Topic: C.S. Lewis and RC Liturgical Experimentation - Reason for his non conversion?

[Maria]

In his last book, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, C. S. Lewis wrote:

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks".

Professor Lewis knew many Catholics and Orthodox scholars. He also probably knew Father Teillard de Chardin, S.J. who reportedly was engaged in liturgical experiment with his fellow Jesuits because Chardin was in England doing some of his archeology experiments.

Although Tolkien was probably surprised that C. S. Lewis never did convert to Catholicism, several Orthodox Christian Priests told me that they considered Lewis to be very close to Orthodoxy, and that if he had lived longer, he might have become an Orthodox Christian.

Since the above quote refers to Peter, I suggest that this quote refers to the Catholic liturgical experiments which were going on in Europe during World War II and which Pope Pius XII so vehemently condemned in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi issued on June 29, 1943.
No doubt, C.S. Lewis read that encyclical.

I noticed that Ebor has Lewis' quote in his signature, so I asked him about it. He suggested that I start this thread to banter around the idea that Lewis might have been concerned about Catholic liturgical experimentation, and hence made this comment.

One of our posters (in the other thread on Pope Benedict's new reform of the reform)  posted two YouTube links which detail this liturgical experimentation which led to the Vatican II innovations. More than ten ago, when I was doing research, I came across several liturgical books which also detailed the different liturgical experimentation which the Jesuits were doing in Europe, particularly in France in the early 20th century. I think Ignatius Press published one or two of these books.

[Maria]

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks".

Emphasis mine.

Who is they?

[Asteriktos]

I'm not sure that I can add anything substantive to the main topic here, not yet anyway, but I just had to say: Keble is going to be mad when he finds out that Ebor is a he... 

[Maria]

I'm not sure that I can add anything substantive to the main topic here, not yet anyway, but I just had to say: Keble is going to be mad when he finds out that Ebor is a he...  

Sorry, my mistake. Yes, please forgive me, Ebor. I knew that Ebor is female. It was just a bad typo, or rather a series of bad typos. I am so not into inclusive language that my age is showing.

[WetCatechumen]

Oh come off it everyone. He wasn't Catholic. He wasn't Orthodox.

He was Anglican, self-described as neither particularly high or low church.

He knew an Orthodox priest - I met a lady who was one of his students, and she told me how she once had dinner with him and an Orthodox priest (I think Russian) and how they embraced after dinner and that they seemed confident that they would meet again in the Resurrection, based on what they had said.

But he was an Anglican. He was not Orthodox and he was not Catholic.

[Maria]

Oh come off it everyone. He wasn't Catholic. He wasn't Orthodox.

He was Anglican, self-described as neither particularly high or low church.

He knew an Orthodox priest - I met a lady who was one of his students, and she told me how she once had dinner with him and an Orthodox priest (I think Russian) and how they embraced after dinner and that they seemed confident that they would meet again in the Resurrection, based on what they had said.

But he was an Anglican. He was not Orthodox and he was not Catholic.

Of course Lewis was an Anglican. We are not disputing that fact.

However, Lewis made the comment about St. Peter (see Ebor's signature); he did not mention the Queen of England or the Bishop of Canterbury. So it would appear that Lewis was commenting about the liturgical changes going on in Catholicism.

Have you read Lewis' Space Trilogy? I wonder if one of the mad scientists in the last book of the trilogy represents Father Chardin.
It was Father Chardin who worked on a skull, a supposed archaeological find, that was later found to be a fraud.

[FormerReformer]

FWIW Lewis was on record as being fairly against papal authority in particular and the tendency of the RCC to add to the deposit of tradition in genera;.  I think it might be reading too much into it to think that Lewis had a particular movement in the RCC of his time for his rejection of that church.  Without knowing the entirety of the context of the Lewis quote from "Letters to Malcolm" (a Lewis book I haven't read) I can't even really say as to whether or not he had the Roman church specifically in mind, or his own denomination, which was certainly experimenting on the sheep as often as possible.

As for WetCatechumen's statements- I agree completely- Lewis was Anglican and wouldn't want to be anything but.  I think it's a mark of the high quality of his writing and true catholicity of his teachings that groups as diverse as Evangelicals, conservative mainlines, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox want to have some claim on him.  While trying to find an exact quote from Lewis regarding the papacy (I had one very specific quote in mind) I ended up sifting through site after site of Roman blogs claiming Lewis as one of their own, if only it weren't for his damn Ulster upbringing.  Five pages into Google search and I still have yet to find my quote, just more Romans perplexed over Lewis' Anglicanism.

[akimel]

In his last book, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, C. S. Lewis wrote:

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks".

Professor Lewis knew many Catholics and Orthodox scholars. He also probably knew Father Teillard de Chardin, S.J. who reportedly was engaged in liturgical experiment with his fellow Jesuits because Chardin was in England doing some of his archeology experiments.

Although Tolkien was probably surprised that C. S. Lewis never did convert to Catholicism, several Orthodox Christian Priests told me that they considered Lewis to be very close to Orthodoxy, and that if he had lived longer, he might have become an Orthodox Christian.

