Narnia

[Contarini]

Lewis was not a “private Catholic” (in the sense you mean). There is not a shred of evidence that he would have incorporated that kind of symbolism deliberately. He repeatedly rejected the claims of the See of Rome throughout his life and never showed any signs of accepting them. There are two whole books written by Catholics puzzling over why this is so, because many Catholics find it hard to understand why someone as wise and orthodox as Lewis wouldn’t have Seen the Light.

It’s reality. Live with it.

Edwin

 

[JGeorge]

Contarini:

It’s reality. Live with it.

There is no need to be defensive my Anglican friend. As I said, I don’t know much about Lewis, and it was just a thought I had as I watched the movie. I was more curious whether anybody had similar thoughts.

 

[CatholicSam]

We also got to see it on Christmas Eve We thoroughly enjoyed it and are going to buy the DVD. If we didn’t have a one year old, we would probably go and see it again in the theater (no, we didn’t take him with us to go see it, although someone else in the audience did take a toddler, who was in and out the entire time).

BUT I was almost horrified when I asked a friend’s 8 year old daughter if she was going to see Narnia. She said “No way!!! That is soooo boring! Yuck! *We * went to see Cheaper by the Dozen 2 instead! It was really really good!” Then my friend started complaining that her mom bought the Narnia books for her daughter to read “because she has a beef with Harry Potter.” I was speechless. Actually, my husband bought me the Narnia books, and I can’t wait to read them with him, and later, with my son.

 

[farmbabe1]

I have a question to those of you who have seen the movie and read the book…Having done neither myself, would you advise to read the book first before going to see the movie? I bought my son the book series for Christmas and we will be reading the books together. Should we wait to see the movie? Also, I’ve noticed that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is not the first book in the series. Should we read them in sequence (i.e., read The Magician’s Nephew first)? Thanks!

 

[David_Zampino]

farmbabe1:

I have a question to those of you who have seen the movie and read the book…Having done neither myself, would you advise to read the book first before going to see the movie? I bought my son the book series for Christmas and we will be reading the books together. Should we wait to see the movie? Also, I’ve noticed that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is not the first book in the series. Should we read them in sequence (i.e., read The Magician’s Nephew first)? Thanks!

By all means, PLEASE read the book first! As great as the movie was (and it WAS great – I’ve seen it twice already) books are ALWAYS better than movies!

And read “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” first. This “re-numbering” of the Chronicles of Narnia is something which started many, many years after Lewis’ death for reasons which have yet been reasonably explained to me. Read the books in the order in which they were written.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

JGeorge:

I have seen The Chronicles of Narnia twice now and I’m beginning to think there are two levels of symbolism in the movie. The first, and the most widely accepted, symbolism has to do with Aslan being Christ, the Witch being Satan, and Edmund being the human whose betrayal forces Aslan to sacrifice himself. I’ve heard it said that Lucy, Susan and Peter represent the different apostles. I can see Lucy representing John, Peter representing Peter and Susan being the doubting Thomas.

Yes, I think that most people would see Aslan as a “type” of Christ, and that the betrayal and redemption of Edmond/death and resurrection of Aslan, is also “typology” represnting Christ’s redemption of mankind.

However, I wouldn’t take it further than that. Lewis was somewhat more accepting of allegory than was Tolkien (who despised it) but would not (and in my view, DID not) deliberately write layers and layers of very technical and elaborate allegory into the story.

JGeorge:

The second level of symbolism I see deals with Edmund and his relationship with Peter. I think Peter is not just a representation of the apostle Peter, but also of the Papacy. If Peter represents the Papacy, than whom does Edmund represent? At the beginning of the movie we see Peter’s mother giving him “authority” over his brother Edmund. Throughout the movie Peter is annoyed by Edmund’s unwillingness to obey him. There are several times in the movie where Peter turns to Edmund and says, “Why won’t you listen to me?” I’m wondering if Edmund, and especially his betrayal of his family, might represent the Anglican split from the Catholic Church. Edmund betrays his brother for Turkish delight and the promise of being King of Narnia. He betrays his family for “sweeties”, as the witch puts it. This reminded me of King Henry, who left the Catholic Church because he wanted to fornicate with his mistress and divorce his wife, and later declared himself supreme head of the Church in England.

