“Watered-Down” Christianity
I ran across a copy of This Rock yesterday at a Catholic bookstore, read the article on Mere Christianity [Dec. 1995], and was extremely disappointed. The author had apparently only read a portion of C. S. Lewis’s book and thought that Mr. Lewis was proposing the sort of one-size-fits-all Christianity that gets a lot of bad press from Evangelicals and orthodox Roman Catholics (and rightly so!)
I don’t have a copy of Mere Christianity around the house right now, because I usually give mine away to someone after I’ve had it for a while, and then it takes me a while to replace it. But I distinctly recall that Lewis was very emphatic that the points he was trying to make were only the foot-in-the-door bare essentials.
I don’t recall the exact words he used, but the image he used was that “mere” Christianity, if the reader had come to accept it, was like a hallway or anteroom, with many doors leading off it into other rooms which represented the various congregations. Lewis strongly encouraged his reader to go through one of the doors, because on the other side of the doors, in the fellowship and under the authority of a church, was where the real life went on.
One can accuse a person of espousing a watered-down Christianity, one can be annoyed with the groups like Calvary Chapel or Hope Chapel, who claim that they “aren’t a denomination, they’re just Christian,” but one cannot make that accusation of C. S. Lewis. He was an Anglican layman, and he made no bones about it.
And one can criticize people who use Lewis’s book to espouse a nondenominational Christianity, but to do that, they have to use the book incorrectly, leaving out the chapter about going into the “living rooms.” The book itself does not make that error, and your author should have been more careful at doing the research for the article. A glaring error like that casts doubt on the quality of the entire article. If we are going to defend the faith against error, we don’t want to be making them ourselves.
Dan Villani
via the Internet
K. D. Whitehead replies: Mr. Villani believes that I was unfair to C. S. Lewis in my criticism of the notion of “mere Christianity” because I failed to mention that in the book Lewis himself admitted that his notion of such a “basic” Christianity was not enough, and that Christians should therefore go “through one of the doors. . . [to] the fellowship and under the authority of a church”- just as Lewis himself was a practicing Anglican layman.
But the point of my article was not to criticize Lewis, about whom I intended to say, and did say, many generous things concerning his stature as a Christian apologist; the point of my article was to show that his notion of “mere Christianity” is ultimately unsatisfying as a basis for Christian apologetics, and this especially for the simple reason that Jesus Christ founded no “mere Christianity” rather, he founded a true Christianity still to be found in its fullness in the Catholic Church. It is that which must be the basis of our apologetics. In speaking of the “doors” through which Christians were supposed to enter, Lewis failed to address, much less answer, the question of which, if any, of these “doors” might be the true door-a point which Jesus himself did not fail to emphasize (cf. Matthew 7:13-14).
For reasons known only to Lewis and his Maker, he himself declined to accept the fullness of Christianity which is to be found in the Catholic Church, and therefore, in spite of his undeniable gifts, he cannot ultimately serve for Catholics as our modern Christian apologist par excellence. As I pointed out in my article, his defective ecclesiology inevitably led to his downgrading of both the sacraments and the magisterium of the Church in his apologetics.
In Praise of Hal Lindsey
Despite serious doctrinal differences between Catholics and Fundamentalists, as a Catholic I’d like to give praise to a famous Fundamentalist. His name is Hal Lindsey, and he is best known for his books about the end of the world, such as The Late Great Planet Earth and The Rapture.
Why would I like to praise him? Because he undermines his own position on Fundamentalist eschatology. In The Rapture he talks about how the Antichrist cannot come yet because he is restrained by something. Lindsey takes the position that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer. To support his view that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer, he oddly refers to the early Church leader named St. John Chrysostom. On page 133, Lindsey says Chrysostom was called “[golden mouth] because of the eloquence of his preaching. He is known to history as the greatest Greek-speaking Christian preacher of all time.”
If Lindsey is aware that Chrysostom was the greatest Greek-speaking preacher, then he should also know that Chrysostom was a believer in purgatory! In his letter to the Philippian Christians he exhorts them to pray for the dead and offer alms to the poor to help assist the departed. Why?