Since the above quote refers to Peter, I suggest that this quote refers to the Catholic liturgical experiments which were going on in Europe during World War II and which Pope Pius XII so vehemently condemned in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi issued on June 29, 1943.

With all due respect, this is all hokum.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that Lewis had in mind Catholic liturgical experiments, which had hardly begun, when he wrote Letters to Malcolm.  A quick reading of letter 1 (from which the quotation is taken) reveals that he is talking about the movement within the Church of England to create a modern vernacular liturgy.  Lewis was a Prayer Book man and was opposed to all attempts to jettison the Elizabethan language of Cranmer in favor of contemporary substitutes.  I do not doubt that Lewis would have been horrified by the post-Vatican II revisions of the liturgy, but he died well before all of this happened. 

As far as Lewis becoming Orthodox, I'd like to see documentation for this alleged interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.  He was middle-of-the-road Church of England through and through.  He particularly disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies.  I cannot see him being drawn to a Byzantine liturgy celebrated in Old Slavonic or Greek.   

[SolEX01]

As far as Lewis becoming Orthodox, I'd like to see documentation for this alleged interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.  He was middle-of-the-road Church of England through and through.  He particularly disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies.  I cannot see him being drawn to a Byzantine liturgy celebrated in Old Slavonic or Greek.   

I never understood why Orthodox Christians are fascinated with C.S. Lewis.  I didn't receive a satisfactory answer at my first post on this forum even though I've admitted to not reading Lewis ... there are many English authors whose works I haven't read and then there's Orwell whose works I understand.   

[biro]

What's interesting is that during Lewis' lifetime, the RCC didn't venture that far afield in terms of liturgical practice. I believe they were still doing the Latin Mass at that time. At least I don't think he ever had to sit through a Folk Mass. 

[Maria]

In his last book, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, C. S. Lewis wrote:

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks".

Professor Lewis knew many Catholics and Orthodox scholars. He also probably knew Father Teillard de Chardin, S.J. who reportedly was engaged in liturgical experiment with his fellow Jesuits because Chardin was in England doing some of his archeology experiments.

Although Tolkien was probably surprised that C. S. Lewis never did convert to Catholicism, several Orthodox Christian Priests told me that they considered Lewis to be very close to Orthodoxy, and that if he had lived longer, he might have become an Orthodox Christian.

Since the above quote refers to Peter, I suggest that this quote refers to the Catholic liturgical experiments which were going on in Europe during World War II and which Pope Pius XII so vehemently condemned in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi issued on June 29, 1943.

With all due respect, this is all hokum.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that Lewis had in mind Catholic liturgical experiments, which had hardly begun, when he wrote Letters to Malcolm.  A quick reading of letter 1 (from which the quotation is taken) reveals that he is talking about the movement within the Church of England to create a modern vernacular liturgy.  Lewis was a Prayer Book man and was opposed to all attempts to jettison the Elizabethan language of Cranmer in favor of contemporary substitutes.  I do not doubt that Lewis would have been horrified by the post-Vatican II revisions of the liturgy, but he died well before all of this happened.  

As far as Lewis becoming Orthodox, I'd like to see documentation for this alleged interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.  He was middle-of-the-road Church of England through and through.  He particularly disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies.  I cannot see him being drawn to a Byzantine liturgy celebrated in Old Slavonic or Greek.    

If you took the opportunity to listen to the YouTube videos linked in an earlier post from a related thread here at OC.net,  those videos mentioned the Roman Catholic liturgical experiments that started during World War II. I will try to find those links and post them here.

I also read several Catholic books on liturgy, published by Ignatius Press, which also stated that there was the use of the vernacular particularly in Europe during WW II. According to several Catholic writers, European Jesuits, particularly Father Chardin, were also involved in this 1930 and 1940 liturgical abuse. In fact, Father Chardin even traveled to the USA to encourage it among his American Priest friends. You might remember hearing that Chardin was disciplined by the Catholic Church as some of his books were considered to be heretical.

Did you read the encyclical of Pius XII on June 29, 1943? If so, you would have noticed that this encyclical was all about the Catholic Mass or Divine Liturgy and was an apparent effort by Pius XII to put a stop to this liturgical abuse and instill respect for the Divine Liturgy. In fact, believe it or not, it was Pius XII who started the diocesan liturgical committees. Again, read his Mystici Corporis which encouraged these diocesan liturgical committees. Why have these committees unless one is trying to improve the liturgies? Read: change and experimentation?

In The Problem of Pain, Lewis does talk about the mysterious, and that mysterious is also one of his themes in his Space Trilogy. In addition, his Chronicles of Narnia contains a lot of rituals and symbolism. Do you have proof that Lewis disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies? I find that hard to believe.

According to several Orthodox Priests, who encouraged me to read The Space Trilogy and The Problem of Pain, Lewis had several friends who were Orthodox Priests.

