The difference between Catholics and Protestants according to CS Lewis

[~Anastasia~]

I still wonder where Reformed broke off from the traditional understanding of the Eucharist, since Calvin believed in it in some real sense.

I have to say, I'm thankful that we avoid the philosophical debates regarding the nature of the Eucharist. In our understanding, it simply IS because Jesus said it is, through the institution He gave us, and to assert details beyond that is to risk going into error, since He (nor the Holy Spirit) taught any more than that. For us it is one of the major Holy Mysteries.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Ok, stiil lost. How is the distinction between a real and allegorical wall related to tradition?

The Tradition is the allegorical Wall, the institutions embodying it, which are housed in real buildings - so that when speaking allegorically as a Protestant, you end up with something approaching or resembling the Church of Rome.

 

[FireDragon76]

My experience of Reformed churches is not really relevant here. This is purely about the conceptual structure of Protestantism - which in this instance clearly includes Lutheranism and Anglicanism - vis a vis Catholicism. Again, Real Presence has no bearing on whether it is conceived in an allegorical fashion or symbolically of a greater reality.

Lewis was pointing out that the manner both traditions 'go wrong' is in keeping with the way they approach the Spiritual. It says nothing about his Anglicanism, as he was anyway unequivocal that Anglicanism is a form of Protestantism - this seeing it as via media stuff is a far more modern phenomenon, and not really helpful or meaningful in a real sense, I think. I think the post WWII liberal German theologians largely proves Lewis' point regarding Protestantism, as things like the Ilaga proves the Catholic side. In like manner, Anglicanism that 'goes wrong' is tending toward moral platitudes as well.

On Orthodoxy and Lutheranism, I have always seen a marked differentiation between how the Eucharist is viewed. Orthodoxy has a divine mystery, but the attempt to continue to explain in Lutheranism belies its Western roots, I think.

Well, we don't make the Lord's Supper so mysterious that it is unobtainable, I suppose that is true in that sense. Like some Greeks who won't receive the Sacrament if they have a cut on their body, for instance (yes, that is a real thing, they are afraid of bleeding Jesus' blood). When I was an Orthodox catechumen, that sort of stuff ways really eye opening to see among cradle types.

 

[FireDragon76]

I still wonder where Reformed broke off from the traditional understanding of the Eucharist, since Calvin believed in it in some real sense.

Princeton Theology and Scottish Common Sense Realism doomed it. American evangelical fundamentalism and liberalism in the US both spring from this school of thought.

The point of Lutheran theology of the Lord's Supper is really pastoral, and not merely speculative. Christ is truly and freely given in the sacrament, even to those who will choose to reject him. The Lutheran approach is focused on what is external to the self to find assurance, because in Luther's estimation original sin is analogous to self-obsession, self-will, and self-consciousness. That is why we have a strong sense of sacramentalism still.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, we don't make the Lord's Supper so mysterious that it is unobtainable, I suppose that is true in that sense. Like some Greeks who won't receive the Sacrament if they have a cut on their body, for instance (yes, that is a real thing, they are afraid of bleeding Jesus' blood). When I was an Orthodox catechumen, that sort of stuff ways really eye opening to see among cradle types.

There can be a degree of superstition among the cradles. Those from Greece were under Ottoman rule and other persecutions, just as in Russia during the last century so many priests were killed. It was often the grandmas who transmitted the faith, and they often only managed to go to Church a couple of times a year, so as a result many superstitions crept in. I think the one about bleeding actually appears somewhere in the historical canons, but the canons have to do with pastoral application not theology, and can change in how they are applied over time. It sometimes creates wrong ideas when people read historic canon law. (I just borrowed one of my priest's books on canon law and it's fascinating - but really one has to have discernment to read it!)

In our parish we have many older Greeks who grew up in such circumstances, and Father has been working to reeducate them gently. They must be convinced though that it's what the Church REALLY teaches, as it is unlikely for any cradle Orthodox to simply accept new ideas from (especially a younger) priest.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Princeton Theology and Scottish Common Sense Realism doomed it. American evangelical fundamentalism and liberalism in the US both spring from this school of thought.

The point of Lutheran theology of the Lord's Supper is really pastoral, and not merely speculative. Christ is truly and freely given in the sacrament, even to those who will choose to reject him. The Lutheran approach is focused on what is external to the self to find assurance, because in Luther's estimation original sin is analogous to self-obsession, self-will, and self-consciousness. That is why we have a strong sense of sacramentalism still.

Thank you for the info. I'll have to add that to my list to look into and that helps a lot.

By the way, I didn't mean a criticism of Lutheranism by my comment. I understand that from early on various kinds of discussions arose, and from that point it could be necessary to address it. It's just not something the east ever had to deal with.