The difference between Catholics and Protestants according to CS Lewis

[Quid est Veritas?]

"The truth is not that allegory is Catholic, but that Catholicism is allegorical. Allegory consists in giving an imagined body to the immaterial ; but if, in each case, Catholicism claims already to have given it a material body, then the allegorist’s symbol will naturally resemble that material body. The whip of Penaunce is an excellent example. No Christian ever doubted that repentance involved 'penaunce’ and 'whips’ on the spiritual plane: it is when you come to material whips — to Tartuffe’s discipline in his closet — that the controversy begins. It is the same with the ‘House’ of Holinesse. No Christian doubts that those who have offered themselves to God are cut off as if by a wall from the World, are placed under a 'regula vitae' and ‘laid in easy bed’ by ‘meek Obedience’ ; but when the wall becomes one of real bricks and mortar, and the Rule one in real ink, superintended by disciplinary officials and reinforced (at times) by the power of the State, then we have reached that sort of actuality which Catholics aim at and Protestants deliberately avoid. Indeed, this difference is the root out of which all other differences between the two religions grow. The one suspects that all spiritual gifts are falsely claimed if they cannot be embodied in bricks and mortar, or official positions, or institutions: the other, that nothing retains its spirituality if incarnation is pushed to that degree and in that way. The difference about Papal infallibility is simply a form of this. The proper corruptions of each Church tell the same tale. When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world-wide religio of amulets and holy places and priestcraft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes. Catholicism is accused of being much too like all the other religions; Protestantism of being insufficiently like a religion at all. Hence Plato, with his transcendent Forms, is the doctor of Protestants; Aristotle, with his immanent Forms, the doctor of Catholics. Now allegory exists, so to speak, in that region of the mind where the bifurcation has not yet occurred; for it occurs only when we reach the material world. In the world of matter. Catholics and Protestants disagree as to the kind and degree of incarnation or embodiment which we can safely try to give to the spiritual; but in the world of imagination, where allegory exists, unlimited embodiment is equally approved by both. Imagined buildings and institutions which have a strong resemblance to the actual buildings and institutions of the Church of Rome, will therefore appear, and ought to appear, in any Protestant allegory." - CS Lewis, in The Allegory of Love.

 

[Sabertooth]

(Paragraphs, please.)

 

[Radagast]

(Paragraphs, please.)

It would be seriously wrong to insert paragraph breaks not in the original.

 

[Sabertooth]

It would be seriously wrong to insert paragraph breaks not in the original.

Did CSL not use them in this passage?

 

[Radagast]

Did CSL not use them in this passage?

No, and the quote in the OP is actually the middle section of an even longer paragraph.

 

[Radagast]

It is worth pointing out that the quote in the OP is primarily about allegory, and the question "why do allegories sound Catholic?"

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It is worth pointing out that the quote in the OP is primarily about allegory, and the question "why do allegories sound Catholic?"

True, but it speaks to a fundamental difference between the two Christian traditions, as Lewis himself notes.

An interesting biographical point, Lewis' own Pilgrim's Regress allegory, was only picked up by a publisher because they thought it was crypto-catholic.

 

[Radagast]

An interesting biographical point, Lewis' own Pilgrim's Regress allegory, was only picked up by a publisher because they thought it was crypto-catholic.

I did not know that. That probably proves his point.

And after he was so careful to say "Mother Kirk" in that book!

 

[afishamongmany]