[Peter J]

FWIW Lewis was on record as being fairly against papal authority in particular and the tendency of the RCC to add to the deposit of tradition in genera;.  I think it might be reading too much into it to think that Lewis had a particular movement in the RCC of his time for his rejection of that church.  Without knowing the entirety of the context of the Lewis quote from "Letters to Malcolm" (a Lewis book I haven't read) I can't even really say as to whether or not he had the Roman church specifically in mind, or his own denomination, which was certainly experimenting on the sheep as often as possible.

As for WetCatechumen's statements- I agree completely- Lewis was Anglican and wouldn't want to be anything but.  I think it's a mark of the high quality of his writing and true catholicity of his teachings that groups as diverse as Evangelicals, conservative mainlines, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox want to have some claim on him.  While trying to find an exact quote from Lewis regarding the papacy (I had one very specific quote in mind) I ended up sifting through site after site of Roman blogs claiming Lewis as one of their own, if only it weren't for his damn Ulster upbringing.  Five pages into Google search and I still have yet to find my quote, just more Romans perplexed over Lewis' Anglicanism.

Oh yeah.

I recall once hearing the remark "Catholics like to pretend that Lewis never got married, and Evangelicals like to pretend that he didn't drink or smoke." (Or something like that. Just quoting from memory.)

[FormerReformer]

I never understood why Orthodox Christians are fascinated with C.S. Lewis.  I didn't receive a satisfactory answer at my first post on this forum even though I've admitted to not reading Lewis ... there are many English authors whose works I haven't read and then there's Orwell whose works I understand.   

Most of the Orthodox Christian Lewis fans I've met have been, like me, converts from Protestantism.  In the case of those with a more fundamentalist upbringing Lewis was perhaps the first spark that there was a Tradition and not absolutely everything after the writing of Revelation was Anathema.  His works are peppered with Patristic quotes and he had a good foundation in both Plato and Aristotle, so his writing style was almost like a preparatory class for Orthodoxy.

As far as Lewis becoming Orthodox, I'd like to see documentation for this alleged interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.  He was middle-of-the-road Church of England through and through.  He particularly disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies.  I cannot see him being drawn to a Byzantine liturgy celebrated in Old Slavonic or Greek.   

Well, from my other posts on this thread, I'm with you, Lewis was an Anglican.  A lot of fuel for this pro-Orthodox fire comes from a quote from the end of his life after a vacation to Greece where he said that he preferred the Orthodox liturgy to either Catholic or Protestant liturgies.

[elijahmaria]

In his last book, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, C. S. Lewis wrote:

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks".

Professor Lewis knew many Catholics and Orthodox scholars. He also probably knew Father Teillard de Chardin, S.J. who reportedly was engaged in liturgical experiment with his fellow Jesuits because Chardin was in England doing some of his archeology experiments.

Although Tolkien was probably surprised that C. S. Lewis never did convert to Catholicism, several Orthodox Christian Priests told me that they considered Lewis to be very close to Orthodoxy, and that if he had lived longer, he might have become an Orthodox Christian.

Since the above quote refers to Peter, I suggest that this quote refers to the Catholic liturgical experiments which were going on in Europe during World War II and which Pope Pius XII so vehemently condemned in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi issued on June 29, 1943.

With all due respect, this is all hokum.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that Lewis had in mind Catholic liturgical experiments, which had hardly begun, when he wrote Letters to Malcolm.  A quick reading of letter 1 (from which the quotation is taken) reveals that he is talking about the movement within the Church of England to create a modern vernacular liturgy.  Lewis was a Prayer Book man and was opposed to all attempts to jettison the Elizabethan language of Cranmer in favor of contemporary substitutes.  I do not doubt that Lewis would have been horrified by the post-Vatican II revisions of the liturgy, but he died well before all of this happened. 

As far as Lewis becoming Orthodox, I'd like to see documentation for this alleged interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.  He was middle-of-the-road Church of England through and through.  He particularly disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies.  I cannot see him being drawn to a Byzantine liturgy celebrated in Old Slavonic or Greek.   

Just an aside:  Paris of the 1930s and 1940s was buzzing, in particular ecclesial circles,  with the researches of the resourcement theologians, and the impetus and focus of that work of returning to the patristic sources was the liturgy. 

I am currently reading the translation of Father Boris Bobrinskoy's The Compassion of the Father and in it are introductory comments on Father Bobrinskoy's life and times as a Russian Orthodox seminary student and academic and parish priest in Paris during those heady years...where both Catholic and Orthodox scholars worked closely together, and admired the work of one another, and cross-pollinated one another's ideas and work.  The roots of what was brought to the table at the second Vatican council were set down in Paris. 

I don't know but that Lewis's awareness of what was going on in those inner circles in Paris of the 30's and 40's was anything but second or third hand. 

[Peter J]

As far as Lewis becoming Orthodox, I'd like to see documentation for this alleged interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.  He was middle-of-the-road Church of England through and through.  He particularly disliked the ostentatiousness and ritualism of Anglo-Catholic liturgies.  I cannot see him being drawn to a Byzantine liturgy celebrated in Old Slavonic or Greek.   

Well, from my other posts on this thread, I'm with you, Lewis was an Anglican. 