If Chrysostom knew there was only heaven and hell, it would seem foolish of him to tell Christians to pray for the dead. In heaven they don’t need prayers, and in hell prayers can’t help anyone. Chrysostom knew there was a middle state: purgatory.
I brought this to Hal Lindsey’s attention through a letter with a more thorough argument. Much to my surprise he gave me an interesting rebuttal-he sent me his book brochure! What a joke.
Joe A. Danzi
Brooklyn, New York
Eucharist for Comatose
After years of reading your magazine I finally found an item I would like to offer clarification on. You mention in “Dragnet” of the November 1995 issue that the comatose are unable to receive Communion (this was in the portion of “Dragnet” that addressed Ingrid Shafer’s comments on the Eucharist and the male priesthood).
The end of finals week for me at the seminary, Mom had a heart attack, was given a drug whose side effect caused severe brain damage. She lingered for three weeks in a non-responsive state and finally died. After having her anointed, I was able to communicate her although she was unresponsive.
Her cardiologist was present the first time I wanted her to receive Communion, and under his watchful eye I communicated her. We did it by the numbers, in such a way that she wouldn’t choke or aspirate any portion of the Host into her lungs. I’m not recommending that any family member in a similar situation feel obligated to do the same. I felt specially led to do so, had access to the Blessed Sacrament, and communicated Mom only under her doctor’s supervision.
I write for two reasons. The graces available from this Sacrament for anyone — including a comatose person — I don’t really need to comment on. Secondly, I have a horror story (on top of Mom’s ordeal) I’d like others in my situation to be able to avoid.
While Mom was still in the hospital, the hospital’s Catholic chaplain, a nun, took me aside and tried to tell me that it was “theologically improper” to communicate an unconscious person. When I asked her to explain the sacramental theology behind this, she said she’d heard it to be true from “some [unnamed] priests.” When I pressed her further, she told me her intuition told her this was the case. When I told her I needed more than that she became impatient, told me I wasn’t “open,” that she “wasn’t going to argue” with me and stormed off.
I checked this out with my spiritual director and Mom’s pastor. They told me what I suspected; conscious consent is not necessary on the part of a recipient of the Eucharist, as it would be in marriage, for example.
My spiritual director told me that it wasn’t necessary to see that Mom received the Eucharist every day. But since the availability of the Blessed Sacrament was there and I was communicating Mom under her doctor’s supervision, there was certainly nothing “improper” about it.
I would stress that if anyone finds himself at the bedside of a comatose loved one, he should see that they receive the Eucharist only under competent medical supervision and with the advice of a good, orthodox priest. No one should feel his loved one’s salvation is in jeopardy if he is not able to provide daily Eucharist for him.
Thanks also for carrying me for a subscription to your terrific magazine while I am in seminary without an income. After spring semester is over I will be going back home to liquidate the estate, and, if the medical insurance companies come across, I should have enough money left over to actually pay for my subscription.
Keep up the wonderful work, and know you’re in my prayers.
Buzz Grabner
St. Paul, Minnesota
Orthodox = Protestant?
After commending Fr. Ryland for his excellent articles on Orthodoxy, I would like to comment on the letter from Dennis Ingraham in the October 1995 issue of This Rock.
It seems Mr. Ingraham “feels” Orthodoxy is not “just another Protestant Church,” and if this is so, he must feel it is Catholic. That is, unless he knows something I don’t. I know there is the one Catholic Church founded by Christ and an unlimited number of Protestant Churches, that there are Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians. I know of no others.
True, I also know there are Christians who call themselves Orthodox, but and the same time I know they claim the title Catholic. I’m just now learning that apparently they know they must claim this title, for I find the same theme running through Mr. Ingraham’s letter that I found in my conversations with a Russian Orthodox friend-namely, that to be Catholic is to be true to Christ, but to be Protestant is to be untrue. But as Mr. Ingraham points out, claiming or “feeling” one is Catholic does not make one a Catholic, any more than “feeling” someone is Protestant makes him a Protestant. Likewise, neither does calling oneself Orthodox make one orthodox.
