Blog

C.S. Lewis is beloved by Catholics and Protestants for his accessible yet deep works elucidating the Christian faith and defending it from detractors.

Lewis focused on defending what he called “Mere Christianity.” By that he meant the beliefs that nearly all Christians hold in common, including the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Technically, Lewis was Protestant- a member of the Church of England. But many readers have noticed that his writings seem more Catholic than the works of other Protestants.

For example, he postulated the existence of a version of Purgatory. Catholics believe in Purgatory; Protestants do not. Lewis also favored the idea of sacramental confession — a “popish” idea to the spiritual descendants of the Reformers. Near his death, he seemed increasingly open to the idea of seven sacraments.

Lewis seemed so close to crossing the Tiber and joining the Catholic Church, but he never took the plunge. Why?

Here’s one possible answer.

He didn’t live long enough.
G.K. Chesterton wrote a book about William Blake where he answered the question of why Blake never became Catholic. Chesterton said that he didn’t live long enough.

What did Chesterton mean? He claimed that if every man lived a thousand years, he would become either a nihilistic atheist or a member of the Catholic Church. While Chesterton did think that Blake had some erroneous ideas, he recognized that he was on the right road, moving toward the Catholic Church. He simply didn’t live long enough to make it there.

The same can be said of Lewis. A review of his writings shows a man going in the right direction. Lewis fell away from his Christian faith in his youth and later returned with help from J.R.R. Tolkien. His life from that point shows a progressive understanding and appreciation of the central truths of the Christian faith and, as mentioned, an entertaining of ideas more Catholic than Protestant.

Lewis’ late secretary Walter Hooper said that he personally believed that Lewis would have become Catholic had he lived longer. He pointed out that Lewis wouldn’t have liked the increasing liberalism in Anglicanism we’ve witnessed over the past several decades and that he would have realized that his “Mere Christianity” found its fullest expression in Catholicism.

Of course, all of this is conjecture. Still, we can appreciate Lewis’ contributions to Christian discourse in our time.

 

Image: Aronsyne, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Many Protestants believe that the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ, not our Lord Himself. (Some believe in a modified version of the Real Presence that is weaker than the Catholic Church’s.)

In this, they stand in opposition to the early Church. Let’s see what some voices from the past said about the Holy Eucharist.

The Church Fathers believed that the Eucharist is Jesus.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans [A.D. 110]
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology [A.D. 151]
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies [circa A.D. 180]
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies.”

Before moving on to some later Church fathers, notice how early the dates are on the above quotes. St. Ignatius of Antioch purportedly knew the Apostle John. He certainly learned much of the faith from others who knew Christ and the Apostles.

The dates are significant since some Protestants say that the Catholic Church was invented around the time of Constantine in the fourth century. These Church fathers show that Catholic beliefs go all the way back to the early days of the Church.

St. Athanasius, To the Newly Baptized [early fourth century]
“This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine — and thus is His Body confected.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures [circa A.D. 350]
For just as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ.

Many more quotes from the early Church could be given, but then this post would go on for pages. As we see, the early Church had a clear understanding that the Eucharist is really Christ’s body and blood. Protestants today should re-examine their beliefs in light of the teaching of those who sat at the feet of the Apostles and their early successors.

Times are tough in the Catholic Church. A large number of Catholics don’t fully practice their faith. Many priests spew heresy and celebrate irreverent liturgies. The pope makes statements that — rather than clarifying the faith — leave us more confused about what Catholicism actually teaches.

Many Catholics have had enough of Rome and have sought refuge in the Orthodox Churches. Orthodox Christians appear more firmly rooted in Tradition, while Catholics (especially Roman Catholics) have seemingly compromised too much with the modern world.

But is Orthodoxy really a valid option for Catholics? Here’s why the answer is a firm “no.”

Orthodoxy is more ethnic than universal.
The different branches of Orthodoxy are defined by their ethnicity. Divisions include Russian, Greek, and Serbian, and each is self-governing. Our friend Dr. Scott Hahn has referred to this phenomenon as “denomi-nationalism” (as in denominations defined by nationalism) and noted it’s too similar to Protestant denominations.

God’s Old Covenant with the Jewish people was based on ethnicity. But under the New Covenant, Christ established a universal Church that would reach beyond the boundaries of ethnicity and nation. The pope would be the visible head of this worldwide body.

But one may argue, “Isn’t the pope the head of the Roman Catholic Church? How is that different from, say, the Russian Orthodox Church?”

The pope is based in Rome, but he doesn’t have to be Roman. Pope St. John Paul II was Polish. Pope Francis is from Argentina. Keep in mind the pope isn’t just the bishop of Rome; He’s the ruler of the worldwide Church.

It’s true that the Roman Rite was influenced by ancient Roman customs. But the pope is also head of different Eastern Churches that — unlike the Orthodox — have maintained communion with him. These Eastern Churches recognize there’s an ecclesial unity that’s greater than ethnic ties or country of origin.

