What does everyone think about C.S.Lewis? Do you like his fiction books or belief books? Just curious. He had a great number of close catholic friends like J.R.R. Tolkien. Cool.

-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), December 11, 2003

Answers

C.S. Lewis' Narnia books are great. They are chock full of symbolism relating the Lion Aslan to Christ, Aslan's "Father beyond the sea" to God the Father, the White Witch, etc, to Satan, etc, etc, etc. I fell in love with these books when I was a kid and, years later, they are still some of my favorites.

However, I'd have to say that probably my most dearly loved book of all time is one by C.S. Lewis entitled "Till We Have Faces", a retelling of the Cupid and Psyche story. (This is where I get my internet handle from.) The author relates Cupid to Christ and Psyche to the soul. Beautiful, beautiful. The entire book is about the soul's relationship with Christ. Beautiful.

If you haven't read that one, please go do so.

I don't believe I've read any of his "belief books", but only his fiction. There was another series he wrote which included "That Hideous Strengh" and "Out of the Silent Planet" if I'm not mistaken (which is actually quite possible) which (the series - a trilogy) is quite good too, but which I didn't enjoy as much as "Till We Have Faces" and the Narnia books.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), December 12, 2003.

On fiction, the Narnia books are great, and his "space" trilogy bored me to tears, I don't think I finished the set, which is rare for me, usually I'll plug through whatever just for stubbornness' sake, but it WAS a long, long, time ago.

On non-fiction, I'd recommend "Mere Christianity", which is a transcribed version of radio presentations he gave during WWII, and very good. And although I don't know where you'd place this one, "The Screwtape Letters" was also very disappointing, IMO.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2003.

I have enjoyed his book on the Psalms: lots of interesting insights.

Good wishes,

Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), December 12, 2003.

Oh speaking of the "Space Triogy" (which i'm actualy in the process of reading right now) it's amazing! "Perelandra" is one of the best books I have ever read. I'm on the first chapters of "That Hideous Strength"

-- (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), December 12, 2003.

C.S. Lewis rocks. His writting in inceredible. I haven't found a book by him yet that I wouldn't recommend. I have read The Narnia Series for his fiction and then The Great Divorce, Mere Christianity, The Four Loves, Screwtape Letters, and The World's Last Night and Other Essays for his non-fiction.

If you ask some people that have really studied him, they say that if he had lived longer he would have become Catholic. That would have been cool.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Scott, you wrote:
"If you ask some people that have really studied him, they say that if he had lived longer he would have become Catholic. That would have been cool."

I fear that this is wishful thinking. The facts about C.S. Lewis and Catholicism are so discouraging to me that they keep me from even reading his works. (I think that I have an unread copy of "Mere Christianity," and I've seen excerpts from some of his other works.)

Some of you may have heard of the apologetics organization named "Catholics United for the Faith" [CUF]. It is now being run in Steubenville, Ohio, and it publishes an outstanding monthly magazine named "Lay Witness." CUF was founded in 1968 by a convert from Anglicanism, H. Lyman Stebbins. Stebbins, a 1933 gradue of Yale, began to read C.S. Lewis in 1942 and admired his works greatly. He boldly approached Lewis by mail, as an Anglican in 1945, and received a candid reply, which contained the following words of Lewis (quoted by Stebbins's widow, who has the letter):

"What is most certain is the vast mass of doctrine which I find agreed on by Scripture, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, modern Roman [sic] Catholics, modern Protestants. That is true 'catholic' doctrine. Mere 'modernism' I reject at once. The Roman [sic] Church, where it differs from this universal tradition and specially from apostolic Christianity, I reject. Thus their theology about the Blessed Virgin Mary I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament, where indeed the words, 'Blessed is the womb that bore thee," receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction.

"Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St. Paul toward St. Peter in the epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists on defining in a way which the New Testament seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is. ... What we are committed to believing is whatever can be proved from Scripture."

The disdainful language that Lewis used in private disgusts me, and his "sola scriptura" position is useless rubbish. A more recent great convert, Thomas Howard (author of "Evangelicaal is Not Enough" and "On Being Catholic" and host of EWTN series), says that Lewis referred to himself as an "Ulsterman" (evoking the extreme anti-Catholic prejudice of Northern Ireland's Ulster province). As such, Lewis was unlikely ever to consider becoming a Catholic. Lyman Stebbins, however, was deeply blessed. He received the grace to ignore what Lewis wrote to him, and he entered the Catholic Church in 1946.

[To show you how strongly I feel about this, I will tell you that I took the trouble to copy the above, by hand, from a 1998 issue of "Lay Witness." (You can see issues from 1999-2003 at www.cuf.org.)]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Oops! When I said that I had "cop[ied] the above," I was referring only to the quotation from the Lewis letter. The rest is my own writing. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Thanks for the info. I never knew he actually was that anti- Catholic. It saddens me even more that he identified himself with the Ulster party since I long to walk in my ancestral lands, without the anti-Catholicism and the British Government.

-- John (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

That last post was addressed to John and signed by me.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

I can assure you he was no anti-catholic. Please take a look at the resources.

http://www.ignatius.com/MyAccount/ViewProduct.asp? SID=1&Product_ID=736&TabID=1

http://www.ignatius.com/MyAccount/ViewProduct.asp? SID=1&Product_ID=2034&TabID=1

rtsp://radio.catholic.com/catholic/radio/calive/2002/ca020405.rm

-- Scott Larkins (slarkins1@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.

Scott, Can you quote Lewis on transubstantiation and the other issues that John raised that would counter John's theory?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

One can be strongly against joining the Catholic church without being anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholic would be to persecute and condemn the Church. This is a step that Lewis would never take. Note that private remarks do not public censure make. Sean

-- sean cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

If I remember right, he was a good friend of prof. Tolkein, who WAS a Catholic, and they discussed their faiths. Given his public writings, it's hard to believe he was a rabid anti-Catholic.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

Apparently, you guys who are supporting Lewis failed to read what I quoted from his letter -- or you were already so prejudiced in his favor that you would have forgiven almost anything he said.

Well, I was not prejudiced (pro or con) before reading the letter, so I accurately felt the full brunt of Lewis's anti-Catholicism. The fact that he called himself an "Ulsterman" -- plus the following sentence, in which he reveals his true heart (hidden in public) -- tells the story, in my opinion:

"... the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is."

He is saying that his Anglicanism is the true Church of Jesus, while Catholicism -- referred to by the extremely disparaging term, "Romanism" -- appears to him to be no better than a shabby protestant denomination.

Before I die, I may read something written by Lewis, but I doubt that I will ever fully respect him, because of his anti-Catholicism.

God bless you.
John
PS: Scott L., the fact that some Catholics sell some of his works does not sway me. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that those who sell his works have no idea that he was anti-Catholic. It is not well publicized.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

i heard C S Lewis was actually an ATHEIST. im not kidding. he was knowledgable of christianity, and was not antagonistic against it, but was a non-believer nonetheless.

oh, and he and tolkein were more than just buds, if you know what i mean.

both these points i heard from a huge fan of the "rings" movies. (i am not a fan of either man). this is all speculation, though.

-- (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.