I think that this is really a stretch, both in the analysis of the movie – and of the fundamental history behind the schism of England from Rome – a great tragedy, I agree – but oversimplified here.

JGeorge:

If you consider Lewis’ life I don’t think this theory is that unreasonable. I don’t know much about Lewis, but I have heard that he was very close to becoming a Catholic near the end of his life. Others have written that he had always been a ”private Catholic”. If there is any truth to either of these claims, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Lewis incorporated something about the Anglican split in his stories.

Sorry – I don’t buy this. The very best biographer of Lewis, George Sayer – who WAS a convert to Catholicism (and who knew Lewis longer and better than any of the so-called “experts” who have written about him) suggested that Lewis was closest to becoming a Catholic about 1950 – a position from which he retreated. Indeed, Sayer believes that Lewis actively prevented his older brother Warnie from converting while in hospital in Ireland.

In “Mere Christianity”, Lewis described himself as “neither particularly high, nor particularly low” with regard to his membership in the Church of England. This, perhaps, was an exaggeration, as Lewis held to a sacramental theology which would have been rejected by the Evangelical (“Low”) Party in the C of E. He also practiced auricular confession and a belief in Purgatory – other doctrines which would not have been accepted by the Evangelicals. He was also a member of a “High” parish near Oxford.

I suspect the reason he made the statement was to distance himself from the political battles raging in the Church of England at that time.

Blessings,

 

[Della]

David Zampino:

By all means, PLEASE read the book first! As great as the movie was (and it WAS great – I’ve seen it twice already) books are ALWAYS better than movies!

And read “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” first. This “re-numbering” of the Chronicles of Narnia is something which started many, many years after Lewis’ death for reasons which have yet been reasonably explained to me. Read the books in the order in which they were written.

Blessings,

Lewis, after he had completed all 7 stories, said that they should be read chronologically instead of in the order in which he wrote them. But, an author is not always the best judge of these things. I think reading the Magician’s Nephew first would spoil the fun of “discovering” Narnia along with Lucy (especially Lucy) and her brothers and sister. I recommend reading LWW first and then MN to fill in some of the gaps and answer some of the questions LWW raises about the origins of Narnia.

 

[Contarini]

JGeorge:

There is no need to be defensive my Anglican friend. As I said, I don’t know much about Lewis, and it was just a thought I had as I watched the movie. I was more curious whether anybody had similar thoughts.

Sorry. But I attend the meetings of the New York C. S. Lewis society and get a lot of this kind of thing (not that the C. S. Lewis Society is only made up of Catholics. And Cardinal Dulles spoke to the Society’s 35th anniversary and had some excellent things to say. So I’m not bashing Catholic Lewis fans!). Catholics need to accept that not everyone they like is on the path to conversion. Just as Protestant fans of St. Bernard of Clairvaux or any other great Catholic writer need to stop trying to portray their hero as a crypto-Protestant. (I heard a lot of that growing up.)

Part of genuine ecumenism is a generous acknowledgment of the good things to be found in each other’s traditions while allowing them to be what they are–different and other.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

"The difficulty that remains, and which becomes sharper as it becomes narrower, is our disagreement about the seat and nature of doctrinal Authority. 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 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."

• Christian Reunion and Other Essays (Collins: Fount Books 1990 pp.18-20): excerpted from “Christian Reunion - An Anglican Speaks to Roman Catholics” [no date given].

These are not the words of a man who is on the way out from the Church of England; still less of a man on the edge of “Poping”.

I hope this is some help ##

 

[Libero]

I liked the film, however, I do not think they casted Aslan very well, his voice didn’t seem to fit the role. The children were very good - it is a shame Susan? didn’t get more lines, however my favourite had to be the witch

 

[Hildebrand]

Contarini:

S Just as Protestant fans of St. Bernard of Clairvaux or any other great Catholic writer need to stop trying to portray their hero as a crypto-Protestant.

