have been instrumental in the conversion to the Catholic Church of several of his fiends–including the late Sheldon Van Auken (A Severe Mercy and Under the Mercy) and his personal secretary as well.

Jack never left the Anglican Church in this world–but the Anglican Church has sure left him since.
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
I think Jack’s post-mortem intercessions have been instrumental in the conversion to the Catholic Church of several of his fiends–including the late Sheldon Van Auken (A Severe Mercy and Under the Mercy) and his personal secretary as well.

Jack never left the Anglican Church in this world–but the Anglican Church has sure left him since.
Click to expand...
I’m interested in that, Lion of Narnia. What do mean the Anglican Church has sure left him?
 
I cannot understand for the life of me why some people are of the opinion CS Lewis was anti-Catholic.

I grew up in Belfast, not far from where CS Lewis was born. Protestant and Catholic alike are proud of him here, and Catholics here do not think he was anti-Catholic. Kids in Catholic and Protestant schools in the North of Ireland read the Narnia Chronicles and he is much respected by both communities.

In fact, Anglicans and Catholics tend to have a good relationship in the North of Ireland and respect for each other despite their differences. The Anglican Church (Church of Ireland) are more accepting of Catholicism than any other Protestant denomination in Ireland, and have in unison done a lot for peace and this country. In the height of the ‘Troubles’ I can recall being taken on a school trip to stay with an Anglican youth community in Dublin and we got on great - as did the Priest and the Church of Ireland minister. Roger Schultz was an Anglican monk and formed the Taize community. Young Catholics from here go on pilgrimages to Taize.

I would guess few would have given CS Lewis a second thought in terms of being anti-Catholic had it not been for the Narnia films. I wish some people would stop beating on CS Lewis as anti-Catholic. It erodes our hope. 😦
 
Exiled_Child said:
I’m interested in that, Lion of Narnia. What do mean the Anglican Church has sure left him?
Click to expand...
I think the above referenced work, Joseph Pearce’s “C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church”. examines this issue quite well. Even before Jack left this world (11/22/1963–the same day as John F. Kennedy & Aldous Huxley–see Professor Kreeft’s excellent dialogue book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley the Anglicans tolerance if not promotion of dissident nigh-well heretical theologians (such a Bishop John A.T. Robinson who seems to be the inspiration for the bishop in The Great Divorce) was dispiriting Lewis–IF jack had lived 10, even 15 more years I think the disparity between his loyalty and the reality of what Anglicanism had turned into would have been too much (much like it did for St John Newman in the 19th century)
 
Interesting thread. I love CS lewis work.
I don’t think he was anti-catholic at all. I actually don’t even understand whay de did not become a Catholic. Two famous Catholics writers, Chesterton (specially his book “Everlasting Men” and Tolkien (his personal friend), were essential in Lewis conversion to Chritianity.

C.S Lewis, Chesterton and Tolkien. I love them all.👍
 
Otavio said:
Interesting thread. I love CS lewis work.
I don’t think he was anti-catholic at all. I actually don’t even understand whay de did not become a Catholic. Two famous Catholics writers, Chesterton (specially his book “Everlasting Men” and Tolkien (his personal friend), were essential in Lewis conversion to Chritianity.

C.S Lewis, Chesterton and Tolkien. I love them all.👍
Click to expand...
Somehow missed this thread, originally.

Lewis was not anti-Catholic in the usual sense, but the fact that he was unable to accept all that the RCC requires, for membership, makes some folk refer to him with that term.

He made reference to his objections to what the RCC teaches, in a letter which may be read in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C.S. LEWIS, vol II, ed. Hooper, pp. 645-646. In brief, 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. Plus the essay on Christian Reunion, cited above. There is some question in the world of Lewisiana, whether that essay is Lewis, in toto, but I have no problem with it.

It’s THE EVERLASTING MAN, by Chesterton.

And what Tolkien (and Hugo Dyson) did was convince Lewis to return to Christianity.

GKC, collector of Lewis, Chesterton, and Tolkien, for 60 years and more. And much more, besides.
 
