Mary and the stable

[Stanley Anderson]

I am posting this with a bit of trepidation, just because it might be more sectarian than appropriate. But here goes...this is probably more for the Catholic members of this forum, but of course anyone is welcome to comment.

Something occurred to me about the famous scene in The Last Battle where they have all been thrown through the stable door and found that the inside was bigger than the outside and Lucy says "Yes, in our world too, a Stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world". It suddenly struck me that it can be seen as a very wonderful image of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, as referred to by the Roman Catholic Church. She, as the bearer of Christ, is seen as the truth that was prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant in the OT, and Lewis' imagery here seems like a perfect illustration of that same idea.

Now I know that Lewis was not Catholic and had a different idea in mind (ie, to convey that Christ was bigger than the world and yet entered the world as a baby in a manger), but he was so close to the Catholic faith that I suspect, had he lived to see the expansion of existing problems and the development of many things he abhorred in his own (and, peripherally, my own soon-to-be-former:-) denomination, he might very well have gone to Rome (of course no one can say for sure). And as such, or even if not, he might not have objected to such a specifically Roman Catholic interpretation of his stable image in The Last Battle.

Or so it seems to me at least. Any thoughts, anyone? And I suppose this could lead to thoughs of what other parts of the Narnian stories might be seen from a particularly Catholic perspective? Or even what parts might be seen to be specifcially non-Catholic? Just fun speculation -- I'm curious to hear others' thoughts here.

--Stanley

[Monica]

quote="Stanley Anderson"

Or even what parts might be seen to be specifcially non-Catholic? Just fun speculation -- I'm curious to hear others' thoughts here.

*Winks* I will refrain from using your Indian name 'Sitting Bull' in this post. :-) (Hope you saw that thread.) Fun speculation or not, people are rather serious about their religious views.

With that in mind, I'll avoid making any comment about your interesting Virgin Mary speculation and try to answer the second part of your post: What might be some specifically non-Catholic, more Protestant parts of Narnia?

1. Lewis creates a Christ-type in Aslan, a God-type in the Emperor-Over-Sea, and references the Holy Spirit in The Horse and His Boy, but there is no mother-of-Aslan figure. In fact, there are few -- if any -- mothers in Narnia at all.

2. For some reason, I always think of Frank the Cabbie as Protestant. :-)

3. Characters swear "By Aslan" or "By the Mane" but never use a feminine exclamation.

4. There seems to be a more informal approach to both Aslan and dealings with Aslan than one might find in the Catholic tradition. There is usually no incense, robes, ceremony or liturgy where Aslan is involved -- unless you count Narnian Affairs of State.

That's enough for now, I guess.

[Stanley Anderson]

*Winks* I will refrain from using your Indian name 'Sitting Bull' in this post. :-) (Hope you saw that thread.)

I just now went to look (I had forgotten that I even posted there since I rarely look into that forum)

Fun speculation or not, people are rather serious about their religious views.

And what better to have fun with than the things one is serious about. (I did mean "fun" there in the "enjoyment" sense rather than in a teasing or mocking sense of course)

...I'll ...try to answer the second part of your post: What might be some specifically non-Catholic, more Protestant parts of Narnia?

Thanks for joining it (by the way, it suddenly occurs to me that though I've mentioned in various threads about our recent decision to join the Roman Catholic Church, those comments were probably confined to the Christianity forum which some people here tend to avoid, so if that is true for you and this is news to you, I apologize -- I probably should have made brief mention of it in this thread to make my POV clear. This paragraph should rectify that omission)

Interesting examples. I have some comments about them (surprise, surprise:-), but only as observations and discussion points, not meant critically at all of course.

1. Lewis creates a Christ-type in Aslan, a God-type in the Emperor-Over-Sea, and references the Holy Spirit in The Horse and His Boy, but there is no mother-of-Aslan figure. In fact, there are few -- if any -- mothers in Narnia at all.

(Digory's mother is not actually in Narnia, I guess, but can she be an honorary Narnian by virtue of the apple "proxy"?:-)

I might suggest that in fact there are only vague suggestions of the Holy Spirit in the Narnian books rather than "direct" references as there are of the Father and Son aspects of the Trinity. Not that those vague suggestions are not valuable or "not there", but only that we look for them in a different way than we look for the Christ image in Aslan or the Father image in the Emperor-Over-the-Sea. And that therefore, if we wanted to look for Mary images in the books, we might expect them to be equally, or more so, of vague suggestion (recognizing of course that as a non-Catholic, Lewis would not be making heavy efforts to include them; but still, as a near-Catholic, such imagery might slip in despite his conscious directions -- this is where the "fun" part comes in, for me at least:-)

And so the stable image with its inside bigger than its outside (which is pretty much what Catholics would say about the "fruit of her womb, Jesus") fits very nicely, I think, in the "vague imagery" category that we see of the breath of Aslan as an image of the Holy Spirit in HHS or the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as reflected in Father Christmas's gifts in LWW, etc.