I'll jump the bandwagon here: from what I've heard I don't have much reason to think Lewis was ever close to converting to Orthodoxy.

BTW, there's an interesting line in one of Thomas Howard's book. When he was talking about his decision to convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism, he says something like this isn't the place to go deeply into my reasons, but I'll say a few words about it (paraphrasing). One of the handful of comments that follow is "For good or for ill, I'm a western Christian" (that may or may not be an exact quote).

A lot of fuel for this pro-Orthodox fire comes from a quote from the end of his life after a vacation to Greece where he said that he preferred the Orthodox liturgy to either Catholic or Protestant liturgies.

D'oh.

[Asteriktos]

Lewis was close to converting to Orthodoxy. So were Chesterton and Tolkien. You all are so blinded by jealousy it's horrifying! 

[akimel]

Maria, I am delighted that you are reading and enjoying C. S. Lewis.  He is a remarkable writer and Christian theologian.

Pope Pius XII's encylical Mystici Corporis Christi is not addressing liturgical abuses.  During the first four decades of the 20th century, Catholic theology had rediscovered the Pauline understanding of the Church as the mystical body of Christ.  Some theologians took this in directions that were deemed problematic by some.  In his encyclical the Pope sought to present an understanding of the body of Christ that was fully faithful to Catholic ecclesiology.  Widescale liturgical abuse simply was not a problem in the Catholic Church at this time, and whatever little experimentation may have been occurring was restricted and hardly needed to be addressed by an encyclical.  Catholic pastors simply did not have the freedom, unlike their Anglican counterparts, to experiment with the Mass.  That all would come much later. 

At the time Lewis wrote his Letters to Malcolm, the winds of liturgical change were blowing in the Church of England.  Some (many?) wanted a liturgy composed in a contemporary idiom.  Lewis was opposed to this.  He did not believe that a committee could create a liturgy that could begin to compare to the beauty and magnificence of traditional Book of Common Prayer.  The BCP was largely the work of one poetic genius, Thomas Cranmer.  Such geniuses do not appear very often.  Lewis was also opposed to liturgical tinkering, a tinkering that Anglican pastors were famous for.  Lewis valued stability.  One is not dancing as long as one has to think about the steps.  It is only when one has internalized the steps that one can truly dance.  The same applies to praying the liturgy, so Lewis believed.

Lewis did enjoy a friendship at Oxford with the lay Orthodox theologian Nicholas Zernov.  He also delivered one or two talks to the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius.  in the late 50s Lewis and Joy visited Greece and attended the Divine Liturgy during their visit.  Lewis's biographer, George Sayers, writes:  "Whenever the subject came up between us, [Lewis] said that he preferred the Orthodox liturgy to either the Catholic or Protestant liturgies. He was also impressed by the Greek Orthodox priests, whose faces, he thought, looked more spiritual than those of most Catholic or Protestant clergy."  But I know of no evidence that suggests that Lewis ever contemplated becoming Orthodox.

But that being said, I happily acknowledge that Lewis's mere Christianity is compatible with Orthodoxy in many ways.  But such was the Anglicanism of his day. 

[Jharek Carnelian]

I think it helps to understand the world C.S. Lewis grew up in the north of Ireland in understanding the man. He grew up in a world in which religious sectarianism and bigotry was deeply embedded in the culture that surrounded him. During the period he was living in that world as a boy tensions were at boiling point and I think Lewis' approach to Christianity was shaped in part by these experiences. He for example most certainly never regarded himself as English but as Irish, although in his case he would have seen himself as an Irish unionist. However he differed rather massively from the traditional anti-Catholicism that goes with some strands of that and when he rediscovered his Christianity it's noteable he was remarkably hard to pin down in some respects. He certainly avoid easy caricatures of Christians from other Churches. There is a signiicant passage in one of his works where one character is possessed by demons, possibly Satan himself. He starts trying to mock Lewis' protagonist Ransom's faith by jeering about 'dirty Catholic priests' and applies similar unlovely epithets to numerous Christian groups. I think that Ransom's rejection of the views expressed gives you a good insight into his own views on faith. Incidentally as that passage is a favourite of mine I'll reproduce part of it to show how Lewis portrays the possessed individual:-

'But this is very foolish,' said the Un-man. 'Do you not know who I am?'

'I know what you are,' said Ransom. 'Which of them doesn't matter.'

'And you think, little one,' it answered, that you can fight with me? You think He will help you, perhaps? Many thought that. I've known Him longer than you, little one. They all think He's going to help them -- till they come to their senses screaming recantations too late in the middle of the fire, mouldering in concentration camps, writhing under saws, jibbering in mad-houses, or nailed on to crosses. Could He help Himself?' -- and the creature suddenly threw back its head and cried in a voice so loud that it seemed the golden sky-roof must break, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.'

And the moment it had done so, Ransom felt certain that the sounds it had made were perfect Aramic of the first century. The Un-man was not quoting; it was remembering. These were the very words spoken from the Cross, treasured through all those years in the burning memory of the outcast creature which had heard them, and now brought forward in hideous parody; the horror made him momentarily sick.