"The truth is not that allegory is Catholic, but that Catholicism is allegorical. Allegory consists in giving an imagined body to the immaterial ; but if, in each case, Catholicism claims already to have given it a material body, then the allegorist’s symbol will naturally resemble that material body. The whip of Penaunce is an excellent example. No Christian ever doubted that repentance involved 'penaunce’ and 'whips’ on the spiritual plane: it is when you come to material whips — to Tartuffe’s discipline in his closet — that the controversy begins. It is the same with the ‘House’ of Holinesse. No Christian doubts that those who have offered themselves to God are cut off as if by a wall from the World, are placed under a 'regula vitae' and ‘laid in easy bed’ by ‘meek Obedience’ ; but when the wall becomes one of real bricks and mortar, and the Rule one in real ink, superintended by disciplinary officials and reinforced (at times) by the power of the State, then we have reached that sort of actuality which Catholics aim at and Protestants deliberately avoid. Indeed, this difference is the root out of which all other differences between the two religions grow. The one suspects that all spiritual gifts are falsely claimed if they cannot be embodied in bricks and mortar, or official positions, or institutions: the other, that nothing retains its spirituality if incarnation is pushed to that degree and in that way. The difference about Papal infallibility is simply a form of this. The proper corruptions of each Church tell the same tale. When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world-wide religio of amulets and holy places and priestcraft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes. Catholicism is accused of being much too like all the other religions; Protestantism of being insufficiently like a religion at all. Hence Plato, with his transcendent Forms, is the doctor of Protestants; Aristotle, with his immanent Forms, the doctor of Catholics. Now allegory exists, so to speak, in that region of the mind where the bifurcation has not yet occurred; for it occurs only when we reach the material world. In the world of matter. Catholics and Protestants disagree as to the kind and degree of incarnation or embodiment which we can safely try to give to the spiritual; but in the world of imagination, where allegory exists, unlimited embodiment is equally approved by both. Imagined buildings and institutions which have a strong resemblance to the actual buildings and institutions of the Church of Rome, will therefore appear, and ought to appear, in any Protestant allegory." - CS Lewis, in The Allegory of Love.

Thanks QeV,
Yes as is his wont, a masterly putting of the finger on and communicating of this particular bifurcation. Even so 'The Master' still gets points deducted in my school for not paragraphing. This piece should be in three chunks.
><>

 

[~Anastasia~]

Very interesting - thanks you. Given his writing, the title of this thread certainly intrigued me.

 

[Radagast]

Even so 'The Master' still gets points deducted in my school for not paragraphing. This piece should be in three chunks.

He was an Oxbridge Professor of English Literature.

You?

 

[bcbsr]

"The truth is not that allegory is Catholic, but that Catholicism is allegorical. Allegory consists in giving an imagined body to the immaterial ; but if, in each case, Catholicism claims already to have given it a material body, then the allegorist’s symbol will naturally resemble that material body. The whip of Penaunce is an excellent example. No Christian ever doubted that repentance involved 'penaunce’ and 'whips’ on the spiritual plane: it is when you come to material whips — to Tartuffe’s discipline in his closet — that the controversy begins. It is the same with the ‘House’ of Holinesse. No Christian doubts that those who have offered themselves to God are cut off as if by a wall from the World, are placed under a 'regula vitae' and ‘laid in easy bed’ by ‘meek Obedience’ ; but when the wall becomes one of real bricks and mortar, and the Rule one in real ink, superintended by disciplinary officials and reinforced (at times) by the power of the State, then we have reached that sort of actuality which Catholics aim at and Protestants deliberately avoid. Indeed, this difference is the root out of which all other differences between the two religions grow. The one suspects that all spiritual gifts are falsely claimed if they cannot be embodied in bricks and mortar, or official positions, or institutions: the other, that nothing retains its spirituality if incarnation is pushed to that degree and in that way. The difference about Papal infallibility is simply a form of this. The proper corruptions of each Church tell the same tale. When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world-wide religio of amulets and holy places and priestcraft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes. Catholicism is accused of being much too like all the other religions; Protestantism of being insufficiently like a religion at all. Hence Plato, with his transcendent Forms, is the doctor of Protestants; Aristotle, with his immanent Forms, the doctor of Catholics. Now allegory exists, so to speak, in that region of the mind where the bifurcation has not yet occurred; for it occurs only when we reach the material world. In the world of matter. Catholics and Protestants disagree as to the kind and degree of incarnation or embodiment which we can safely try to give to the spiritual; but in the world of imagination, where allegory exists, unlimited embodiment is equally approved by both. Imagined buildings and institutions which have a strong resemblance to the actual buildings and institutions of the Church of Rome, will therefore appear, and ought to appear, in any Protestant allegory." - CS Lewis, in The Allegory of Love.