In fact, I might suggest along this line that as I've noted before elsewhere, one of Lewis' seemingly very important images throughout many of his books is the idea of the "inside being greater or larger than the outside" as seen in, for example, the wardrobe itself, and other places (can't remember which thread I posted about that idea in more depth a while back). So if one sees this idea as a particularly nice Marian concept, one might be surprised at and pleased at how much it pervades Lewis' works, intentional on his part or not.

2. For some reason, I always think of Frank the Cabbie as Protestant. :-)

Hmmm...I suppose so, though I wonder if there is not a pre-conceived image of Catholic "personality" as somehow "higher" rather than "common". One of the things I'm discovering at our local Catholic church is the wide range of types and personalities there (interesting side note: we, as Caucasians, are in the very extreme minority there, with most of the congregation composed of Vietnamese and Hispanic families). In any case, Frank as a Protestant would certainly be a non-Catholic "element" as an example in a created world that might contain both Catholic and non-Catholic things in it, in the same manner that Narnia also contains the White Witch, who is also probably non-Catholic (though some of my evangelical relatives might contest that claim:-).

But my thought in starting the thread was more along the line of things that might suggest a Catholic or non-Catholic "world view", you might say. So, for instance, one might wonder if the concept of atonement as imaged by the talk of Aslan about Deep Magic and Deeper Magic fell into line more with Catholic or non-Catholic views (I think it probably supports both, but I was just trying to come up with an example off the top of my head). But individual "non-Catholics" or "non-Catholic" things, as you provide in this example are certainly open game in this thread (I don't want to be too restrictive so as not to limit discussion on such a potentially narrow thread topic)

3. Characters swear "By Aslan" or "By the Mane" but never use a feminine exclamation.

This is a curious and interesting example. I was quite mystified by it at first (and still am to some degree). Do you think Catholics have a "feminine" view of God? (I mean that as an honest question and not rhetorical or critical) Can you tell me more? Perhaps you mean because Protestants often tend to see Catholics as focusing more on Mary than on God/Jesus in a way that seems like inappropriate worship? (Imagines Tirian exclaiming, during the fight "By the stable door!" -- hmmm...he almost did, I think, except that it was probably more of a direction order than an oath swearing:-)

4. There seems to be a more informal approach to both Aslan and dealings with Aslan than one might find in the Catholic tradition. There is usually no incense, robes, ceremony or liturgy where Aslan is involved -- unless you count Narnian Affairs of State.

This is the example out of your four that I find most suggestive of the theme, and it makes me think carefully. I see what you mean, and I think I might agree, although in another sense, it is the Catholic tradition that "relies" more on imagery and sacramental views of "things" as opposed to the Protestant tendency to mistrust imagery. And so when I think of things like the Lamb scene at the end of VDT, or the cat scene in HHB, or some of the discussion about Tash/Aslan in LB, or Lucy's and the others' gradual seeing of Aslan in PC, or even "things" like the lamppost or the apple that Digory takes to his mother and various other things, I (now) tend to see those more as imaging things in a more "Catholic" way than the more "abstract" Protestant way (eg, the contrast between the Sacramental and "memorial" view of communion between Catholics and Protestants illustrates this to some degree in our own world). But of course I can see the Protestant view of those very same Narnian things too, so I wouldn't deny them a Protestant interpretation.

Perhaps to illustrate what I'm talking about better, I'll quote from my wife Angelee's paper on Charles Williams where she talks about the Way of Affirmation and Rejection of Images:

The Way of Affirmation consists in recognizing the immanence of God in all things, and says that appreciation of whom and what God has made may lead us to appreciation of Himself. The Way of Rejection concentrates on the transcendence of God, the recognition that God is never fully contained in His creation; it says that we must renounce all lesser images if we would apprehend His. These two Ways have been expressed by the paradox "This also is Thou; neither is this Thou," and tend generally to illustrate, respectively, Catholic or Protestant thought in their attitudes toward the use of images.

While Williams insists that a complement of both these Ways is necessary to the life of every Christian, and that none of us can walk the Kingdom's narrow road by only affirming or only rejecting -- as in All Hallows' Eve Lester realizes that "love [is] a union of having and not-having" (p. 181) -- yet he contends that Christians are usually called primarily to one Way or the other. Williams himself was a practitioner of the Way of Affirmation. Explains C. S. Lewis:

[Williams was] a romantic theologian in the technical sense which he himself invented for those words. A romantic theologian does not mean one who is romantic about theology but one who is theological about romance, one who considers the theological implications of those experiences which are called romantic. The belief that the most serious and ecstatic experiences either of human love or of imaginative literature have such theological implications, and that they can be healthy and fruitful only if the implications are diligently thought out and severely lived, is the root principle of all his work

That's enough for now, I guess.