Otavio said:
Great post, GKC. 👍

Yes, of course.Thanks. It was a typo. I’ve read it in portuguese. It was translated as “Homem Eterno”
Click to expand...
Thank you. It is a subject that pops up frequently.

Fair enough, on the title. I typo a lot, myself.
 
I have read the Joseph Pearce book; and other essays by people who are now Catholic.
Lewis is so good that Catholics have to try to analyze and explain why he did not become Catholic (since we naturally, and humbly, assume that’s the best choice for anyone).

Is there much writing from the Protestant perspective to show that his convictions specifically in Protestantism were not merely continuing in the faith community he was already in, but still his current preference, his current choice towards the end of his life? I think they have an institute or something about him at Wheaton.

It’s always risky to assume you know a man based on his writings, and worse to make projections of what his decision would have been had he lived through subsequent events.
I am sure if he were here, he would tell us to focus on Christ, not him. I wish Catholics would try as hard to evangelize the people currently alive down the street as we try to make arguments to retroactively “claim a convert” a man who finished his journey 50 years ago.

GKC, since you probably have read all 24,327 of his letters published after his death (don’t know how** he** feels about that), does his private correspondence reveal any major themes that we did not have from what he chose to publish?
 
commenter said:
I have read the Joseph Pearce book; and other essays by people who are now Catholic.
Lewis is so good that Catholics have to try to analyze and explain why he did not become Catholic (since we naturally, and humbly, assume that’s the best choice for anyone).

Is there much writing from the Protestant perspective to show that his convictions specifically in Protestantism were not merely continuing in the faith community he was already in, but still his current preference, his current choice towards the end of his life? I think they have an institute or something about him at Wheaton.

It’s always risky to assume you know a man based on his writings, and worse to make projections of what his decision would have been had he lived through subsequent events.
I am sure if he were here, he would tell us to focus on Christ, not him. I wish Catholics would try as hard to evangelize the people currently alive down the street as we try to make arguments to retroactively “claim a convert” a man who finished his journey 50 years ago.

GKC, since you probably have read all 24,327 of his letters published after his death (don’t know how** he** feels about that), does his private correspondence reveal any major themes that we did not have from what he chose to publish?
Click to expand...
You do me too much honor. Lewis’ letters fill 3 huge volumes, totaling around 4000 pages. One might add the 500 pages in his diary excerpts, published as ALL MY ROAD BEFORE ME, and even assuming the 600 pages of his collected letters to his longtime friend Arthur Greaves (THEY STAND TOGETHER) were already included in the COLLECTED LETTERS, one sees that trying to read a significant portion of those would leave me little time for the manifold other stuff I pursue. I use them as reference material: hail the mighty index. As an aside, there was certain material in the Greaves letters, included by the editor of the collection, that was, in a certain sense, revelatory. But not as to anything pertinent to this question.

To answer your question in para 3, no. Nothing I’ve found shows him drifting from his Anglican base, though his practice as an Anglican gradually moved in the direction of the Anglo-Catholic side of the spectrum, a definite change. Even so, he was never a partisan party man, in Anglicanism,

Tolkien, who took it hard that Lewis didn’t make the leap (a point that may have contributed, along with some others that have been adduced, to the gradual estrangement between him and Lewis), mused on Lewis’ title for his first post reversion work, PILGRIMS REGRESS. He considered that Lewis, in returning to the Church of his youth, was indeed “reverting” and and entering Christianity by the old familiar door (and the wrong one, of course).

Wheaton College is the home for the Marion E. Wade Center, dedicated to the study of seven authors that, in a sense, hang together: Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, Owen Barfield, and George MacDonald (plus material on Joy Davidman Lewis). It is a repository of much stuff, original and scholarly, ( and one of the two Lewis wardrobes said to be the Wardrobe) and a great boon to scholars of the Seven. They publish a really excellent journal, VII. I had a subscription to it for years. A member of my parish was a Board member, as a Sayers expert, and the core of the Center’s Chesterton material was the personal collection of a man who was the source of much of my Chesterton stuff, for 20 years.

As to your para 2, yes. So I’ve noticed.
 
Added: And Charles Williams, to make seven. I don’t count very well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top