C.S. Lewis was not an atheist, he was a practicing Anglican and he wrote a number of Anglican theological works. Although Lewis struggled with his faith a number of times, he did not settle on atheism, instead he settled on Christianity. It would be very difficult to show any evidence of atheism. Anyone proposing such a thing needs to provide proof.

Tolkin and Lewis were members of the same group of scholars who periodically met at a coffee house. They seldom were alone together. Anyone proposing a different relationship needs to provide proof.

See this article

In Christ,
Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.

Lewis claimed to be an atheist before he became a Christian. But technically he was raised Anglican and after straying into something most likely agnostic, rather than atheistic, he had an experience that made him return to a dedicated faith. (which to my knowledge he never divulged what that event involved)

There is a website out there that claims Lewis was a pawn of the devil and actually Catholic. So the opinions run both ways.

I don't believe Lewis was antiCatholic, just he had no intention of becoming Catholic and had some disagreements. Overall despite his choice of denominations I think he was nondenominational in spirit, that as long as the group was within certain bounds of orthodoxy one was about as good as another. And he groups Catholicism in that, just one of many rooms in the building to choose from. Still, some of his thought is actually incredibly Catholic compared to modern evangelical/fundamentalist protestantism.

Marcia

-- Marcia Dietrich (marciadietrich@yahoo.com), January 05, 2004.

Clive Staples Lewis was a brilliant man. By his own admittance he was once an atheist having been heavily influenced by one as a young man (he lost his parents at an early age). There is no reason to doubt his love of Christ or his deep faith. There are a number of biographies about him and his literary works. If he is catholic or not should have no bearing on his work, I am surprised that should matter. His works are proof of his true Christian beliefs.

Might I suggest the film Shadowlands (Written by William Nicholson). It was a theatrical release in 1993 and is based on the later years of his life and a point where his faith was tested.

That there is a website that equates him with the devil should come as no surprise. Anyone can have a website about and fill it with fiction and nonsense. Too many rely on the web as the sole source of information.

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.c0m), January 08, 2004.

John D, you wrote:
"Clive Staples Lewis was a brilliant man."
Being "brilliant" does not make one holy. Being brilliant didn't keep him from making anti-Catholic comments in private. Being brilliant didn't prevent him from being unable to overcome prejudices.

You also wrote:
"His works are proof of his true Christian beliefs."
Having not read them, I am not in a position to say whether "his works" contain a mixture of Christian (i.e., Catholic) truth and non-Catholic error. But even without reading them, I can say with certainty that they do not contain the fullness of the truth. His works have at least have one major gap in religious truth -- the Petrine primacy -- if not religious errors also.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

John,

The reason I mentioned that he was brilliant was not to equate brilliance with a state of grace (we all know of brilliant men who were equally evil). I mention it to enlighten those who do not know who he is. To say he was brilliant is actually not to do him justice. He was a true scholar with the gift of great wisdom and wit.

A few posts here are simply not true. He was, for a time, an atheist and he himself has spoken of it in interviews. Another post insinuates that he had a homosexual relationship with Tolkein. It is disappointing that you have not read any of his work yet condemn it out of hand. I have not read all of his work but I do when I have the opportunity to do so. I cannot comment on writings of his I have not read but I would be willing to step out on a limb and say I doubt there are any that speak ill of the Roman Catholic church. The fact that you will find his books sold in Roman Catholic bookstores and websites may not impress you, but his works are also recommended by New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/). That goes beyond merely selling his books. By the way, www.cuf.org also mentions his books in a positive way

C.S. Lewis may not have been a Roman Catholic but he was more Christian than half the folks that sit in the pew next to me in Mass. If you don’t care for his style that’s fine (unlike Frank, I thoroughly enjoyed the Screwtape Letters). But at least read his work before condemning him out of hand.

Peace

John

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 08, 2004.

C.S. Lewis's reversion to Christianity was sparked, initially, by the depth of sorrow he felt at the loss of his mother. He explains this in his book "Surprised by Joy."

His fiction is interesting, but IMHO, his best works were his apologetics. The "Screwtape Letters" is great. So is "The Problem of Pain." Although he was not Catholic, these books are always available at even the most orthodox Catholic bookstores, (those that are also loyal to the magisterium).

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 09, 2004.

I have not read that book as of yet.

I do know that he became an atheist after the death of his mother (he was 9 0r 10 when his mother died) and was not drawn back to Christ until he was a much older man.

Peace

John

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.

Ok, enough bashing on C.S. Lewis. I did not start this to condem him as many in here are doing. No he was not Catholic but he was not ANTI Catholic eigther! He believed the Catholic Church WAS Christianity unlike most protestants today. He was not "against" the church, but he had his opinons about it. Lewis and Tolkien had many discussions about these things (and Tolkien was a VERY strict Catholic) His works are brilliant I think (fiction and non-fiction) So stop trying to condem him to hell because of some words he spoke that aren't for the catholic church, he nevertheless still respected it as a christian church. I'm sure some arogant person will write back and condem me now. Sadly, ridiculous things in the church caused the refremation.

-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), January 09, 2004.

Jmj

One of the greatest crosses I have to bear in life is coming here, day after day, and having people unjustly attack what I have written -- simply because they have not made a good-faith effort to read it carefully and understand it well. It has happened again, here and now. What has happened to our schools, in which people are apparently no longer being taught to read with care, digest what they have read, and respond appropriately? It makes me so terribly sad.

John Drake, you wrote: "John ... It is disappointing that you have not read any of his work yet condemn it out of hand."

John D, I did not "condemn" any of Lewis's works or any part of his works. What is wrong with your thought processes? Why did you read a "condemnation of works" into what I wrote about Lewis?

What I actually said is that I have no desire to read his works because of what I found out about his private attitude toward Catholicism. I quoted from a letter of his -- and also from the learned Thomas Howard -- to support my stance.

John D, you also wrote: "I cannot comment on writings of his I have not read but I would be willing to step out on a limb and say I doubt there are any that speak ill of the Roman Catholic church."

First, the name of the church is the "Catholic Church" (not "Roman Catholic" and not "church"). Second, there is no dispute about whether Lewis "sp[oke] ill" of the Catholic Church in his published works. I'm sure that he did not. However, I clearly pointed out, multiple times, that he spoke ill of the Church privately.

You also wrote: "The fact that you will find his books sold in ... Catholic bookstores and websites may not impress you ...". I have been aware of these sales for over 15 years. They make no difference to me. I never said that the stores should not sell his books. I never said that Catholics should not read his books. I merely passed along some little-known facts about Lewis, so that people would avoid "canonizing" him as a quasi-saint, and so that people would stop thinking that he was on the verge of becoming Catholic.

Once again, I beg you (John D and others posting here) to read very carefully -- both my messages and those of other people. It would keep the mood of the forum more friendly, and it would save a lot of time (e.g., the time it took you to write unnecessary complaints and the time I had to burn up in writing this message).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

One of the greatest crosses I have to bear in life is coming here, day after day, and having people unjustly attack what I have written

Assuming you're serious, consider yourself lucky.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 09, 2004.

No. It is not "lucky."

You obviously have not yet learned that certain kinds of mental suffering can be as bad as, or even worse than, physical suffering.

You have a lot to learn, young man.