It was quite more than I expected and I very much appreciate the thoughtful reply. And if you have more comments for now or later, I look forward to seeing them greatly!

--Stanley

[Monica]

"Stanley Anderson"

I had forgotten that I even posted there since I rarely look into that forum.

Except that you had just posted in there, which is why I posted. :-)

And what better to have fun with than the things one is serious about. (I did mean "fun" there in the "enjoyment" sense rather than in a teasing or mocking sense of course)

Agreed! Hopefully you won't take my comment of you as a 'bull in a chair ' as anything but gentle fun. (If you ever meet Peter Jackson in real life, and if he's wearing red, well, it might be anything but gentle then.:-)

By the way, it suddenly occurs to me that though I've mentioned in various threads about our recent decision to join the Roman Catholic ... is news to you, I apologize

Not news to me at all. I correspond with a few women on the forums regularly, and women do talk.....:-)

(Digory's mother is not actually in Narnia, I guess, but can she be an honorary Narnian by virtue of the apple "proxy"?:-)

By all means. I had forgotten about her.

2. For some reason, I always think of Frank the Cabbie as Protestant. :-)
Hmmm...I suppose so, though I wonder if there is not a pre-conceived image of Catholic "personality" as somehow "higher" rather than "common"

.


Oh, no, no, not at all. If anything, the vast numbers of uneducated, nominal Catholics in developing countries of the world might lead one to hold the opposite view, if one insisted on applying 'higher-lower' labels at all, which I would not. I must think of Frank as Protestant because he's from rural England. At that point in history, much of England was Protestant.

3. Characters swear "By Aslan" or "By the Mane" but never use a feminine exclamation. This is a curious and interesting example. I was quite mystified by it at first (and still am to some degree). Do you think Catholics have a "feminine" view of God?

Again, no, no, not at all. I just meant that the oaths taken in Narnia weren't of the "Holy Mother of God." variety. In our world, people swear by Jesus, God, Mary, and the Saints. In Narnia, the swearing sounded more 'Protestant.'

I see what you mean, and I think I might agree, although in another sense, it is the Catholic tradition that "relies" more on imagery and sacramental views of "things" as opposed to the Protestant tendency to mistrust imagery. And so when I think of things like the Lamb scene at the end of VDT, or the cat scene in HHB, or some of the discussion about Tash/Aslan in LB, or Lucy's and the others' gradual seeing of Aslan in PC, or even "things" like the lamppost or the apple that Digory takes to his mother and various other things, I (now) tend to see those more as imaging things in a more "Catholic" way

I see what you mean and I think I might agree as well. I don't like the Protestant tendency to eschew imagery.

[carol]

It's news to me that you have church-jumped, Stan!
I am a bit surprised in one way, but in others it seems to fit you two.

I just hope you are very sure before you make the final decision.

I think the reason Narnia is very Protestant is that Lewis's church experience was dominated by the state church... C of E is part of being English. He didn't have a huge RC experience. His world-view didn't have the same input from RC church as, say, Tolkien's.

[Stanley Anderson]

It's news to me that you have church-jumped, Stan!

Well, not a terribly large jump. Coming from a traditional Anglican church, the RC priest we have been talking to said we are probably more Catholic than 80% of the people sitting in the pews:-)

I just hope you are very sure before you make the final decision.

The final decision has already been made and you can be certain that we were quite sure. Though we have been surrounded in the last couple years with a rapidly rising level of intensity (with a virtual flood sweeping us off our feet the last couple months), we have deeply contemplated Rome off and on for a good portion of our 24 years at the Anglican church. So it has been a decision that was long time coming and now confidently made.

I think the reason Narnia is very Protestant is that Lewis's church experience was dominated by the state church... C of E is part of being English. He didn't have a huge RC experience. His world-view didn't have the same input from RC church as, say, Tolkien's.

Perhaps, but there is no doubt that he held several Catholic, or at least very "high church" Anglican views on such things as Purgatory and a thoroughly Sacramental view of Communion, not to mention a similarly strong leaning (as he says of Charles Williams in the quote in my previous post) toward the way of Affirmation of images.

--Stanley

[Stanley Anderson]

"Stanley Anderson"

I had forgotten that I even posted there since I rarely look into that forum.