He certainly wasn't shy of pointing out where he disagreed with a particular Church but he most definitely regarded Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox as all fellow Christians. Coming from a land which during his youth was gripped in yet another in a periodic wave of sectarian violence for years I think he tended towards caution about any one Churches claim to be the true Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

I'm not sure that I can add anything substantive to the main topic here, not yet anyway, but I just had to say: Keble is going to be mad when he finds out that Ebor is a he...  

Keble is going to be even more mad when he finds out that Ebor's gender has even been revealed on this thread.

[Maria]

Maria, I am delighted that you are reading and enjoying C. S. Lewis.  He is a remarkable writer and Christian theologian.

Pope Pius XII's encylical Mystici Corporis Christi is not addressing liturgical abuses.  During the first four decades of the 20th century, Catholic theology had rediscovered the Pauline understanding of the Church as the mystical body of Christ.  Some theologians took this in directions that were deemed problematic by some.  In his encyclical the Pope sought to present an understanding of the body of Christ that was fully faithful to Catholic ecclesiology.  Widescale liturgical abuse simply was not a problem in the Catholic Church at this time, and whatever little experimentation may have been occurring was restricted and hardly needed to be addressed by an encyclical.  Catholic pastors simply did not have the freedom, unlike their Anglican counterparts, to experiment with the Mass.  That all would come much later.  

At the time Lewis wrote his Letters to Malcolm, the winds of liturgical change were blowing in the Church of England.  Some (many?) wanted a liturgy composed in a contemporary idiom.  Lewis was opposed to this.  He did not believe that a committee could create a liturgy that could begin to compare to the beauty and magnificence of traditional Book of Common Prayer.  The BCP was largely the work of one poetic genius, Thomas Cranmer.  Such geniuses do not appear very often.  Lewis was also opposed to liturgical tinkering, a tinkering that Anglican pastors were famous for.  Lewis valued stability.  One is not dancing as long as one has to think about the steps.  It is only when one has internalized the steps that one can truly dance.  The same applies to praying the liturgy, so Lewis believed.

Lewis did enjoy a friendship at Oxford with the lay Orthodox theologian Nicholas Zernov.  He also delivered one or two talks to the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius.  in the late 50s Lewis and Joy visited Greece and attended the Divine Liturgy during their visit.  Lewis's biographer, George Sayers, writes:  "Whenever the subject came up between us, [Lewis] said that he preferred the Orthodox liturgy to either the Catholic or Protestant liturgies. He was also impressed by the Greek Orthodox priests, whose faces, he thought, looked more spiritual than those of most Catholic or Protestant clergy."  But I know of no evidence that suggests that Lewis ever contemplated becoming Orthodox.

But that being said, I happily acknowledge that Lewis's mere Christianity is compatible with Orthodoxy in many ways.  But such was the Anglicanism of his day.  

In Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christ, which I have read several times and have studied under the Dominicans at the Dominican University in San Rafael, diocesan liturgical committees are mentioned. Again, I ask: Why were liturgical committees apparently ordered to be set up in all dioceses by Pius XII if they were not to advance the study and amending of the Mass to make the Mass more meaningful and fruitful for the laity and for the clergy? These liturgical committees encouraged laity participation. I can remember back in 1956 through 1960, pre-Vatican II times, that both priests and nuns were encouraging us to read a translation of the Mass and not to pray the Rosary as our adult relatives and grandparents were doing. We were encouraged to bring our black Sunday missals to Mass. The nuns had extra copies if we forgot our own missals, but we were chastised if we did forget. I can also remember my aunt and grandmother having a fit over the Rosary. They questioned my Catholic education, and gave me a beautiful Rosary for my confirmation in 1960.

Yes, the encyclical discusses the Mystical Body of Christ, but Pope Pius XII most correctly states that we experience the Mystical Body of Christ most completely during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This was a profound Orthodox statement.

Dominicans of the 1950s and 1960 were also encouraging the laity to realize the treasure of the Divine Liturgy. The Church was instituted to perpetuate the Eucharist as said in that Dominican Prayer composed by St. Thomas Aquinas:

O sacrum convivium,
in quo Christus súmitur;
recólitur memória Passionis eius;
mens implétur grátia:
et futúrae glóriae nobis pignus datur.
Alleluia. Alleluia. Alleluia.

Dominican Prayer Book (4th Revised Edition), Curia Generalizia, O.P. Rome, 1962, p. 120

(Translation)

O Sacred Banquet in which Christ is received,
The memory of His passion is renewed,
The mind is filled with grace,
and a pledge of future glory is given to us.
V. Thou didst give them bread from heaven.
R. Containing in itself all sweetness.

Let us pray:

O God, Who under a wonderful Sacrament has left us a memorial of Thy Passion:
grant us, we beseech Thee, so to venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood,
that we may ever feel within ourselves the fruit of Thy Redemption:
Who livest and reignest for ever and ever.
R. Amen

Dominican Prayer Book (4th Revised Edition), Curia Generalizia, O.P. Rome, 1962, p. 322

Since Lewis experienced our Divine Liturgy in Greece, no wonder he did not convert to Catholicism. With our glorious Divine Liturgy which focuses on Christ's Holy Resurrection, we are taken up to heaven to celebrate the eternal Feast of the Lamb with the angels and saints surrounding us as we put aside all earthly cares. How could he not want that.