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

If "one of your greatest crosses" involves the daily practice of insulting strangers via a keyboard, you either suffer very, very little (which, if true, is lucky for you), or you need to re-evaluate your definition of suffering.

And if you're being challenged from all sides (hint: you are), maybe it's time to consider that of all the wars you've waged here, of all the enemies you've made and all the peeople you've chased away, that the only common denominator is:

You.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 09, 2004.

John Drake,

Yes, as I recall from the book, he relates he carried this sorrow at his mother's death all the way through adolesence. It was not until Faith, re-awakened Hope...and then Joy came along too.

Another great book is "Miracles."

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 09, 2004.

John;

Ok, so you condemn C.S. Lewis not his writings. The soul of Mr. Lewis is no worse off without your voice of praise. On the other hand, you are worse off as you are missing out on the wisdom and knowledge of one of God’s blessed creations. That is a pity. I too am a catholic but the church I usually attend is not of the Roman tradition. All of my siblings and many of my friends are Roman Catholic and would not blink twice at being thus designated.

I will admit that I occasionally misunderstand someone’s message or point but the polite thing to do is to restate it, not insult the individual. Perhaps if you kept your responses less verbose they would be less likely to misunderstood, especially by those fools such as I with a damaged “thought process” as I apparently have.

Peace

John D

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.

Pat;

Yes, you stated it beautifully.

For those who do appreciate Mr. Lewis, do obtain the movie I mentioned previously, Shodowlands. Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger are superb in it.

Peace

John D

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.

There's no accounting for tastes. Like John, I find myself unaffected by C.S. Lewis; although Anthony Hopkins is great. There's nothing about Lewis work to wax poetic about, and no- he didn't become a Catholic; too bad for him. Was he very spiritual? To a minor degree, we admit.

His books aren't spiritual; no matter what anybody says. Neither are George Bernard Shaw's but I love to read him; Lewis doesn't compare. (We're talking about writers.)

Why all the defensiveness about a pop icon? He is no inspiriation to Catholics. Dumping on John Gecik for saying something similar is quite unjust, I think. John already has a heavy cross to bear, with his terrible sensitivity; why make him your whipping boy over your personal reading tastes ? Get Christian, my friends. Show some class!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.

Eugene,

Since you have at least read something of his I respect your opinion that he isn't your cup of tea. I am curious what books you have read, if you recall the titles.

Peace

John D

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.

Thanks for asking, John.
I'm 66 and have read enthusiastically since elementary school days. First book I ever read outside a classroom was the Odyssey; I loved it, though I was too little to know some of the Greek pronunciations. I said Pen-ELOPE; Ha! Great books? Many. Many on art, music & religion. The great novels, English mostly, but some Spanish; and Russians, the novels and poets; Solzhentzyn, Thomas Mann. Lives of the master composers. Benvenuto Cellini, Michelangelo, Dante. Catholic works: Saint Francis, Theresa of Avila. Cardinal Newman, Augustine's Confessions, (the Anglican Pusey's marvelous translation.) The Holy Bible, of course. Many poets. Lives of MANY saints. Chesteron, a great man. Daniel-Rops' Life of Christ; his masterpiece. Anne Catherine Emmerich, Juliana of Norwich, Bernadette of lourdes' bio. --Poets Francis Thompson, Dylan Thomas, Robert Burns, Anna Akhmatova, Pasternak, A. E. Auden & Rilke, to name some. Shostakovich's memoirs, many musician bios. I like many Americans. Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Melville, etc.

Sorry if that's too much.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.

Thanks for asking, John.
I'm 66 and have read enthusiastically since elementary school days. First book I ever read outside a classroom was the Odyssey; I loved it, though I was too little to know some of the Greek pronunciations. I said Pen-ELOPE; Ha! Great books? Many. Many on art, music & religion. Wish I could recall every title. The great novels, English mostly, but some Spanish; and Russians, the novels and poets; Solzhentzyn, Thomas Mann. Lives of the master composers. Benvenuto Cellini, Michelangelo, Dante. Catholic works: Saint Francis, Theresa of Avila. Cardinal Newman, Augustine's Confessions, (the Anglican Pusey's marvelous translation.) The Holy Bible, of course. Many poets. Lives of MANY saints. Chesteron, a great man. Daniel-Rops' Life of Christ; his masterpiece. Anne Catherine Emmerich, Juliana of Norwich, Bernadette of lourdes' bio. --Poets Francis Thompson, Dylan Thomas, Robert Burns, Anna Akhmatova, Pasternak, A. E. Auden & Rilke, to name some. Shostakovich's memoirs, many musician bios. I like many Americans. Nabokov, Capote, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc.

Sorry if that's too much.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.

No that's plenty. Actually I phrased my question incorrectly, I meant to ask you which of Lewis's books you had read.

Peace

John

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 12, 2004.

Screwtape Letters, Lion Witch, Wardrobe; parts of the Narnia books; to which my threshold was so high I couldn't keep reading very long.

In fairness, many other books have met that fate with me. They're impossible to read straight through. I found the Tolkien trilogy a dull read, gave up completely.

On the other hand, Mann's ''The Magic Mountain'' is dense and tough reading, but of such tremendous quality I kept to the task and was very happy with it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.

I love "The Screwtape Letters" and "Mere Christianity," which I have read many times (and bought many times, as the copies I lend out never seem to get returned!).

Eugene, I'm working on the LOTR trilogy right now and am about halfway through "The Two Towers" right now. I think it's much better than "Fellowship"...definitely took me awhile to get into that one!

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 12, 2004.

I agree with you assesment on the level of his books but I found Screwtape easy to read since it is told in chunks. I purchased an collection of his works where the editor put together a sort of Best Of. These are mostly one page excerpts. Give you a chance to let it sink in and re-read.

Peace

-- John Drake (johndwmail@yahoo.com), January 13, 2004.

John,
I didn't find any of C.S. Lewis' work ''hard reading'' to be assimilated in chunks. I meant the work was not very rewarding as literature. I found it dull. But; I wouldn't want others to say I'm a Martha Stewart of the book-seller's trade. People have to suit themselves. You know; I've spoken with some who thought Melville's Moby Dick was a bore. I loved Moby Dick! Great reading!

I used to read Ian Fleming's James Bond series. Wow! Now I think I must've been crazy. Your books tell so much about you. At this point I have an impression C.S. Lewis and Ian Fleming have things in common, if you sanitize the James Bond novels!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2004.

I can relate to JF Gecik's lack of desire for reading any of CS Lewis' works. I have seen Shadowlands but found Lewis' general nondenominationalist christianity, as depicted in the movie, to be bland. I also have an unread copy of "Mere Christianity." I've been waiting for the urge to read it ... but having read his negative private comments about Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Pope, and the Eucharist, I am more uninspired to read him.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 19, 2004.

Thank you very much, rjkt.
It is gratifying to know that another person can appreciate my train of thought on this matter.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

Dear John;

I find much of C. S. Lewis’ writing is like most sermons, homilies, and speeches – they are best served warm… and not warmed over. In short, they are dated. That being said, your reasoning for not liking Lewis is flawed on both points.