Except that you had just posted in there, which is why I posted. :-)

You'll have to understand that in Stanley-memory-time, two days is far beyond a "just posted in there" period of time:-)

Hopefully you won't take my comment of you as a 'bull in a chair ' as anything but gentle fun.

Oh, certainly. (I was referring to your comment about people taking their religious veiws seriously.)

I must think of Frank as Protestant because he's from rural England. At that point in history, much of England was Protestant.

Yes, not to mention how he begins singing a harvest hymn in the dark at the creation of Narnia and his conversation with Strawberry -- both lend a distinct Protestant flavour (at least for that time perhaps) too.

I just meant that the oaths taken in Narnia weren't of the "Holy Mother of God." variety. In our world, people swear by Jesus, God, Mary, and the Saints. In Narnia, the swearing sounded more 'Protestant.'

Ah, clear now. Of course since, like the less concrete Narnian images of the Holy Spirit, the (conjectured by me at least) more abstract Marian image of the stable would not really lend itself to that type of swearing, but you're probably right.

That brings to mind another thought -- and I'm not sure this relates specifically to a Catholic or Protestant view, but it is interesting that the concept and even fear of "ghosts" crops up more than once in Narnia (eg, Susan and Lucy being afraid that the resurrected Aslan was a ghost, or the "haunted" beehive-like tombs in HHB, or the discussion of ghosts at the end of The Silver Chair in Aslan's country, or even the "you can always get them back" hints in PC, etc). Again, not sure how it relates here, but interesting to consider.

--Stanley

[carol]

Stanley wrote:
Perhaps, but there is no doubt that he held several Catholic, or at least very "high church" Anglican views on such things as Purgatory and a thoroughly Sacramental view of Communion, not to mention a similarly strong leaning (as he says of Charles Williams in the quote in my previous post) toward the way of Affirmation of images.

A lot of the Anglican church IS very High Church, in England. I was surprised how many of the churches I visited or worshipped in, during my visits, were a lot more formal/high than I was used to in my own country. But even in my own city I could name at least three churches with a huge amount more ceremony and 'high' beliefs than my own (admittedly, very low) one.

I think a lot of American protestants might be surprised if they met a practising C of E member in Lewis's day, at how much less protestant such a person might seem in their worship style and beliefs.

(as for all the Terminology, I have little understanding of a lot of the words and phrases that seem to be abundant in RC. To me, affirmation means saying "yes". Sorry!)

[Stanley Anderson]

(as for all the Terminology, I have little understanding of a lot of the words and phrases that seem to be abundant in RC. To me, affirmation means saying "yes". Sorry!)

And that is essentially what it means in the phrase "the way of affirmation of images" that Lewis and Charles Williams used. I'll requote the portion from the post above where I copied a portion of Angelee's paper on Charles Williams:

The Way of Affirmation consists in recognizing the immanence of God in all things, and says that appreciation of whom and what God has made may lead us to appreciation of Himself. The Way of Rejection concentrates on the transcendence of God, the recognition that God is never fully contained in His creation; it says that we must renounce all lesser images if we would apprehend His. These two Ways have been expressed by the paradox "This also is Thou; neither is this Thou," and tend generally to illustrate, respectively, Catholic or Protestant thought in their attitudes toward the use of images.

While Williams insists that a complement of both these Ways is necessary to the life of every Christian, and that none of us can walk the Kingdom's narrow road by only affirming or only rejecting -- as in All Hallows' Eve Lester realizes that "love [is] a union of having and not-having" (p. 181) -- yet he contends that Christians are usually called primarily to one Way or the other. Williams himself was a practitioner of the Way of Affirmation. Explains C. S. Lewis:

[Williams was] a romantic theologian in the technical sense which he himself invented for those words. A romantic theologian does not mean one who is romantic about theology but one who is theological about romance, one who considers the theological implications of those experiences which are called romantic. The belief that the most serious and ecstatic experiences either of human love or of imaginative literature have such theological implications, and that they can be healthy and fruitful only if the implications are diligently thought out and severely lived, is the root principle of all his work

--Stanley

[Puddleglee]

4. There seems to be a more informal approach to both Aslan and dealings with Aslan than one might find in the Catholic tradition. There is usually no incense, robes, ceremony or liturgy where Aslan is involved -- unless you count Narnian Affairs of State.

I have just finished my umpteenth reading of LB and was particularly struck by Shift as the 'mouthpiece' of Tashlan. This is at the point in the story where Puzzle (in his lion-outfit) has been rescued from the stable, so Shift has no 'Tashlan' to show to the crowd. Shift says that in future Tashlan will only speak through him.

I think that Lewis' intention was to criticise the RC practice of the priest as the 'contact person' between God and His congregation, rather than allowing direct contact as in the Protestant Church, a view I would agree with. But then I'm a Protestant, and so low church that I'm practically horizontal! So, for me, this is definitely a 'non-Catholic' moment.