We are naturally loyal to those most like us. Christ calls us to a higher level of connection in the Church, where people from every nation, ethnicity, and race come together to praise their Creator. As St. Paul eloquently put it in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

In Matthew 6:7 (King James Version), Jesus says, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

Many Protestants accuse Catholics of violating this command when they pray the rosary. After all, the rosary includes 53 Hail Marys!

Do the rosary and similar long prayers qualify as “vain repetitions”? No and here’s why.

“Vain repetitions” is not an accurate translation.
The King James Version interprets the Greek word battalagesete as “vain repetitions.” A better translation is “stammering.” Jesus tells us not to pray like the pagans, babbling on to get God’s attention.

Jesus doesn’t condemn repetition.
Many ancient pagans believed they had to pray for a long time to get the gods’ attention. If their prayers fell short, they wouldn’t be answered.

Jesus condemns this superstition, but nowhere does He condemn repetitive prayers. Don’t pray the rosary believing it’s the only way to get God’s attention. Pray it with devotion and submission to God’s will, knowing that it’s the purity of your intention — not the length — that matters.

The Bible contains repetitive prayers.
Psalm 136 repeats the refrain “for his steadfast love endures forever” over two dozen times. Given that the Holy Spirit inspired all of Scripture, this is a case of a divinely sanctioned repetitive prayer.

The key to any prayer — long or short — is love. Don’t let guilt motivate you to say long prayers. Treat your longer prayers as a loving conversation. Spouses in love never tire of repeating fond expressions to each other.

Sometimes a short prayer or even a sigh to God is all you need.

In 1 Timothy 2:5, St. Paul says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Many Protestants whip out this verse when challenging Catholics on the priesthood. After all, Catholics claim that priests can forgive sins and communicate God’s grace. Isn’t this distracting us from Christ?

To answer this question, let’s start by considering a tasty pumpkin pie.

The pie versus the participation model of mediation.
Imagine a pie divided into six slices. If you take a slice for yourself, someone else misses out on that piece.

Protestants view mediation in a similar way: If you confess your sins to a priest, you’re taking away from Jesus’ mercy. For Protestants, it’s Jesus or the priest. It’s a zero-sum game.

The Catholic view on mediation is based on the participation paradigm. When the priest absolves you from your sins in Confession, it’s Jesus absolving you through the words and gestures of the priest.

God can forgive sins on His own, but He wants us to participate in His great plan of salvation. We are supporting actors in this drama, not passive observers. Priests play a role more closely involved with Jesus’ saving actions.

We need priests because we are soul and body.
God wants to reach us in a way appropriate to the nature He gave us. We each have a physical body and a spiritual soul. As St. Thomas Aquinas affirms, all our knowledge originates from sense knowledge. We rely on the knowledge acquired by our five senses even to understand spiritual realities. (Try imagining God without any sort of image. Bet you can’t! And no, imagining only a black or white canvas doesn’t count because those are still images.)

God communicates spiritual gifts to us through the physical world, whether that be the words of absolution from a priest, the Eucharist, or the baptismal waters. If a priest says, “Your sins are forgiven,” you can be confident that God has truly freed you from them.

Ultimately, priests are a sign of Christ’s nearness to us. He’s not content to reign in heaven out of our sight. He comes to us through the words and gestures of the priest and, ultimately, through the Eucharist consecrated by His power through the hands of His ministers.

Lent is here again. For most Catholics, that means fasting and abstaining on the appointed days during this season.

Many Catholics follow the Church’s fasting and abstinence rules without thinking about the spiritual significance. Our culture emphasizes fasting for its physical benefits, but there are also spiritual fruits.

Let’s get clear on what fasting and abstinence are and how they help us grow closer to God.

What’s the difference between fasting and abstaining?
Many people confuse these two terms. Fasting is eating less or avoiding food for longer periods of time than normal. The Church defines it as limiting yourself to one full meal a day, with the option of having two smaller “meals” that together don’t equal a full meal.

For example, you could have a muffin in the morning, a full serving of pasta at lunch, and an apple at night. Typically, there’s no eating between meals.

Abstinence means avoiding meat and some seafood. (Most seafood is allowed on days of abstinence.)

Fasting and abstinence help you grow in virtue.
These two Lenten practices relate to the cardinal virtue of temperance, by which we moderate our enjoyment of sense pleasures. God created a sense of pleasure for our enjoyment, but since Adam and Eve’s fall our drive for food, drink, and sex has gotten out of whack. We have to intentionally rein in these desires so they don’t enslave us and take God’s place as Lord of our hearts.

Interestingly enough, controlling these instincts often leads to a more wholesome and greater enjoyment of them. Nothing tastes as good as a meal after a full fasting day! Let these instincts rule us, however, and they become cruel overlords.

What if you struggle to fast and abstain?
Don’t be too hard on yourself. It’s better to follow the Church’s minimal requirements rather than feel as if you’ve failed. If you want to pursue a more rigorous schedule of fasting and abstinence, you need to work up to it. Consider talking with a spiritual director to ensure you’re not taking on more than you can handle.