First; I looked up the complete letter by Lewis responding to H. Lyman Stebbins. It seems you make too much of very little. Lewis simply made a quick, short, and polite response to a complete stranger. His comments were not anti-Catholic (unless you deem every one who is not following the Bishop of Rome as anti-Catholic). Lewis’ evaluation regarding the Catholic Church was based on what is generally accepted and documented historical information regarding the development of the Christian Church in the first and second centuries (see writings by authors such as Dr. Bart Ehrman).

Stebbins made way too much out of what Lewis wrote. Stebbins created an overwrought rebuttal to things he was assuming Lewis was saying in a casual letter. From what I saw, there were no more letters from Lewis – yet Stebbins (or his wife) turned this note into a lifetime straw man and cottage industry: a theological debate in which Lewis was not participating.

Second; your conclusion about Lewis being anti-Catholic because he identified himself as an Ulsterman is simply untrue. If Lewis was combative against the Catholics in Northern Ireland, he would have called himself and Orangeman or a Unionist. I have never seen such personal identification by Lewis (though my mind could be changed if such a source by Lewis was located). The self-identification by a Protestant who grew up in Ulster, living in England – but not wanting to highlight the political/religious conflict – would simply identify himself as an Ulsterman.

Generally (but granted, not always), the Ulsterman designation was the moderate Protestant stance, recognizing that neither Dublin nor London had a solution for the conflict. Instead, a solution could only be secured by those who resided (Protestant and Catholic) in the Ulster area.

If you don’t like Lewis’ writing – fine. But, it shows the weakness of your argument to attack the man – particularly when his life, public and private, clearly demonstrates his faithfulness to Jesus Christ, his gifts as a teacher, and his personal piety.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 20, 2004.

Pastor Fretz,

Sir, with all due respect, because you are a Protestant, you are simply devoid of understanding of the great severity of CS Lewis' disparaging remarks regarding Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Pope, and the Holy Eucharist. Please make no further attempts of making light of his poisonous statements.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 21, 2004.

Thanks, rjkt.

You said it more eloquently than I could have done. (Be aware of the fact that Mr. Fretz has a personal animosity against me, because I have strongly opposed him on other subjects.) I will add one thing to what you wrote, rjkt.

Mr. Fretz stated, of C.S. Lewis: "... his life, public and private, clearly demonstrates his faithfulness to Jesus Christ ..."

This is untrue.

Clive Staples "Jack" Lewis was not "faithful to Jesus Christ," because (like Mr. Fretz thus far) Lewis failed to overcome his prejudice against joining the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church. Lewis was unfaithful to Jesus in another way. He attempted marriage to an already married woman, thus giving scandal to millions by entering into an apparently adulterous relationship.

In 1950, he began to correspond with Joy (nee Davidman) Gresham, a married woman with two young sons. Three years later, she divorced her husband, moved to England with her sons, and entered into an objectively invalid union with Lewis. Some say that it was only a platonic relationship -- with the "wedding" ceremony occurring only to defraud the British government, which wanted to deport Mrs. Gresham. Regardless of the facts, the bad example given to the public (and especially to the two young boys) is the opposite of what we can call "faithfulness to Jesus Christ."

Let us hope that the soul of Mrs. Gresham did not go to hell when she died a few years later (1960) -- and that Lewis also repented of his great public sins before he died in 1963.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Oops! I forgot to mention that Mrs. Gresham was an American on a limited visa (the reason for her being about to be sent away from Great Britain).

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Hi John,

Now I remember ... yes, Lewis' adulterous relationship while preaching all those sermons (in the movie, "Shadowlands") was my stumbling block to reading his works. His credibility is as good as Henry VIII's in starting Anglicanism.

God bless you, too.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 21, 2004.

Dear rjkt;

Thank you for your respect, and I return the sentiment. As I said, Lewis’ writing and form is dated (59 years) and lacks the ‘political/ cultural correctness’ we have come to expect from one another when talking (or writing) to those with whom we disagree.

But, the issues which Lewis raised in disagreeing with the Catholic Church; Papal authority (and I assume, infallibility), Marion theology, Transubstantiation, and the role of Scripture are not new. However, he didn’t say that the Pope was the antichrist. He didn’t call the hyperdulia given to Mary, Mariolatry. He didn’t say that communion in the Catholic Church was idol worship. There is a difference between serious disagreement and disrespect. (To disagree is to say, “I cannot affirm that in my life.” To disrespect someone is to say, “You are an idiot to affirm that in your life.” See the difference?)

Lewis had great respect for tradition and little time for ‘modernism’ (I can’t imagine what he would do with post modernism). Please remember that Lewis’ casual letter was prompted by a request to offer a critique of a Christian tradition he did not share by birth or (scholarly) choice. I submit to you that it is Stebbins’ negative inquiry (“…what you consider to be the arguments which throw the decision to the Anglican and against the Roman Catholic Church.”) that created the paradigm for Lewis’ response.

This is not Lewis’ better writing style. Instead, he is at his best and most definitive when he seeks to testify positively* about the Christian faith. His criticism is directed at moral, cultural, and theological claims that work against the Biblical faith; hardly a new idea for Protestants and one that Catholics should recognize without taking offense.

*Since John does such a good job of informing us about the source of “Roman” Catholic please accept this correction about a common mistake repeated on this site: “The root of Protestant is protest”(implying the Reformation was simply a series of negative attacks on the Catholic Church). In fact, the Latin (most Protestants scholars and clergy of the Reformation were still writing in Latin) for that kind of negative protest is – recusare or intercedere (see Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary). Testari means to ‘testify.’ Pro means to be “for, on behalf of, or in favor of.” Thus, to be a true Protestant is to testify positively on behalf of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Reformed according to the Word of God.

As John has pointed out, cultural acceptance by Catholics or Protestants regarding our ‘names’ does not make it historically correct, whether it is about “Roman” Catholics or “Protesting” Protestants.

Dear John; Sorry that you think I have something against you. Why would you think that? Also, what is your point about his marriage – that is wasn’t Catholic? Neither was he?

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 21, 2004.

Jmj

Sorry, Robert, but we have heard that "correction" before -- about the meaning of "protestant" -- and we will never buy it. I can understand why you believed it, though, when you read it somewhere. You didn't want to be associated with a word that has negative connotations. ("Dammit! I protest!") It's also a word that has, underlying it, the notion that it is a new movement -- not part of the ancient Church. That's one of the reasons for quite a few Protestants not even to want to be called "protestant" (never mind the meaning of the word).

It is true that, the word "protest" comes from roots that come together to mean (literally) "to call forth to witness." However, English words often do not denote what their roots would lead one to believe. The word "protest" -- already in the 16th century -- had the connotation of "making a statement in objection to" someone or something.

Rather than turn to etymology to understand the term Protestant, I will turn to the same source that provides the truth about the term "Roman Catholic" -- the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It says this:

The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1524), communities in which the new religion [of Luther] was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council, they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat.

Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel — the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities — entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants.

In course of time the original connotation of "no toleration for Catholics" was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers [sic] in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. The same man may call himself "Protestant" or "Reformed:" the term "Protestant" lays more stress on antagonism to Rome; the term "Reformed" emphasizes adherence to any of the Reformers [sic].

Robert, you wrote: "Dear John; Sorry that you think I have something against you. Why would you think that?"

