Into the Wardrobe

I have just finished this book more or less in one sitting as I found it rather hard to put down. Although published by Ignatius Press back in 2003 my searches, surprisingly, came up with nothing!
Are there some archived comments somewhere that I have missed? If not, does anyone remember reading the book, and if so what impressions it made. Regards, John.

there is a bit here, I don't know how much is wishful thinking-- everyone wants to claim Lewis!




Also an article mostly about Lewis's works from an Orthodox perspective here:

Hi Rus!

I couldn't find the exact quote, but I do remember Lewis talking about one of his visits to an Orthodox church. He was impressed with the fact that some people stood while others kneeled and one woman even crawled on the ground--but no one seemed to care what anyone else did. It was a relief from being in churches where everyone watches their neighbors just to see who is or isn't crossing themselves.

Admittedly, the above doesn't have much to do with the 'big questions' of doctrines and authority, but I thought it was interesting.

~Rose

Thanks, JR!

I'd love to get that quote, and any other references by either Lewis or Chesterton to (Eastern) Orthodoxy.

Indeed, everyone's focus is forward, not on neighbors, and I especially love that even the priest isn't the star of the show (unlike my Baptist upbringing, where the show depends on the preacher). It is indeed a relief.

Full-face prostrations are one of the forms of prostrating, but crawling is not something done in church.

Not if you have already decided what you believe and where Christ's Church is.

Need to clarify 'absolute judge'. The Orthodox Church would require an Pan-Orthodox Ecumenical Council to say anything new at all. If all of the Bishops say, "This is the way it is; this is what that means", then that is what the Church has said. As with all objections to hierarchy, it is necessary to understand that they have no authority over us unless we voluntarily accept their authority. They can't go about adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Faith. They spend their time learning, teaching, and clarifying what the Faith is, what it says.

If you cannot acknowledge a point where your reason is not enough in understanding an infinite God and that a Church with 2000 years* of experience is wrong and you are right, then that sounds like a pride problem to me (pride in intellect). I can more readily understand objections to proclamations by a single man (such as the Catholic Church, in theory, possesses). But even so, we need to keep a humble attitude towards our reason. There are many things where I can say, "I may be wrong, but..." - because I am the final authority. But when it comes to Church dogma, I can defend it dogmatically, because it has been pronounced and explained by the Church, and it fits (must fit) in with the existing Faith. I imagine Lewis had doubts as to where the Church of Christ really was, and so does everyone who relies on self as an ultimate authority, an interpreter of Scripture and the Faith.[/quote]

* If your church has only 100-200, or even 400 years of experience, it is also understandable to doubt its authority.

I still think you are putting thoughts in Lewis' brain. Saying "I do not trust x" is not analagous to saying "I do trust y".

In fact, the problem he has is that the Catholic Church lacks the humility that you say we should maintain, because it claims to be the sole and infallible interpreter of scripture and the Faith. And to their credit, even most practicing Catholics don't buy that. I don't even know if the CC still says this sort of thing, but they used to.

Mere longevity does not denote wisdom. It's a bit difficult to argue that an organization is a wise messenger of God simply because it has existed for 2000 years, when as little as 50-odd years ago it allowed itself to become a tool of Mousillini used for oppression and political control. *This does not mean that the CC is evil. Many individual Catholics resisted bravely. And the Church has done great things as well.* But it cannot be accepted as a final authority any more than our own reason can be. Iron sharpens iron. I simply don't think that "pride of intellect" necessarily follows from Lewis' statement. I think you are reading into it too far.

If I were prone to being sarcastic, I would point out that 2000 years of experience was also 2000 years of potential corruption. But I don't believe in a straight line progression either of wisdom or of decay.