My Lutheran history professor tried to do that with Thomas More and Erasmus.

 

[Della]

"The difficulty that remains, and which becomes sharper as it becomes narrower, is our disagreement about the seat and nature of doctrinal Authority. 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 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."

• Christian Reunion and Other Essays (Collins: Fount Books 1990 pp.18-20): excerpted from “Christian Reunion - An Anglican Speaks to Roman Catholics” [no date given].

These are not the words of a man who is on the way out from the Church of England; still less of a man on the edge of “Poping”.

I hope this is some help ##

I’ve read this before and feel sorry that Lewis, who wrote so well about trusting in Christ’s promises, balked at trusting that Christ still spoke infallibly through human beings in his Church, all the while admitting his “branch” of Christianity was unraveling all around him. What a pity the man couldn’t see that ALL of Christ’s promises are to be trusted not just those we understand or find personally acceptable, which was, I believe, his real hang up.

 

[MrS]

Della:

I’ve read this before and feel sorry that Lewis, who wrote so well about trusting in Christ’s promises, balked at trusting that Christ still spoke infallibly through human beings in his Church, all the while admitting his “branch” of Christianity was unraveling all around him. What a pity the man couldn’t see that ALL of Christ’s promises are to be trusted not just those we understand or find personally acceptable, which was, I believe, his real hang up.

A good comment… one that I often “assign” to people I know and love.

Regardless of his state of mind in life… CS is a Catholic now
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_22_26.gif

 

[farmbabe1]

Thank you David Zampino and Della…Can’t wait to get started (will start with LWW, first!)…

Sara

 

[David_Zampino]

Della:

Lewis, after he had completed all 7 stories, said that they should be read chronologically instead of in the order in which he wrote them.

I’ve heard this several times before . . . but have never seen any citation to Lewis’ writings attesting to this.

I’m suspicious only because of the extreme controversy surrounding so much of the Lewis corpus after his death, much of it formented by people who really should have known better.

Blessings,

 

[Contarini]

Hildebrand:

My Lutheran history professor tried to do that with Thomas More and Erasmus.

Thomas More? Unbelievable.

I can see more easily why someone would do that to Erasmus, though it’s still silly. Didn’t he know about Erasmus’s “Letter against the false evangelicals”? Didn’t he know that Luther said that Erasmus’s Diatribe on Free Will went to the heart of the difference between Luther and his Catholic opponents?

Erasmus wouldn’t have fit any of the confessional alignments in the post-Tridentine era (though no doubt he would have found some way to evade being condemned outright). It’s interesting to think about whether the same would have been true of More. . . .

Edwin

 

[Della]

Contarini:

Erasmus wouldn’t have fit any of the confessional alignments in the post-Tridentine era (though no doubt he would have found some way to evade being condemned outright). It’s interesting to think about whether the same would have been true of More. . . .

Edwin

Probably why More has been declared a saint and Erasmus hasn’t.

 

[Della]

David Zampino:

I’ve heard this several times before . . . but have never seen any citation to Lewis’ writings attesting to this.

I’m suspicious only because of the extreme controversy surrounding so much of the Lewis corpus after his death, much of it formented by people who really should have known better.

Blessings,

I found this quite easily by googling, although I don’t agree with the website author’s opinions on the topic.

 

[David_Zampino]

Della:

I found this quite easily by googling, although I don’t agree with the website author’s opinions on the topic.

Actually, without committing myself to agreement or disagreemtent with specific points, I found that the author of the article had quite a bit of value to say.

While I remain suspicious of the modern publishers who (in my mind) re-arrange things, and while I remain partial to the original order – I must confess that the author of the article cited makes some points worth pondering.

THANKS for sharing!!!

Blessings,

 

[marvin]

Never read the book unfortunately. However, I thought the movie was fantastic. I took my two kids to see it. They liked it as well.
My oldest wants to read the books now so that’s a real plus.

I’m having a hard time putting into words how I felt about the movie as I was watching it. It was very deep but not complex, if you know what I mean. Just very well done. A moving and worthwhile experience at the movies, which is all too rare these days.