[Maria]

I remember going to Jesuit days of recollection (and how the Dominicans discouraged us from doing so).

At these retreats (before Vatican II) strange innovations happened all the time.
They faced the people and gave very moving commentaries throughout the Mass.
Oh, the people loved this.

And they told us (children), do not tell your parent about this.
They would not understand.

[akimel]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

[Maria]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

[elijahmaria]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.   

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

I think you are a bit ahead of yourself to be speaking of abuses in these early years.  I grew up in the pre-Vatican II church and dialogue masses are as old as my spiritual father who is 75 this year, and they are the only low masses that I ever encountered...that is one part that did not change for me during the post-conciliar changes.  Dialogue masses were not "new"...and they predated the resourcement period as well.

I never saw the liturgy dumbed down in those pre-conciliar years.  I did experience liturgies where the priest spoke to the people concerning the words and actions at the altar. 

I think we can all get a bit kooky over liturgy if it doesn't suit.

Best to keep an open mind and worry about real and flagrant abuse, rather than naming it for every thing that bothers us.

[Maria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

[PeterTheAleut]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

But even if he did know about liturgical reforms in the RC churches, you still need to establish for us that he had a good reason to care all that much about what was going on in churches outside his own Anglican communion.

[Asteriktos]

I'm not sure that I can add anything substantive to the main topic here, not yet anyway, but I just had to say: Keble is going to be mad when he finds out that Ebor is a he...  

Keble is going to be even more mad when he finds out that Ebor's gender has even been revealed on this thread.

Why? Does he want the forum to think he married a man?    I know he's Anglican, but come on, I think you are assuming things that aren't so...

[Maria]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

But even if he did know about liturgical reforms in the RC churches, you still need to establish for us that he had a good reason to care all that much about what was going on in churches outside his own Anglican communion.

That, Peter, is why I started this thread.

Professor Lewis was not a parochial ostrich as he was an academician who was sincerely interested in people.
He understood very well that one culture could affect another.
Have you read his Space Trilogy? His background in linguistics and archeology are evident.
That is why I think that he probably met Father Chardin.

[elijahmaria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

If you ever want to get down to particulars and history, maybe we could have a dialogue, but this historically vague approach is not conducive to doing anything but gathering like minds who thrive on a vague "Oh My God!" approach to anything that is not familiar or that does not pass private muster, and who are eager to bring the fringe to the center and say "There it is!! Let's leave"... well good...bye 

[PeterTheAleut]

I'm not sure that I can add anything substantive to the main topic here, not yet anyway, but I just had to say: Keble is going to be mad when he finds out that Ebor is a he...  

Keble is going to be even more mad when he finds out that Ebor's gender has even been revealed on this thread.

Why? Does he want the forum to think he married a man?    I know he's Anglican, but come on, I think you are assuming things that aren't so...

Then ask him yourself, in a PM, why he prefers to keep Ebor's gender a secret. I'm actually speaking from a PM conversation I had with him recently.

BTW, I know better than to assume that Keble's gay.

[FormerReformer]

Maria- Given the source of the quote being "Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer" (a book not of correspondence between him and a friend but of letters to a fictional friend) and what we know about the Anglican liturgical experiments of the time and also Lewis' reluctance to single out any specific denominations in his writings (save for a few jabs at the liberalizing elements within his own church) it really does seem a reach to think he has Roman Catholics in mind when writing this statement.  

Could he have been familiar with such tampering by the Romans?  Perhaps, but from what I've read of Lewis it seems to me that his attitude toward the Roman Catholics would have been "what is that to me?" (or "what is that to you?" quoting from the same Dominical passage as "feed my sheep".)  It would have been extremely out of character for Lewis to level such criticisms against someone outside of his own church (though he could be coaxed into doing so in private conversation, either between himself and Roman Catholics or between himself and those who wanted his opinion on the Roman church).

[PeterTheAleut]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

But even if he did know about liturgical reforms in the RC churches, you still need to establish for us that he had a good reason to care all that much about what was going on in churches outside his own Anglican communion.

That, Peter, is why I started this thread.

Professor Lewis was not a parochial ostrich as he was an academician who was sincerely interested in people.
He understood very well that one culture could affect another.
Have you read his Space Trilogy? His background in linguistics and archeology are evident.
That is why I think that he probably met Father Chardin.

But you're assuming that knowledge automatically translates to personal concern. I don't doubt Dr. Lewis's knowledge of the liturgical trends of his day, but that doesn't necessarily mean he paid particular attention to those trends he didn't see in his own church.

[Maria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

If you ever want to get down to particulars and history, maybe we could have a dialogue, but this historically vague approach is not conducive to doing anything but gathering like minds who thrive on a vague "Oh My God!" approach to anything that is not familiar or that does not pass private muster, and who are eager to bring the fringe to the center and say "There it is!! Let's leave"... well good...bye  

Yes, his references are rather vague in the YouTube productions.