I'm a little confused by your original question, Stanley. Are you suggesting that Mary is the stable, with something (Jesus) far bigger inside her, or that Mary is the thing that is bigger? Either way, I am rather astonished that you thought of Mary in this context at all. I think the passage points clearly to Jesus being bigger than the whole world, and can't see any other intepretation. But again, I'm probably betraying my Protestant prejudices more than anything else!

One interesting thing that's just struck me - in LB, Aslan tells Emeth that any true worship is worship of him, regardless of the God the worshipper calls upon. There is no instruction as to the nature of that worship, however - it could be dancing alone and naked in an open field, or involve incense, candles and complicated liturgy, or both, as far as we are told.

To me, this is a reminder that being a true Narnian (or a true Christian) isn't about the external things, or the pomp and ceremony - it's about what is in one's heart and mind. I'm sure I've put that very badly, but I hope you get what I mean!

[Monica]

quote="Puddleglee

But then I'm a Protestant, and so low church that I'm practically horizontal!

*Laughs* I like that! I go to a little country church, with wooden planks for walls and a big, empty brown cross at the front, and that's it. Not a liturgy in sight. So I completely understand the concept of horizontal Protestants.

Your point about the Ape is very good, too.

(And, note to Stanley -- my church is set in lovely hill country, surrounded by God's creation, which, seen from the windows, makes worship a kind of "this is Thou; neither is this Thou" center place. ( Just so you know that I completely respect and agree with the use of images in the Church.)

[interloper]

A few thoughts re churches, near-horizontal and near-vertical.

To me, this is a reminder that being a true Narnian (or a true Christian) isn't about the external things, or the pomp and ceremony - it's about what is in one's heart and mind. I'm sure I've put that very badly, but I hope you get what I mean!

That was excellently put, Puddleglee.

I grew up in the Open Brethren, to which I now refer as the 'extreme of non-conformism' (perhaps leaving out church groups that only meet in people's homes). In recent times I have migrated to the Church of England, my local parish church being generally regarded as middle-of-the road between 'high' and 'low'. One of the first sermons I listened to from our rector included a passing reference to baptism. ("Oh aye", I thought, "here we go!"). What he actually said was: "When you were baptised, you weren't baptised into the Church of England, or into any other church, you were baptised into Christ." ("Oh", says I to myself, "perhaps these C of E johnnies are not so far wrong after all".) I later came to realise that if there's one theme our rector exudes from every pore, it is Christ. I go to see him and chat over a cup of tea from time to time, and always come away thinking that in a very discernible sense, I have been talking with Jesus. Of course, the idea is not to imitate him, it's to imitate the One he is imitating.

You probably know the hymn,

Oh worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness!
Bow down before him, his glory proclaim;
With gold of obedience and incense of lowliness,
Kneel and adore him, the Lord is his name.

I find that third line most compelling: obedience and lowliness are what God is really seeking, the gold and incense are purely incidental.

Now that hymn was written by John Samuel Bewley Monsell, who was rector of St Nicholas Church in Guildford until his tragic death in 1875 - he was killed when a slate fell off the roof of the church. It's close to where I live (my church is St Nicolas, with no 'h', in Cranleigh, about 8 miles distant). It's interesting that St Nicholas in Guildford has a repution of being very lofty and 'high church', but clearly it has had at least one rector who was more interested in obedience and lowliness than all the trappings of gold and incense.

I'm interested in what Carol said a few days ago:

A lot of the Anglican church IS very High Church, in England. I was surprised how many of the churches I visited or worshipped in, during my visits, were a lot more formal/high than I was used to in my own country.

I know you've lived a bit in England, Carol, because you mentioned it in an exchange we had a while ago. But how long ago was it that you gained that impression? My impression, after I started going to the C of E in the late 1990s, is that you can always tell at a glance (if, say, you're driving through an unfamiliar town), whether a particular church is C of E or RC. Of course a Norman building will invariably be C of E, but many church buildings belong to a later period. The thing that gives it away is that the C of E will inevitably have a huge banner across the front with the words JESUS IS LORD! (or a similar message). Nowadays my impression is that most C of E parish churches are distinctly evangelical to some extent, even those with a reputation of being 'high church'.

Another thing that struck me as I became settled in the C of E was the nature of the Diocesan Herald, a monthly tabloid-style newspaper circulated in the Guildford diocese. On the back of one issue I read early on was an article about a football team that one of the Guildford churches had recently formed, with a view to providing a worthwhile activity for young lads in the church as well as an opportunity to invite their mates to join in, and perhaps consider coming to church. The article bore the headline: "Who is on the Lord's Side? -- Scoring Goals for Christ!"