Accept the suffering that comes from fasting and abstinence.
Whether you follow or go beyond the Church’s minimal requirements, you’re going to suffer for your sacrifices. Embrace the feeling and offer it to God, who asks so little of you compared to the agony of His Son on the cross.

Suffering is fertile soil that leads to the growth of divine life in us. This Lent, let’s make a special effort to embrace our sacrifices with openness and love.

One of the most stereotypical Catholic expressions is “offer it up.” You may hear these words after a painful ordeal, maybe something as simple as stubbing your toe, or a life-altering event, such as losing your job or being diagnosed with a disease.

You may roll your eyes when you hear this expression because it sounds dismissive. It may make you feel that the person saying it isn’t interested in helping you solve (or even listen to) your problem.

On the contrary, offering up your suffering is actually a superpower given to you by God to help save your soul and the souls of others.

Let’s unpack the rich meaning of this phrase.

You can choose to suffer to help others carry their burdens.
Let’s examine it first from a natural perspective and then a supernatural one.

In the natural order, you can better the lives of others in many different ways. For example, you can teach, encourage, or correct them. You can better the lives of others also by sharing their burdens. For example, you can care for a friend who is sick.

You can also share supernatural burdens.
In the order of grace, God allows you to take on others’ burdens to help them get to heaven. Suffering is a result of sin — we have to undergo punishment to purify ourselves. By suffering, you’re able to make satisfaction for your neighbor’s sins.

There’s no guarantee that your action will convert the person you are praying or suffering for. Although they may resist God’s grace, suffering for them will change you by helping you become a more loving and giving person.

How to handle suffering.
On its own, suffering is not a good thing. We only glorify it insofar as it helps us conform our hearts to God and contribute to our neighbor’s salvation.

But suffering is an unavoidable part of life. Rather than pretending it doesn’t exist, you need to learn how to love God through it. Suffering doesn’t come from our Lord, but He makes use of it to purify you of everything that separates you from Him.

The goal is to understand “offer it up” as an invitation to greater love. Let’s start this Lent with a renewed desire to give more of ourselves to God and our fellow human beings.

Among the many liturgical debates that plague our Church is the question of receiving the Eucharist in the hand.

Catholics who lean more traditional say that this practice is less reverent than receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. Radical Traditionalists go even further and say it’s sacrilegious and sinful to do so. But then there are Catholics who regularly receive our Lord in the hand without questioning it.

Let’s get to the bottom of this.

It is NOT a sin to receive the Eucharist in the hand.
This assumes you receive in a state of grace, with reverence and care for the Eucharist so that particles don’t drop on the floor.

The Church has given widespread permission for this practice. Communion in the hand also seems to have been the norm in the East and West during the first few centuries of the Church (though with some differences from our modern practice).

Receiving on the tongue is arguably better.
Yes, someone receiving in the hand could have a more reverent heart than someone receiving on the tongue. But, receiving on the tongue makes it easier for many people to cultivate the right disposition to receive our Lord.

When you receive on the tongue, there is less risk of particles falling on the floor. Also, if you receive on the tongue while kneeling, it is a gesture of adoration.

We handle ordinary bread with our hands and rarely let someone put our food in our mouths. Allowing the priest to place the Eucharist on our tongue highlights that we are consuming something special.

Ultimately, you should focus on your own heart and not judge your neighbor.
It’s wrong to judge anyone who receives on the hand or tongue unless they’re clearly acting in an irreverent manner.

Instead, work on preparing your heart to meet our Lord in Holy Communion, whatever way you choose to receive Him.

God is everywhere. Nothing exists without Him. His goodness and beauty are reflected in the trees, the sun, your loved ones, and even in your morning cup of coffee.

But if God is everywhere, why do Catholics put so much emphasis on the Eucharist? Why seek God in the consecrated host in a parish miles away when He’s present in the very air you breathe?

God makes Himself present in creation in different ways.
He manifests Himself to all things in three ways: essence, presence, and power. This is what we mean when we say God is present in nature or art.

He is present to the elect in an additional way — through sanctifying grace, which gives them a share in His divine life. Not everyone has this gift dwelling in them.

The Eucharist is a completely unique manifestation of God. He is contained in the bread and wine both substantially and sacramentally.

“Sacramentally” means He is contained under the mode of a sign. The bread and wine are divided to signify the separation of Christ’s body and blood on the cross. The bread is made of many grains, and the wine of many grapes, signifying the unity of the Church, made of many nations and people. They also signify — and actually deliver — grace.

“Substantially” means the Eucharist truly becomes His body and blood. You can say God “intensifies” His presence with the host and chalice. Many Protestants believe the Eucharist is no more than a sign of Christ, but we believe it is literally Christ.

While a beautiful lake, a soaring melody, or a delightful meal does contain the presence of God, it is not a substantial presence. These things are not literally Christ’s body.

That’s why we seek out the Eucharist. It’s a presence far beyond what we could experience anywhere else. When the priest lifts the consecrated host at Mass, we behold our Lord face to face!