And quoting from the Wanderer is not one of the best references.

I did read several books published by Ignatius Press, but I gave them to my Catholic Confessor when I became an Orthodox Christian as I wanted to put all that aside. However, Ebor's signature raised some interesting questions.

Again, if Lewis was not referring to the Catholic Church, then why did he mention Peter?
Do Anglicans refer to the head of their church as St. Peter or a Papal descendant of his?

[Maria]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

But even if he did know about liturgical reforms in the RC churches, you still need to establish for us that he had a good reason to care all that much about what was going on in churches outside his own Anglican communion.

That, Peter, is why I started this thread.

Professor Lewis was not a parochial ostrich as he was an academician who was sincerely interested in people.
He understood very well that one culture could affect another.
Have you read his Space Trilogy? His background in linguistics and archeology are evident.
That is why I think that he probably met Father Chardin.

But you're assuming that knowledge automatically translates to personal concern. I don't doubt Dr. Lewis's knowledge of the liturgical trends of his day, but that doesn't necessarily mean he paid particular attention to those trends he didn't see in his own church.

Again, Dr. Lewis was not parochial minded.

His writings had a definite universal appeal because he knew human nature, and he was interested in what his friend Tolkien and Chesterton were experiencing in the Catholic Church. From what I read, Tolkien was sincerely hoping that Lewis would convert to Catholicism. Unfortunately, when I was doing a research paper on Lewis a couple of years ago, I read quite a few books, but that particular book was not listed in my references since I did not use it, so I do not remember which one it was.

[elijahmaria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

What is your response to Father Alexander Schmeman's work on liturgical renewal. 

I have friends who become apoplectic when they read his liturgical section of Problems of Orthodoxy in America...and the reason that they stand beside themselves over it is that Father Alexander was in Paris in those glorious years of the resourcement theologians and the heady days of discussions about and experiments with liturgical renewal. 

Can his imprints be found today in any Orthodox liturgies?  I think they can.  I don't know that the world will come to an end over it.

http://www.jacwell.org/Fall_Winter99/Fr_Schmemann_The_liturgical_problem.htm

PS: I own and treasure Fortescue's The Mass...so I tend not to be a raving liberal.   There's more than one way to approach liturgical change besides indifference and hysterics....that's rhetorical language and NOT pointed at you!!

[PeterTheAleut]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

If you ever want to get down to particulars and history, maybe we could have a dialogue, but this historically vague approach is not conducive to doing anything but gathering like minds who thrive on a vague "Oh My God!" approach to anything that is not familiar or that does not pass private muster, and who are eager to bring the fringe to the center and say "There it is!! Let's leave"... well good...bye 

Yes, his references are rather vague.

And quoting from the Wanderer is not one of the best reference.

I did read several books published by Ignatius Press, but I gave them to my Catholic Confessor when I became an Orthodox Christian as I wanted to put all that aside. However, Ebor's signature raised some interesting questions.

Again, if Lewis was not referring to the Catholic Church, then why did he mention Peter?

Why do you believe that Lewis's mention of Peter must mean he was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church? Might you be reading into his words a connection he never intended?

[PeterTheAleut]

Maria, you are of course quite right that Catholic liturgical theologians have sought the renewal of the Mass well before Vatican II.   Romano Guardini immediately comes to mind.  One of the critical concerns was the divorce between what the priest was doing at the altar and what the congregation was doing in the pew.  Years before Vatican II Catholic liturgists and pastors were looking for ways to re-unite celebrant and congregation in one act of liturgical prayer--hence the discouragement of the praying the Rosary during the Mass.  I was not raised in the Catholic Church and thus did not experience pre-Vatican II liturgy.  I do not really know what it was like.  I have only read books.

But this has nothing to do with C. S. Lewis.  There's no reason to believe that Lewis is referring to Catholic liturgy in his Letters to Malcolm.  The Church of England, in all of its liturgical diversity and confusion, was what he knew best.    

Lewis had a lot of Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends. He was a professor, was well read, and kept abreast of world happenings.
He would have had to be living in a vacuum not to know about liturgical renewal in the Catholic Churches and the liturgical abuse particularly that which the Jesuits were doing throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, England, and in France. They had permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, and they had the laity praying what the altar boys usually said, and more. In other word, the Jesuits went far beyond what they were authorized to do by facing the people, making commentaries throughout the liturgy, and dumbing down the liturgy for children. So, Lewis was not an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. No way.

But even if he did know about liturgical reforms in the RC churches, you still need to establish for us that he had a good reason to care all that much about what was going on in churches outside his own Anglican communion.

That, Peter, is why I started this thread.

Professor Lewis was not a parochial ostrich as he was an academician who was sincerely interested in people.
He understood very well that one culture could affect another.
Have you read his Space Trilogy? His background in linguistics and archeology are evident.
That is why I think that he probably met Father Chardin.

But you're assuming that knowledge automatically translates to personal concern. I don't doubt Dr. Lewis's knowledge of the liturgical trends of his day, but that doesn't necessarily mean he paid particular attention to those trends he didn't see in his own church.