One final thing of a less reverent nature (sorry, this post is a bit rambling - just a few isolated thoughts really). The same Diocesan Herald ran a caption competition one Christmas. It showed a photo of a highly got-up woman, plastered with lipstick and make-up (I think she was dressed for the part of one of the ugly sisters in a production of Cinderalla, or something like that). She was leaning over the back of a sofa, with lips pursed as if to bestow a kiss on the (then) Bishop of Guildford, John Gladwin. He was reclining on the sofa, obviously backing away, with a huge grin on his face. You had to supply a caption, and the instructions said, "tell us what the actress said to the bishop, and you could win a book voucher."

[Stanley Anderson]

4. There seems to be a more informal approach to both Aslan and dealings with Aslan than one might find in the Catholic tradition. There is usually no incense, robes, ceremony or liturgy where Aslan is involved -- unless you count Narnian Affairs of State.

I have just finished my umpteenth reading of LB and was particularly struck by Shift as the 'mouthpiece' of Tashlan. This is at the point in the story where Puzzle (in his lion-outfit) has been rescued from the stable, so Shift has no 'Tashlan' to show to the crowd. Shift says that in future Tashlan will only speak through him.

I think that Lewis' intention was to criticise the RC practice of the priest as the 'contact person' between God and His congregation, rather than allowing direct contact as in the Protestant Church, a view I would agree with. But then I'm a Protestant, and so low church that I'm practically horizontal! So, for me, this is definitely a 'non-Catholic' moment.

Let me say first that, as I implied in the initial post of this thread, I've clearly already "lost" before I even started this thread since Lewis was not Roman Catholic. And though he seemed to be pretty "high church" he had at least a few particular problems with certain RC positions. So anything I say on the subject of this thread here is, as I mentioned, for the purposes of fun speculation.

The main idea of the thread is, suppose we grant a reader's RC p.o.v.; are there things in the Narnian stories that Catholics can "take with them" in a specifically RC way, but which are not necessarily clearly "determined" that way for all readers? (eg, in our own world, a rose is seen by RCs [and other Christians of course] as a fitting symbol of Mary, but it has many other "uses" as an image or symbol by anyone else too).

And of course as an additional parallel idea for discussion in this thread, "are there things in the Narnian stories that seem specifically Protestant and possibly in direct opposition to beliefs specifically held by RCs?" (this being your -- entirely appropriate -- approach in your post). So I hope my discussion will not be so much about whether your ideas about Shift are right or wrong, but again, in "fun speculation". And I might disagree (again, pleasantly I hope) with specific views about Lewis himself.

In response to your thought that "Lewis' intention was to criticize the RC practice of the priest as the 'contact person' between God and His congregation", I don't think Lewis had this intention at all -- though the implications in your wording (along with your subsequent comment -- more on that later) give me some discomfort. Lewis, as I said, was fairly high church in his personal beliefs (which, being personal, he didn't stress in any "mere Christianity"-like discussion), and high Anglican views of the priesthood are pretty darn compatible with RC views.

But I believe Lewis had specific objections to the idea of Papal Infallibility (not at all, I'm sure, of the typical Protestant erroneous impression of a sort of all-encompassing infallibility that it means something like 'if the Pope feels like having a cheeseburger one day, cheeseburgers are henceforth to be preferred infallibly', but rather his objections would be with the more accurate "limited" RC view of Infallibility). And so I think your impression of Shift -- at least in terms of wondering what Lewis might have thought about it -- would hold more water as an objection to the position of the Pope rather than of priests and bishops in general. (I wouldn't say that myself of course, but I could see the position -- also, you might very well think of Shift as an appropriate picture of the priesthood in general yourself; I'm just arguing that Lewis himself would not see Shift that way)

I want to comment on your further statement (citing the Wardrobe unofficial motto of "...but I digress..." as justification:-), and I'll quote the previous part (again) along with it for context: "Lewis' intention was to criticize the RC practice of the priest as the 'contact person' between God and His congregation, rather than allowing direct contact as in the Protestant Church".

Aside from my discomfort with the phrase "contact person", my main problem with your statement as an observation about differences between RC and Protestant views is with the wording "rather than". I'm probably stepping out of my level of knowledge at this point (I've mentioned in other threads that I am only just recently entering into the realm of Catholic beliefs, and I prefer more to stand in a position of wonderment and awe and learning rather than of debating hardcore doctrine for which I have no firm base yet). Instead of your phrase "rather than", I would probably say "in addition to".