I'm surprised that you ask, since the answer was embedded in my previous message. I told rjkt that "I have strongly opposed [Mr. Fretz] on other subjects."

You also asked: "Also, what is your point about his marriage – that is wasn’t Catholic? Neither was he."

My "point about his marriage" was not "that it wasn't Catholic" -- but "that it wasn't" (period).

Perhaps you didn't understand the terminology I used, but I was pointing out that, because Mrs. Gresham got married in America, she must be presumed by everyone (according to Jesus) to be married until Mr. Gresham died. Consequently, she was not free to marry Lewis. Therefore, the two of them were only "shacking up" for a few years until her death.

Divorce cannot end a marriage in God's eyes, so Lewis was never married in his entire life. The religion of the married (or cohabiting) man and woman involved is irrelevant. The principle holds true for Catholics, other Christians, and non-Christians: "What God has joined, let not man put asunder."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

As I said, Lewis’ writing and form is dated (59 years) and lacks the ‘political/ cultural correctness’ we have come to expect from one another when talking (or writing) to those with whom we disagree.

CS Lewis, being a public figure, most likely did his best to make his private letter sound "politically correct." His euphemism is crystal clear to me ... Catholics can taste his venom immediately. Unfortunately, you are too accustomed to that venomous taste, you forgot that it is venom.

But, the issues which Lewis raised in disagreeing with the Catholic Church; Papal authority (and I assume, infallibility), Marion theology, Transubstantiation, and the role of Scripture are not new. However, he didn’t say that the Pope was the antichrist. He didn’t call the hyperdulia given to Mary, Mariolatry. He didn’t say that communion in the Catholic Church was idol worship. There is a difference between serious disagreement and disrespect. (To disagree is to say, “I cannot affirm that in my life.” To disrespect someone is to say, “You are an idiot to affirm that in your life.” See the difference?)

Lewis only revealed the tip of the iceberg in his private letter. He only let out the steam from his volcano. Had he further elaborated, the world would probably have another well-written anti-Catholic handbook which you would have cherished as a reference.

Lewis had great respect for tradition and little time for ‘modernism’ (I can’t imagine what he would do with post modernism). Please remember that Lewis’ casual letter was prompted by a request to offer a critique of a Christian tradition he did not share by birth or (scholarly) choice. I submit to you that it is Stebbins’ negative inquiry (“…what you consider to be the arguments which throw the decision to the Anglican and against the Roman Catholic Church.”) that created the paradigm for Lewis’ response.

His private letter is misleadingly casual ... it is the definitive intimation of his grand heretical beliefs. No, he did not have great respect for tradition as you said; if he had, he would have been a devout Catholic -- he would have followed in the footsteps of the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (a great convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism).

This is not Lewis’ better writing style. Instead, he is at his best and most definitive when he seeks to testify positively* about the Christian faith. His criticism is directed at moral, cultural, and theological claims that work against the Biblical faith; hardly a new idea for Protestants and one that Catholics should recognize without taking offense.

The subject of scrutiny is not the writing style of his private letter but the content. No matter how many times he could have rewritten it, his heretical beliefs would still have been starkly evident to a Catholic.

*Since John does such a good job of informing us about the source of “Roman” Catholic please accept this correction about a common mistake repeated on this site: “The root of Protestant is protest”(implying the Reformation was simply a series of negative attacks on the Catholic Church). In fact, the Latin (most Protestants scholars and clergy of the Reformation were still writing in Latin) for that kind of negative protest is – recusare or intercedere (see Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary). Testari means to ‘testify.’ Pro means to be “for, on behalf of, or in favor of.” Thus, to be a true Protestant is to testify positively on behalf of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Reformed according to the Word of God.

You are trying to paint a beautiful picture using mud. In sheer reality, the Protestant Revolters were but mere vagrants, excommunicated to this day by Pope Leo X.

As John has pointed out, cultural acceptance by Catholics or Protestants regarding our ‘names’ does not make it historically correct, whether it is about “Roman” Catholics or “Protesting” Protestants.

Whatever the name is, the Holy Catholic Church has the Fullness of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the Protestant Revolters have a deficient counterfeit.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 21, 2004.

But, the issues which Lewis raised in disagreeing with the Catholic Church; Papal authority (and I assume, infallibility), Marion theology, Transubstantiation, and the role of Scripture are not new. However, he didn’t say that the Pope was the antichrist. He didn’t call the hyperdulia given to Mary, Mariolatry. He didn’t say that communion in the Catholic Church was idol worship. There is a difference between serious disagreement and disrespect. (To disagree is to say, “I cannot affirm that in my life.” To disrespect someone is to say, “You are an idiot to affirm that in your life.” See the difference?)

Lewis only revealed the tip of the iceberg in his private letter. He only let out the steam from his volcano. Had he further elaborated, the world would probably have another well-written anti-Catholic handbook which you would have cherished as a reference.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 21, 2004.

Dear rjkt, Interestingly, I never took you for a mind reader. Also, you should learn how to play with others. We discourage name-calling at our nursery school.

Dear John; I still haven’t figured out why you think I have something against you. All you have managed to do is indicate that your behavior (or writing) should have provoked some negative behavior or feeling on my part. I get the feeling I should apologize for disappointing you for not being upset with you.

In regard to C.S. Lewis and his wife, Joy. Are you saying that she did not receive a civil divorce in America? If she did not, then your critique is valid. On the other hand, if she did receive a civil divorce, then she broke no civil law in her marriage with Lewis. Again, since Lewis was not Catholic, he was under no requirement to follow its discipline. He was obligated to follow the discipline of the Anglican Church to receive the sacred ceremony. Whether that satisfies you or the Catholic Church is irrelevant.

Finally, I would encourage you to be consistent. You ask for everyone’s respect by stipulating that the common usage of “Roman” Catholic by Catholics and the general public within the United States today is insulting due to the origin. If you regard Roman as an insult; no problem. People should be able to identify themselves in non-pejorative ways. I simply suggest you reciprocate the courtesy.

The single source you cite against Protestants (I’ve never seen the Latin or German original with the translation, so I don’t know if the “protest” was pro testari, or recusare, or intercedere) was about a specific event and place where the princes supporting Luther had serious security concerns regarding a Catholic population in their territory (later, the French Catholics had a similar attitude about the Huguenots). But, even if you were to use that sole source, the princes at the Diet of Speyer in 1529 were fundamentally making an affirmation: “There is, we affirm, no sure preaching or doctrine but that which abides by the Word of God. According to God’s command no other doctrine should be preached. Each test of the holy and divine scriptures should be elucidated and explained by other texts. This Holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian; it shines in its own light, and is found to enlighten the darkness. We are determined by God’s grace and aid to abide by God’s Word alone, the Holy Gospel contained in the Biblical books of the Old and New Testaments. This Word alone should be preached, and nothing that is contrary to it. It is the only Truth. It is the sure rule of all Christian doctrine and conduct. It can never fail us or deceive us. Whoso builds and abides on this foundation shall stand against all the gates of hell, while all merely human additions and vanities set up against it must fall before the presence of God.”