Again, Dr. Lewis was not parochial minded.

About ALL things?

[Maria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

What is your response to Father Alexander Schmeman's work on liturgical renewal.  

I have friends who become apoplectic when they read his liturgical section of Problems of Orthodoxy in America.

http://www.jacwell.org/Fall_Winter99/Fr_Schmemann_The_liturgical_problem.htm

Perhaps you can start another thread on this topic?
I know that several Orthodox writers considered Father Schmemann to be somewhat heretical, but I enjoyed his writings.

[Shiny]

Lewis was close to converting to Orthodoxy. So were Chesterton and Tolkien. You all are so blinded by jealousy it's horrifying! 

Is that so? I'd like to see sources on this. Not disbelieving you at all, but it would be interesting to see their take.

[Asteriktos]

Then ask him yourself, in a PM, why he prefers to keep Ebor's gender a secret. I'm actually speaking from a PM conversation I had with him recently.

I don't think it's much of a secret if you've been a member here for longer than 4 or 5 years... but anyway, I will promise to call her a he from now on if that's what those guys want. 

[Maria]

Then ask him yourself, in a PM, why he prefers to keep Ebor's gender a secret. I'm actually speaking from a PM conversation I had with him recently.

I don't think it's much of a secret if you've been a member here for longer than 4 or 5 years... but anyway, I will promise to call her a he from now on if that's what those guys want.  

Well, Egor is usually a boy's name (g does not equal girl).
So, I assume that most people will assume that Ebor is a boy's name too.
But "b" does not equal boy.

[Apotheoun]

With all due respect, this is all hokum.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that Lewis had in mind Catholic liturgical experiments, which had hardly begun, when he wrote Letters to Malcolm.  A quick reading of letter 1 (from which the quotation is taken) reveals that he is talking about the movement within the Church of England to create a modern vernacular liturgy.  Lewis was a Prayer Book man and was opposed to all attempts to jettison the Elizabethan language of Cranmer in favor of contemporary substitutes.  I do not doubt that Lewis would have been horrified by the post-Vatican II revisions of the liturgy, but he died well before all of this happened. 

That is my take on the quotation as well, because when the whole letter is read it becomes clear that he is talking about the Anglican liturgy.

I also agree that Lewis would have been horrified by the wholesale revision of the Roman Church's liturgy in the late 1960s.  The whole idea of revising the liturgy in a committee seems alien to his view of tradition and worship.

[elijahmaria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

What is your response to Father Alexander Schmeman's work on liturgical renewal.  

I have friends who become apoplectic when they read his liturgical section of Problems of Orthodoxy in America.

http://www.jacwell.org/Fall_Winter99/Fr_Schmemann_The_liturgical_problem.htm

Perhaps you can start another thread on this topic?
I know that several Orthodox writers considered Father Schmemann to be somewhat heretical, but I enjoyed his writings.

Don't know quite how to frame it.  I'd rather the topic, however it is framed, not be combative about him because like you I read him with profit at a number of levels.  I'll think about it and if you are faster than I am about arriving at a good way to broach the subject, go right ahead!!...

If I ever sting you with my words, please say something to me.  I enjoy talking to you very much and feel relaxed with you...So you must do the same with me and tell me if my sharp words ever do more than glance off...

M.

[Maria]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

What is your response to Father Alexander Schmeman's work on liturgical renewal.  

I have friends who become apoplectic when they read his liturgical section of Problems of Orthodoxy in America.

http://www.jacwell.org/Fall_Winter99/Fr_Schmemann_The_liturgical_problem.htm

Perhaps you can start another thread on this topic?
I know that several Orthodox writers considered Father Schmemann to be somewhat heretical, but I enjoyed his writings.

Don't know quite how to frame it.  I'd rather the topic, however it is framed, not be combative about him because like you I read him with profit at a number of levels.  I'll think about it and if you are faster than I am about arriving at a good way to broach the subject, go right ahead!!...

If I ever sting you with my words, please say something to me.  I enjoy talking to you very much and feel relaxed with you...So you must do the same with me and tell me if my sharp words ever do more than glance off...

M.

Thanks.

I have enjoyed reading your posts and visiting your blog.

[Peter J]

Here is Robb's post with his two links to a YouTube video which documents some of the abuse that started happening during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36279.msg571950.html#msg571950

These are the two links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

If you ever want to get down to particulars and history, maybe we could have a dialogue, but this historically vague approach is not conducive to doing anything but gathering like minds who thrive on a vague "Oh My God!" approach to anything that is not familiar or that does not pass private muster, and who are eager to bring the fringe to the center and say "There it is!! Let's leave"... well good...bye  

Yes, his references are rather vague in the YouTube productions.

And quoting from the Wanderer is not one of the best references.

I did read several books published by Ignatius Press, but I gave them to my Catholic Confessor when I became an Orthodox Christian as I wanted to put all that aside. However, Ebor's signature raised some interesting questions.

Again, if Lewis was not referring to the Catholic Church, then why did he mention Peter?
Do Anglicans refer to the head of their church as St. Peter or a Papal descendant of his?

Do you?