In my various forum posts on our embracing of Catholicism, I've mentioned how enamored I've been with the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (it can be read online at http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm). And one of the things I think anyone who looks through it will find is how firmly and resolutely it establishes that "direct contact" with God through Christ. To be sure, it also talks about the priest's role in the Church (and it is a role as part of the Body and not instead of or in place of the Body). But it is not an either/or, but more of a both sort of thing (and something I see not just in the text of the Catechism, but also in the very Mass and Life entire in the Church itself). Really, even apart from any enticement to actually join the Catholic Church, I would encourage anyone to at least try to simply lose these rather odd impressions (one's I've held myself in the past) of the Catholic Church as restraining its members in a sort of extreme isolation and separation from God.

I'm a little confused by your original question, Stanley. Are you suggesting that Mary is the stable, with something (Jesus) far bigger inside her, or that Mary is the thing that is bigger?

Oh yes, rest assured that you were certainly confused (most likely due to my own lack of clarity -- please forgive any blurriness on my part). I most certainly meant that Mary is the stable with something (Jesus) far bigger inside her. As I mentioned in the original post, the Ark of the Covenant with its "containing" or holding the budding branch of Aaron, the manna from heaven and the tablets of the Law is seen as prefiguring Mary (as the Ark) "containing" and in the fullness of time giving birth to the fulfillment of the Law and the Bread of Heaven. And of course, as I said, I can't argue that Lewis really intended this -- only that it admits that image pleasantly for RCs (and I also suggested that Lewis might not have objected to such imagery either whether he intended it or not)

Either way, I am rather astonished that you thought of Mary in this context at all.

Funny what conversions of just about any sort can do, eh? They often cause you to see love and joy and richness in many things surrounding you to a far greater degree than before you became enamored of your beloved. The whole world suddenly becomes more colourful, sort of like Dorothy stepping out of her black-and-white farmhouse into the brilliantly coloured world of Oz:-)

I think the passage points clearly to Jesus being bigger than the whole world, and can't see any other interpretation.

Again, I would stress "in addition to" instead of "rather than" or "can't see any other". Jesus is certainly the "bigger than the whole world" part. Nevertheless, it was the stable (Mary), which was still part of that "whole world" that somehow ironically held that "bigger" thing (Jesus). How can it be explained logically? It can't -- or at least I can't. It is a mystery. And a very Holy Mystery at that.

One interesting thing that's just struck me - in LB, Aslan tells Emeth that any true worship is worship of him, regardless of the God the worshipper calls upon. There is no instruction as to the nature of that worship, however - it could be dancing alone and naked in an open field, or involve incense, candles and complicated liturgy, or both, as far as we are told.

But surely you would agree that once Emeth finally saw Aslan for what he was, and that Emeth's "true worship" was always pointing toward Aslan (even though he couldn't see it directly before meeting Aslan), it would be pure idolatry and condemning damnation for him, having met the Truth he had been aiming at all along, to then turn back to his old Tash images and beliefs. However valuable they might have been as pointers for Emeth, they would certainly have become idols if he made them his ultimate goals, when the City of God that they might have been pointing toward for him was now visible on the horizon.

In this connection, I've mentioned in other threads an even more "shocking" possibility -- ie, that even the image of Aslan himself at the end of Voyage of the Dawn Treader could, if you can imagine it, become an object of damning idolization by the children if they had disobeyed his instructions when they were dismayed at the thought of not seeing him again in Narnia, that they must come to know him by a different name in their own world. Had they insisted on rejecting Jesus "in place of" Aslan, they would have been as guilty of idolizing as any worshipper of Moloch.

But with Aslan, unlike say Tash or Moloch, there is at least a Catholic way (it seems to me anyway) of seeing Aslan as a "way" to Christ and possibly valuable to the children, even after coming to know the name of Jesus in their own world. Christ should now be the center of their worship, but Aslan can still be a helpful image to them in learning how to be more Christ-like (and here one can obviously connect the Catholic idea of the Saints as being helpful to Christians in this world).

This seems more "Catholic" to me because I have the impression that the more "Protestant" view would be your "either/or" method, where, once we find Christ, one would tend to want to "throw out" and exclude any thoughts of Aslan because he is "not Christ". This corresponds closely with the way of rejection of images that I quoted in my posts above. And as also mentioned in that quote, the way of rejection has its value in certain contexts, but so does the way of affirmation. As Williams indicated in the quote, the way of rejection of images tends to be more emphasized in Protestant views and the way of affirmation of images tends to be more emphasized in Catholic views.

To me, this is a reminder that being a true Narnian (or a true Christian) isn't about the external things, or the pomp and ceremony - it's about what is in one's heart and mind.