I recognize you don’t agree with that statement – but you do have to acknowledge that it is a positive affirmation – Hence, pro testari. While you may be comforted in reading a pejorative identification of a Protestant, I would suggest that you read a good Protestant self identification in “The Spirit of Protestantism,” by Robert McAfee Brown. People work better with good information.

Peace

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 21, 2004.

Robert,

This Word alone should be preached, and nothing that is contrary to it. It is the only Truth.

That is where the rub comes in for many Catholics when dealing with other Christian faiths. What is the correct *interpretation* of the Bible? Some Protestant groups think abortion is acceptable, more do not. Who is right? The reason for the Church is to give a True answer to the MEANING of the words of the Bible. You can't have a situation where everyone can determine for themselves what is true in the Bible any more than you can have a math class where two plus two equals whatever you want it to. You NEED to have some authority to say which interpretation is correct. This is one of the big functions of the church.

BTW, on John: he has stated that he believes ad hominem attacks are beneficial to debate, so don't be suprised if everything turns personal. He does post good things here, but is a little off his nut. Be patient.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 21, 2004.

I thank God for giving me the grace not to attend your heretical protestant nursery school, otherwise, at a tender age, I would have been indoctrinated with all the lies and errors you believe right now and are spreading right now. I thank God for teaching me the "Hail Mary" and the "Sign of the Cross" in nursery school. I'm beginning to realize that your presence here is extremely dubious ... you are revealing yourself to be a wicked wolf in sheep's clothing ... having the purpose of proselytizing your false theology. I'm also beginning to believe that you are in the ranks of Pastors Jim and Tammy Baker.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 21, 2004.

the previous was for Robert.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 21, 2004.

Jmj

Yes, rjkt. I discerned the very same thing within Mr. Fretz's first few posts on another thread, when he first came to the forum a few months ago. It's a shame. I tried to get him interested in Marcus Grodi's "Coming Home Network," but he bristled at the thought. He definitely does not belong here. This is our Catholic "home-away-from-home," and we don't need other religions' clergymen coming here to proselytize and try to mislead people. I could refute each of his latest contentions (e.g., a new misrepresentation about the word "protestant"), but there is little point in taking so much time. I will just zero in on his biggest blunder.

Mr. Fretz, you wrote: "In regard to C.S. Lewis and his wife, Joy. Are you saying that she did not receive a civil divorce in America? If she did not, then your critique is valid. On the other hand, if she did receive a civil divorce, then she broke no civil law in her marriage with Lewis. Again, since Lewis was not Catholic, he was under no requirement to follow its discipline. He was obligated to follow the discipline of the Anglican Church to receive the sacred ceremony. Whether that satisfies you or the Catholic Church is irrelevant."

Sir, your paragraph contains multiple errors:

1. You referred to C. S. Lewis as having a "wife, Joy." As I already explained, he was never married. He had no wife.

2. How can you ask me if I was "saying that she did not receive a civil divorce in America?" Didn't you see the following words of mine?: "Three years later, she divorced her husband, moved to England with her sons, and entered into an objectively invalid union with Lewis."

3. When did I ever hint that Mrs. Gresham "broke" a "civil law in her" sham attempt at a "marriage with Lewis"? I said nothing about "civil law." Rather, I was pointing out how the two of them broke God's law against adultery.

4. Good grief! We are not talking about "Catholic ... discipline" here -- but rather, God's law. That's why I told you, "Divorce cannot end a marriage in God's eyes ... The religion of the married (or cohabiting) man and woman involved is irrelevant. The principle holds true for Catholics, other Christians, and non-Christians: 'What God has joined, let not man put asunder.'" Besides their violating the commandment against adultery, I mentioned to you that the shacked-up couple gave very bad example to millions, including the young children (whose real father was thereby offended).

5. Lewis was not "obligated to follow the discipline of the Anglican Church to receive the sacred ceremony."
First, of all, there is no binding "discipline" within Anglicanism, which is not a legitimate entity in God's eyes.
Second, Anglicanism is not a "church." Only those Christian bodies that have apostolicity can rightly be called "churches" -- in other words, almost exclusively, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. That to which you and Lewis belong(ed), sir, are not "churches," despite your calling them by that term. They are merely denominations within Protestantism (which too is not a "church").
Third, Anglicanism cannot give a dispensation to a still-married woman (regardless of the divorce) to break God's law.
Fourth, when a sham "marriage" takes place, it is definitely not a "sacred ceremony."

6. I didn't say that anything Lewis did had to "satisfy" me. Rather, it had to satisfy God, and I know (from the teachings of God's Catholic Church) that what Lewis did could not have satisfied God. Instead, it offended Him.

A bit of a warning to you, rjkt ... Even more dangerous than the rather obvious Mr. Fretz is the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing known as "Frank Someone." This deeply disturbed Catholic (who is not fully pro-life) once had the privilege and power of being this forum's moderator. In a moment of sheer madness, almost exactly two years ago, he went into a frenzy of deletions of posts and suspensions of good Catholics -- while allowing schismatics and Protestants to post without being banned. During a single week, because he objected to one sentence that I wrote in one post on each of three days, he deleted every single one of my messages posted on those days -- about twenty messages in all. [I wanted never to mention this crime again, but his gratuitous insult (above) demanded that his dangerous character be exposed.]

Mercifully, circumstances later allowed for Frank to be deprived of all power here -- and some of us who had left (because of his "going off the deep end") then returned. Unfortunately, he himself did not leave permanently.

Obviously, rjkt, when Frank says that someone "is a little off his nut," you have to take it with a huge grain of salt. (One must wonder if he even has a "nut" to be "off" of.) His latest example of madness is the unqualified statement that I "believe ad hominem attacks are beneficial to debate", and that "everything" I am involved in "turns personal." Either his past serious health problems have left him with no powers of memory ... or he is flat-out lying about me ... or he is just too stupid to be able to accurately depict the truth.

The fact are these, rjkt: (1) that, in four years, I have had thousands of beautiful exchanges with people at this forum -- exchanges that did not lead to personal attacks in either direction; and (2) that the only "ad hominem" attacks of which I approved are the very kind engaged in by Jesus, St. John the Baptist, St. Jerome, and many other great Catholic men and women throughout history -- who had to "call a spade a spade," for the betterment of a person needing fraternal correction. Nowadays, though, people like Frank are too weak to cope with this kind of Catholic criticism of behavior, so they whine about it and say that it must be forbidden. They don't want to be corrected, preferring to persist in their bad behaviors.

I try to stick to a presentation of facts and logical argumentation, but when the other person does something improper, I have the right to disapprove of that sin and castigate him -- just as people from St. Paul through St. Padre Pio did so many times. Unfortunately, there exists a politically-correct, wimpish school of thought in society (including Frank and other adherents present in this forum) for which dainty, almost effemininate behavior -- with Roberts-Rules-of-Order debating -- is the only thing acceptable. I say to that -- as would Sts. Augustine and Jerome: "Balderdash!"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Branch out.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 21, 2004.

I hope you got the help you needed from that website, Jake.

-- Sam (Sam@baggins.com), January 22, 2004.

Actually, if anything, reading it made me moreof a sociopath than I was before.

I can't stand self-helpy, twelve-steppy, nicey-nicey, touchy-feely types.

Can't stand 'em.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 22, 2004.