Since all four marks mentioned [in the Creed] must be present in the true Church, using them to assert that Orthodoxy is Catholic and not Protestant is quite detrimental to the case. The Orthodox Church is certainly holy and apostolic in its sacraments and orders, but it is not Catholic, since it no longer holds to “all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Catholicity refers not only to all places, but to all doctrines for all time, and there has been a time since Christ when the Orthodox Church, as such, was not.
Neither is the Orthodox Church one, for in reality there are as many Orthodox churches as there are Orthodox bishops. This fact was discovered by a prominent Anglican in search of the One Church, as related in Radio Replies and is confirmed by Alexander Schmemann in his response to the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches promulgated by Vatican II. Regarding the communicatio in sacris, he writes that “given its crucial importance, it must express, on the Orthodox side, the consensus of all Orthodox Churches.”
Having conversed with a Russian Orthodox, I must also disagree with the assertion that “Orthodoxy is quite able to present itself clearly and without confusion.” My friend said if two bishops should disagree, then the Bishop of Jerusalem would have the final word-so I asked how this could be, if all bishops have equal authority. If anything, I am more confused, since it seemed the truth (the need for a supreme authority) is easy to see yet difficult to embrace, and I still don’t know how or why the Bishop of Jerusalem, as least in theory, in effect became “pope.”
My friend also related his bishop’s teaching on marriage, which says the bond of matrimony is unbreakable only after the third marriage. This has me extremely confused, since he could not explain where the idea that marriage is a game of “three strikes” came from, and, in all honesty, I find the “Bible” Christians’ teaching on marriage more understandable. I mean, they do at least have the phrase “saving for the cause of fornication” to misinterpret.
Martin Petrencik
Susanville, California
Editor’s reply: It is improper to refer to the Orthodox as “Protestant,” even if they accept some Protestant positions, such as opposition to papal authority. Protestant churches arose in the sixteenth century, while the Orthodox Churches broke from union with Rome in the eleventh — five centuries before the term “Protestant” was coined.
Don’t Be a Stranger!
Read through This Rock, September 1994, and was delighted. Picked up your magazine from St. Mary’s exchange mart in the vestibule. Being a rock buff — from the Rock of Salvation to the hard ball of rock (?) at the center of the earth-the title caught my eye.
I read the article on Mother Mary Angelica — you are positively erudite! I love Mother Angelica — we should have her “run for” pope! She’s great! (I’m a Franciscan tertiary after 27 years as Dominican second order. The lives of the saints show an amazing number who changed orders. St. Anthony, after two orders, became a Franciscan, found himself. St. Albert Abelard went from Jesuit to Franciscan to running his own order, the Albertines.)
My mother (Mary Margaret Brennan, 1891-1957) used to say, “Tell me your company, and I’ll tell you what you are. If you’re in the company of the saints, you have nothing to worry about.” We should study the lives of the friends of Christ and not risk being a “stranger in Paradise.
Sr. Margaret E. Brennan
Royal Oak, Michigan
Can I Keep It?
This is simply a pet theory of mine that fellow Catholics need only take with a grain of salt; still, for me, it perfectly explains why the denial to women of the sacrament of Holy Orders is not only not unjust, but actually is reasonable:
God granted women the exclusive privilege of being the channels through which new human life enters this world. To my knowledge, there has been no debate that God was unjust to men by reserving this privilege to women.
If God granted women an exclusive privilege to childbirth, he is only reasonable in granting men an exclusive privilege as well. He reserves for men the exclusive privilege of being the channels through which Christ, the Bread of Life, enters this world in the Holy Eucharist.
Can God be accused of being unjust because he has chosen to grant mutually exclusive privileges to men and women? I, both a woman and a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church, don’t believe so.
Michelle L. Arnold
San Diego, California