And once again I would agree, except that I would not have it an either/or, but rather more of a "both" (but without the nagging "extra" connotation of compromise and watering down, of course). Let me give this final example (in an already overlong post -- sorry for that length, but it is really a compliment to you that the seriousness with which I take your reply causes me to go on at such length):

Many non-Catholics (including myself in the past) have objections with what seems to them as Catholics placing undue importance and attention to Mary in place of a more proper focus on Christ. As I mentioned above, I think part of that objection is caused by a mistaken or obscured view by the non-Catholic who seems to miss all the very Catholic direct focus on Christ that is there (ironically, could it be hidden to Protestans by their own undue attention to and unhealthy focus on what they DON'T like about RCs?).

But even in looking at the attention Catholics give to Mary, I now tend to see it (in my admittedly "beginner" stage) as one might see the beauty of a rose. In this analogy, I see the Protestant view as wanting to appreciate "only" the beauty of the rose "directly" with nothing standing between the viewer and the beauty. And so they pluck all the petals off in order to get more directly and "closer" to that inner beauty. The Catholic wishes to leave the petals on because they are a part of that beauty that can only be appreciated in its "wholeness".

To be sure, anything can be abused, and I'm sure there are Catholics who abuse the attention to Mary -- in this analogy, those abusers would act, ironically, very much like the Protestant by also plucking those petals off in order to more intently appreciate them directly because they are clearly the beautiful and wonderfully scented part of the rose. But of course that sort of beauty would very soon wilt and die. It is only in the "wholeness" of the rose that its beauty can flourish.

Gads -- as I look over this, I would love to revise it and hone it down. But I don't have time to make it short and clear. I only have time to ramble and meander around the ideas I want to talk about. Please forgive the length.

--Stanley

[Stanley Anderson]

(And, note to Stanley -- my church is set in lovely hill country, surrounded by God's creation, which, seen from the windows, makes worship a kind of "this is Thou; neither is this Thou" center place. ( Just so you know that I completely respect and agree with the use of images in the Church.)

I would guess that most people who frequent these forums and love Lewis in general would, of necessity agree with the use of "images" in the Church. After all, imagery is what attracts most of us to Lewis' work (his fiction at least) in the first place (and indeed is apparently how he set out to writing them too -- eg, the famous "faun with an umbrella in the snow" image in Lewis' head that helped him write LWW).

But I think that "images" as used in the phrase "the way of affirmation or rejection of images" has a more general meaning that you might not agree with (but I'm not sure). It is not simply referring to crosses or pictures of Jesus or saints or Mary hanging on the walls. It is more referring to the idea of seeing the "immanence" of God in his creation in general. Thus such "Catholic" concepts as a Sacramental view of Communion as being the Real Presence of Christ (as opposed to a simply "memorial" view of Communion that is typically more Protestant), or the view of priests as acting "in the person of Christ" at the altar during the Eucharist, or even Baptism itself, are probably examples of "images" that many Protestants would have problems with.

--Stanley

[Stanley Anderson]

It's interesting that St Nicholas in Guildford has a repution of being very lofty and 'high church', but clearly it has had at least one rector who was more interested in obedience and lowliness than all the trappings of gold and incense.

This line struck me as another potential example (and you may not have meant it this way, I realize) of the sort of either/or view I mentioned in my earlier (long) post above. I'm sure that many can become entrapped in gold and incense, but at least three priests I have been in close contact with (one of which is our priest from our old Anglican church [who, as it happens coincidentally and happily, is apparently also now becoming Roman Catholic himself]) all have wonderfully beautiful and colourful vestments and have administered the Eucharist in stunningly engraved gold chalices and such -- from any outward and shallow appearance "trapped" in gold and incense.

But at the same time they are truly some of the most obedient and humble and "lowly" people I have ever met. As Lewis indicates somewhere, there is a sort of humility that is not too proud to accept and submit to "taking on" those vestments and beautiful things in the service of Christ and His Church. They know perfectly well that they are undeserving in their fallen human selves of the honor those "trappings" suggest, but they also know that they serve God in humility.

As an added "proof" of that humility, the priest of our old Anglican church who is converting to become RC is in the act of giving up his livelihood of nearly 30 years (since he is married, as Anglican priests are able) without knowing what job he will be able to do, with no insurance, and no certain prospects of how to make house or car payments. "Trappings of gold and incense" are of no concern to him and his wife who seem very happy and peaceful in their decision (though of course they must have private concerns, I'm sure). This is the true nature of priesthood.

I'm sure there are those who are trapped by the outward gold and incense, just as I am sure there are also those who are trapped by the "outward appearances" of humility and lowliness (Jesus warned specifically of these types himself). But they are not mutually exclusive and in fact probably work best in tandem when properly used.

(*Looks up to the top the page to make sure this IS actually a Narnia forum*:-),
--Stanley