Sam (Sam@baggins.com)

If you want to see the traditionalist-in-action portrayed in a piece of art, observe Sam in The Return of the King.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 22, 2004.

LOL, Keep it up John, you're getting more entertaining since you quit trying to post seriously. Perhaps you should consider starting a "JFG's Rant of the Day" thread. It could be quite a hoot, and I assure you it would be read!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2004.

Dear Frank;

Thanks for your concern. Generally, I have to trust a person before they can say anything I would take to heart. I tend to aim for mutual understanding - even if we disagree.

You are right – the authority of interpretation is important. Traditional Reformation Churches – Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican – use their particular confessions and catechisms as the lens through which the Biblical Faith is understood and explained. In some cases those creeds were written within a Synod structure (such as the Augsburg Confession, Westminster Confession, the Canons of Dort, and The Helvetic Confession - http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm ) and in others, individuals wrote the confession or catechism (Heidelberg Catechism http://www.reformed.org/documents/heidelberg.html - and Belgic Confession) and then were affirmed by synods. These confessions are identified as “historically faithful witnesses to our Biblical Faith.”

The “denominations,” that are cited were regional/national communities that used their unique cultural experience as they expressed their faith in Jesus Christ, in light of the Reformation principles. These creeds maintain a strong similarity in holding onto the Trinitarian Apostolic Faith, the sovereignty of God in the act of Salvation, being guided by the Church Fathers and tradition – and, placing the Scriptures as the primary corrective and reforming element in the process, to be affirmed by a synod of ministers and elders (presbyteros) – and in the Lutheran and Anglican Churches; bishops. (John Calvin saw that St. Paul used minister, elder, pastor, and bishop to describe the same office. While Calvin did not promote the idea of additional offices beyond those encompassed within deacon and elder, he was not opposed to the role of a supervisory minister, aka; the bishop).

In short, the final authority to interpret scripture is the role of the synod or upper judicatory. It is important to note that in one form or another, all the people who are members of the synod, particularly elders and ministers – and in some cases bishops, are elected, either by their local congregation or as part of a representative body in the church (such as the consistory, session, board, classis, presbytery, or synod).

The traditional Reformation Churches were ‘national’ in experience and structure, but that regional parochialism has been influenced by the American experience and Christ’s call to be united (if not uniform) through the Spirit. Many of the Reformation Churches recognize on another’s sacraments, clergy, and mission while maintaining our individual administrative and judicatory structures.

The obvious exception to what I just said is the Anabaptist – Baptist tradition (Amish, Mennonites, certain Puritan traditions, and modern Baptists). The Anabaptist and then Baptist traditions promoted believers’ baptism and the ability (duty) of the individual to discern the faithfulness and truth of the gospel being preached. Also, each congregation is seen as an independent ecclesiastical unit of the Church.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 22, 2004.

We interrupt this thread for an observation:

You know, in a way I almost feel sorry for John. I don't think he really realizes just how pathetic and yet hilarious his posts have become. Sad, really. But I do like the idea of a Rant for the Day. It would be quite entertaining!

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread....

-- ## (#@#.com), January 22, 2004.

This reply is utterly unchristian and stupid, John. Is it really so? Are you off your nut? You don't even demonstrate simple patience anymore, much less charity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

Robert,

Yes, and that makes sense as far as the large denominations go that they would be refering to an historical as well as contemporary interpretation for their faithful. From a Catholic perspective, we believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church in matters of faith and morals to *guarantee* the correct interpretation of Scripture, and for us that would be one of the big reasons to be Catholic: the chruch can speak *infallibly* on subjects within its realm. I don't think any other church can claim that, and the worry I would have about the local people making their interpretation would be that which was seen in New Hampshire (USA) recently where the Episcopal church (the American branch of the Anglican church) elected a practicing homosexual (who previously divorced his wife) as Bishop. Clearly cultural values in their region are mingling with what WAS considered True, and this is not IMO a good thing.

We can look to the writings (sometimes sparse) of the church fathers back to around a.d. 170 onwards and see that our Tradition has been carried down. I cannot say the same for other faiths, for example those that do not have communion. That would be my biggest reason to try and convince someone to rejoin the Catholic faith, we KNOW it is faithful to what Christ taught the disciples, as evidenced by faith and what we can read of its early Popes and Saints. My take on the Scriptures would be that other Christian faiths may have *almost* all of it correct, but not all, or they would BE Catholics. I hope that makes sense,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2004.

John,

I totally agree with your Catholic stance against adultery, divorce, cohabitation, false marriages, and abortion.

Robert is inderectly preaching damnable lies: "Divorce is OK, Adultery is OK, Cohabitation is OK, and False Marriages are OK," in this Christian forum. Furthermore, he is elaborating on his heretical "Sola Scriptura" and sham "Alternate Pseudo-Magisterium for Biblical Interpretation." Pure Mud Theology!

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 22, 2004.

Emerald,

Greetings! from Sam

-- Sam (Sam@baggins.com), January 22, 2004.

Dear Frank;

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It seems we have gone far off C.S. Lewis, so let me try to get back a bit to what he said regarding the particularities of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Both look to the Fathers as part of their foundation as to why we do the things we do. And, to much of what we see – we agree.

Where we disagree, it too is based upon Scripture with examples from the Fathers. From our (Reformed) point of view, the idea of any human institution – even one blessed by the Holy Spirit- claiming to be perfect approaches hubris. Calvin wrote; “… to consider the church already completely and in every way holy and spotless when all its members are spotted and impure (he makes that evaluation upon all Christians) how absurd and foolish that is!” (John should like that kind of writing). He continues, “…the church has been sanctified by Christ, but only the beginning of its sanctification is visible here; the end and perfect completion will appear when Christ, the Holy of Holies, truly and perfectly fills the church with this holiness. (Hebrews 9:10)”

In regard to the position of the Bishop of Rome, Calvin cites Cyprian at the Council of Carthage: “Let none be called prince of priests or first bishop.” When Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria said that Gregory “commanded him,” Gregory’s response was “Remove, I beg of you, this word ‘command’ from my hearing; for I know who I am and who you are; in degree you are my brothers; in moral character, my fathers. Therefore, I have not commanded but have taken care to indicate what things seem useful.” Was Gregory simply being polite or did he recognize limitations in his office?

As to the other items referred to by Lewis, the point was not which particularities of our traditions are valid, but are those particularities beyond the ecumenical creeds necessary for salvation (Mere Christianity)? His answer was no – and to one degree or another, most Protestants agree. The fullness that is claimed by the Catholic Church – which gives great comfort to many – “dilutes” (using Calvin’s word) the message and power of the Gospel for the rest of us. Which remains one of the main reasons Protestants are reluctant to be assimilated into the “Roman” Catholic Church. This is not to convince you to change from your Catholic faith. But, I simply wanted to raise the possibility that everything may not be as cut and dried by 170 AD as implied.

I am not without hope. It does seem that many of our traditions, Protestant and Catholic are seeking ways for bridges to be built (sorry Eugene, that’s from the other thread) in gatherings such as Christian Churches Together.

That’s about all I have to say on the subject and I will be busy for the rest of the week. Good conversation. Peace

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 22, 2004.