I don't understand what he means at the end. But for the first half I can see what he means, for example, by way of the eucharist. Catholics insist upon transubstantiation - the "real presence", Christ returning in the form of a wafer, in contrast to the Protestant view of the bread of communion being symbolic, an allegory (or really, metaphor)

 

[Radagast]

in contrast to the Protestant view of the bread of communion being symbolic, an allegory (or really, metaphor)

Speaking as a Protestant of the Reformed tradition, I believe that the communion bread is much more than just a symbol. See the Belgic Confession here.

And one can believe in the Real Presence without believing in Transubstantiation.

 

[afishamongmany]

He was an Oxbridge Professor of English Literature.
You?

Hi there Radagast - Well let me think - 6 (or was it 7?) 'O' level G.C.E.s (one was in English (at the second time of trying (it woz the spelling wot did me the first time))), an O.N.D. in amenity horticulture and a T.E.F.L. certificate. So what do you think? In your world-view am I below the bar and therefore debarred from expressing a view on text presentation?
I'm a great admirer of C.S.L.. He, along with a few others, has played a significant part in shaping the intellectual and theological landscape that I currently call home. But you know what, despite his professorial rank, I just don't see him as being, in any way, infallible or above criticism. So as I said, my view is that that chunk of text would be a little itsy bitsy more easy to take in if presented in three paragraphs.
You disagree? Fine, no problem.
Go well
><>

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't understand what he means at the end. But for the first half I can see what he means, for example, by way of the eucharist. Catholics insist upon transubstantiation - the "real presence", Christ returning in the form of a wafer, in contrast to the Protestant view of the bread of communion being symbolic, an allegory (or really, metaphor)

Flag! We don't believe Christ "returns in the form of a wafer." We believe that it is Jesus, it just looks like bread, it is Jesus but it looks like wine.

 

[prodromos]

Thanks QeV,
Yes as is his wont, a masterly putting of the finger on and communicating of this particular bifurcation. Even so 'The Master' still gets points deducted in my school for not paragraphing. This piece should be in three chunks.
><>

You won't cope at all if you start reading the Greek theological works. Single sentences often exceed what most would expect to be in a paragraph.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's what I said. It looks like a wafer, but it is in fact Jesus, to the Catholic. Bow down and worship the wafer, your savior.

It's not what you said, and you know it. And nobody I know worships a wafer.

 

[Radagast]

In your world-view am I below the bar and therefore debarred from expressing a view on text presentation?

Of course not. But I'm pointing out that you're attacking him in his core area of expertise.

I'll take his word for it.

 

[Radagast]

You won't cope at all if you start reading the Greek theological works.

The same is true of the Apostle Paul, in the original Greek.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't understand what he means at the end. But for the first half I can see what he means, for example, by way of the eucharist. Catholics insist upon transubstantiation - the "real presence", Christ returning in the form of a wafer, in contrast to the Protestant view of the bread of communion being symbolic, an allegory (or really, metaphor)

You don't seem to understand what allegory means. An allegory is to present a concept or abstraction in material terms - think of the Pixar movie Inside Out for allegorical emotions. This is not the same as a metaphor necessarily.

Symbolism is actually the opposite impulse of allegory. This is where a symbol or reality is imbued with characteristics of an abstraction. Think of the rains coming in the Lion King signifying rightful rule, or Scar's Nazi symbolism.

To consider communion the actual body of Christ is allegoric to Catholics, as it is embodying the spiritual truth in a physical material, which becomes that Truth, becomes Christ. Communing with God is made tangible, thus linking this world with the spiritual truth of God. To Protestants, the bread is symbolic of Christ, whether Real Presence or not, but it is not the actuality of being Christ as such. It represents something that occurs 'behind or beyond our reality' as it were. Communion is Allegoric to Catholics, Symbolic to Protestants. The former calls the divine into the mundane world as a miracle, the latter that the mundane signifies and points toward a greater reality beyond it. Either way we are blurring the division between the physical and spiritual reality, but the mechanism is different.