Robert,

Your bad preaching is hubristic to the core. You are here spewing lies, and more lies.

"Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It seems we have gone far off C.S. Lewis, so let me try to get back a bit to what he said regarding the particularities of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Both look to the Fathers as part of their foundation as to why we do the things we do. And, to much of what we see – we agree."

Bogus! If the protestant heresy did indeed look to the Catholic Church Fathers as part of its foundation, then the protestant revolters would have been partaking of the Holy Eucharist.

Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote in 107 A.D. concerning those who held heretical opinions, "They (the heretics) abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness raised up again."

Saint Justin Martyr said in 155 A.D., "We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except the one who believes our teaching to be true and has been washed in the washing which is for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made Incarnate by the Word of God and has both Flesh and Blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change by which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnated Jesus."

"Where we disagree, it too is based upon Scripture with examples from the Fathers. From our (Reformed) point of view, the idea of any human institution – even one blessed by the Holy Spirit- claiming to be perfect approaches hubris. Calvin wrote; “… to consider the church already completely and in every way holy and spotless when all its members are spotted and impure (he makes that evaluation upon all Christians) how absurd and foolish that is!” (John should like that kind of writing). He continues, “…the church has been sanctified by Christ, but only the beginning of its sanctification is visible here; the end and perfect completion will appear when Christ, the Holy of Holies, truly and perfectly fills the church with this holiness. (Hebrews 9:10)”"

Your Head Protestant Revolter, Calvin, from his heretical revolter's point of view, made a wrong contention that the one, Holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church claimed that She considered herself "already completely and in every way holy and spotless."

This is what the Infallible Holy Catholic Church teaches from the Universal Catechism:

The Church Is Holy

"The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as ‘alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God." The Church, then, is "the holy People of God," and her members are called "saints."

United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. "All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God." It is in the Church that "the fullness of the means of salvation" has been deposited. It is in her that "by the grace of God we acquire holiness."

"The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect." In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: "Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state—though each in his own way—are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect."

Charity is the soul of the holiness to which all are called: it "governs, shapes, and perfects all the means of sanctification."

If the Church was a body composed of different members, it couldn't lack the noblest of all; it must have a Heart, and a Heart BURNING WITH LOVE. And I realized that this love alone was the true motive force which enabled the other members of the Church to act; if it ceased to function, the Apostles would forget to preach the gospel, the Martyrs would refuse to shed their blood. LOVE, IN FACT, IS THE VOCATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHERS; IT'S A UNIVERSE OF ITS OWN, COMPRISING ALL TIME AND SPACE—IT'S ETERNAL!

"Christ, ‘holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:

The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors. "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history." Indeed, "holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal."

"But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary": in her, the Church is already the "all- holy."

"In regard to the position of the Bishop of Rome, Calvin cites Cyprian at the Council of Carthage: “Let none be called prince of priests or first bishop.” When Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria said that Gregory “commanded him,” Gregory’s response was “Remove, I beg of you, this word ‘command’ from my hearing; for I know who I am and who you are; in degree you are my brothers; in moral character, my fathers. Therefore, I have not commanded but have taken care to indicate what things seem useful.” Was Gregory simply being polite or did he recognize limitations in his office?"

The heretic, Calvin, is trying to use the words of our Catholic Church Father Saint Cyprian against us. It won't do.

The Infallible Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church declares:

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

"As to the other items referred to by Lewis, the point was not which particularities of our traditions are valid, but are those particularities beyond the ecumenical creeds necessary for salvation (Mere Christianity)? His answer was no – and to one degree or another, most Protestants agree. The fullness that is claimed by the Catholic Church – which gives great comfort to many – “dilutes” (using Calvin’s word) the message and power of the Gospel for the rest of us. Which remains one of the main reasons Protestants are reluctant to be assimilated into the “Roman” Catholic Church. This is not to convince you to change from your Catholic faith. But, I simply wanted to raise the possibility that everything may not be as cut and dried by 170 AD as implied."

The inventor, Calvin, who invented his false man-made religion, nitpicked particularities he deemed necessary for salvation. The Fullness of Grace and Truth entrusted to the Holy Catholic Church by Jesus Christ Himself can never be "diluted" for all eternity.

Fathers John Trigilio and Kenneth Brighenti asserts:

Catholicism does firmly believe that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and therefore, The Church possesses all the truths and graces necessary for salvation ... The Church believes that She has been given the Fullness of Truth and the mission to teach it to all nations.

___

Protestants are reluctant to embrace the Fullness of Grace and Truth of the Holy Catholic Church because the protesting and revolting spirit of the Heretics, Martin Luther and John Calvin, still strongly dwells within the protestant man-made denominationalism.

"I am not without hope. It does seem that many of our traditions, Protestant and Catholic are seeking ways for bridges to be built (sorry Eugene, that’s from the other thread) in gatherings such as Christian Churches Together."

You should hope and pray for the Grace to understand the Fullness of Grace and Truth that forever dwells within the Holy Catholic Church.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 23, 2004.

Um, ya. I like C.S.Lewis books! :)

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), January 24, 2004.

Dear rjkt;

Regarding the sacraments, it was St. Augustine who used the phrase, “Tanquam visibile verbum” – just as a visible word, and “per modum symboli” –in the manner of a symbol.

See what Andrew Greeley says about it at http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/greeley/mysteries7.htm.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurch.org), January 24, 2004.

Robert, Jesus said "The SIGN of Jonah" refering to His death and burial, but Jonah really happened. Likewise He said "The Sign of the second coming" but it will be a REAL event. Symbolic and Literely can co-exsist. For a better understanding of this and St. Augustine's beliefs in the REAL presence and others (which are the same as Catholic beliefs today) go to http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM

Go down the page of the site and to the 48 Topical galleries and click on the box of "Salvation" Then go down that page to where it talkes about St. Augustine and check it out. If the address doesn't work it's the site of Biblical Evidence For Catholicism.

-- Jason Baccaro (LegendsRborn@aol.com), January 25, 2004.

Robert,

Is this Satan's new evil ploy against the Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ ... manipulating and contorting the Catholic beliefs of our Catholic Church Fathers, like Saint Augustine and Saint Cyprian, against the Holy Catholic Church ...

just like he is manipulating and contorting the Holy Bible, identified and assembled by the Holy Catholic Church, against the one, Holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church?

Saint Augustine of Hippo was a Doctor of the Holy Catholic Church ... he never contradicted the very essence of the Holy Sacraments ... he believed the eternal true teachings of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 25, 2004.

Dear Folks; Just an honest conversation RJ.

Jason - I'm not clear, are you identifying Andrew Greeley as a Calvinist? That's fine by me, but I'm not sure he would agree.

Peace

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 26, 2004.

Robert,

The evil, deceitful, Anti-Catholic Satan needed loyal spokespeople to present and defend his counterfeit, man-made denominationalism. Satan found them in excommunicated heretics like Martin Luther and his ardent, protesting, outspoken followers.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 26, 2004.

Rjkt,

Long time no see.

Hope all is well with your family.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), January 26, 2004.

Hey David,

Great to hear from you, my friend. God has been good to us. Peace be with you and yours.

-- rjkt (rjkt@hbc.rpz), January 27, 2004.