Anglican/Catholic

[GKC]

It’s funny how everyone thinks it’s a “must” to read Chesterton in some form or another as if our lives are incomplete without him! At this point, I’m just not into him or really feel driven to read him. I’m reading a few things at one time and trying to deal with my classroom LOL! My wife, Kate, just started the nursing program today so life is going to change A LOT now…reading isn’t going to be tops on my list I’m sad to say

I think that no one who finds Chesterton to be unsatisfactory reading should read him.

'Tis a general rule I follow, myself.

GKC

 

[JRKH]

You might try Chesterton’s biography of St Francis. i found it to be one of his more readable things, and the subject is quite interesting even if you find his style a bit blah.

I think it’s something about that Victorian writing style.

IN ref to the bolded section - I think you may be right. I have a copy of a translation of the Dialoge of St Catherine of Sienna from 1910 and it is a difficult read too - in fact, now that you mentino this, the style does seem to be reminicient of Chesterton…Just seems more wordy than need be.

Peace
James

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s like a Stratocaster fan being forced to play a Les Paul; it’s just not right!

I think that no one who finds Chesterton to be unsatisfactory reading should read him.

'Tis a general rule I follow, myself.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

It’s funny how everyone thinks it’s a “must” to read Chesterton in some form or another as if our lives are incomplete without him!

Agreed. St. Augustine, now, should be read whether you like him or not. Chesterton is a matter of taste.

Personally, I love Chesterton.

 

[GKC]

Agreed. St. Augustine, now, should be read whether you like him or not. Chesterton is a matter of taste.

Personally, I love Chesterton.

I agree with Contarini.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

when have you ever not? I’m going to start calling GKC Ed McMahon!

I actually agree with Edwin as well (even though I know that will never be reciprocated in this life ), that Augustine is a must. He has influenced my views on soteriology and so many other things in a profound way.

Chesterton makes me want to saw logs.

I agree with Contarini.

GKC

 

[GKC]

when have you ever not? I’m going to start calling GKC Ed McMahon!

I actually agree with Edwin as well (even though I know that will never be reciprocated in this life ), that Augustine is a must. He has influenced my views on soteriology and so many other things in a profound way.

Chesterton makes me want to saw logs.

Occasionally. Like the first posts we ever exchanged, 10+ years ago.

Chesterton would want you to saw the logs, then, not read the book.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

It’s funny how everyone thinks it’s a “must” to read Chesterton in some form or another as if our lives are incomplete without him!

I would say you have a Chesterton-sized (and silhoueted) blind spot. But that’s okay.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Whatevuhs!

I would say you have a Chesterton-sized (and silhoueted) blind spot. But that’s okay.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that no one who finds Chesterton to be unsatisfactory reading should read him.

'Tis a general rule I follow, myself.

GKC

Sure, I don’t think one has to read him. Although there is a distinct lack of other modern Christian writers that say what he has to say in a more concise form.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Although I can understand why Catholics would enjoy him so much, I cannot understand why non-Catholics embrace his work so much? His books are written with a heavy Catholic conversion admonition point of view, at least from my reading of him (which isn’t much). He shouldn’t appeal to non-Catholics much I would think. And perhaps this is a stretch but I would think that if a person were to read a heavy dose of Chesterton and still remain Protestant or at least NOT Roman Catholic, then Chesterton obviously can’t be that hot of a writer or else he would have affected a conversion in the reader? Just a thought… It’s like an atheist or an agnostic reading C.S. Lewis and making the decision to become a Christian. Obviously his work was compelling enough to ignite that flame in the reader’s heart.

Sure, I don’t think one has to read him. Although there is a distinct lack of other modern Christian writers that say what he has to say in a more concise form.

 

[Bluegoat]

Although I can understand why Catholics would enjoy him so much, I cannot understand why non-Catholics embrace his work so much? His books are written with a heavy Catholic conversion admonition point of view, at least from my reading of him (which isn’t much). He shouldn’t appeal to non-Catholics much I would think. And perhaps this is a stretch but I would think that if a person were to read a heavy dose of Chesterton and still remain Protestant or at least NOT Roman Catholic, then Chesterton obviously can’t be that hot of a writer or else he would have affected a conversion in the reader? Just a thought… It’s like an atheist or an agnostic reading C.S. Lewis and making the decision to become a Christian. Obviously his work was compelling enough to ignite that flame in the reader’s heart.

Well, a lot of Chesterton fans do become Catholic, or I know some big Orthodox ones too, and Anglo-Catholics. I don’t know a lot of Reformed types or Evangelicals who read him, and I don’t imagine they would.

But he makes a lot of comments on modern culture and secularism and so on that could be widely appreciated. And some people are particularly interested in just a particular topic, like his economic ideas, or even his mystery novels.

I think people can disagree with a writer on some things but appreciate other aspects of his thought. I know a Calvinist who reads Lewis, though much of his thought is simply incompatible with Calvinism.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…
However Theologically, their is only few differences nowadays, set aside women priests (and maybe soon to be bishops), and the acceptance of Same Sex couples (which is not a common opinion throughout the Church, it is divided upon this issue), and our Theology is very similar.

Some reforms need to be made within the Anglican Communion before they can truly come completely into Communion with the Catholic Church, however the differences are not as great as some people believe, if you go into a CoE Liturgy, especially in the High Church, you could quite easily mistake it for a Catholic Mass.

The conservative Anglican Church in North America left the Episcopal Church (i.e., the CofE in the US) over an increasingly liberal theology of the Episcopal Church. Currently it is not in full communion with the CofE.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well I know GKC read Chesterton because he just loves G.K.'s opinions on economics. Jim just loves distributism!

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Chesterton. I just get bored with his witticisms and writing style. He just isn’t my thing. He makes good points, however. Disagreeing with everything George Bernard Shaw had so say makes me like Chesterton already!

Being an independent myself who hates Republicanism in its entirety and is disgusted by the democratic party overall I remember a quote from Chesterton that did tickle me and I never forgot it: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

In short, both sides are nuts. And I heartily agree. I think a lot of conservative Chesterton fans gloss over those quotes

Maybe when I’m done with “Mere Christianity” by Lewis, I’ll give “Orthodoxy” another chance. I’m so bombastic with my reading that I read three or four things at once and end up not finishing anything! It’s the same with my guitar-playing. I get on a Stevie Ray Vaughan trip and as a result am in a Stratocaster mode and a week later I’m into a Steely Dan style trip wanting jazz. And then kicks in the sonic hard rock drives. I’m all over the place. I hate that about myself!

Well, a lot of Chesterton fans do become Catholic, or I know some big Orthodox ones too, and Anglo-Catholics. I don’t know a lot of Reformed types or Evangelicals who read him, and I don’t imagine they would.

But he makes a lot of comments on modern culture and secularism and so on that could be widely appreciated. And some people are particularly interested in just a particular topic, like his economic ideas, or even his mystery novels.

I think people can disagree with a writer on some things but appreciate other aspects of his thought. I know a Calvinist who reads Lewis, though much of his thought is simply incompatible with Calvinism.

 

[GKC]

Well I know GKC read Chesterton because he just loves G.K.'s opinions on economics. Jim just loves distributism!

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Chesterton. I just get bored with his witticisms and writing style. He just isn’t my thing. He makes good points, however. Disagreeing with everything George Bernard Shaw had so say makes me like Chesterton already!

Being an independent myself who hates Republicanism in its entirety and is disgusted by the democratic party overall I remember a quote from Chesterton that did tickle me and I never forgot it: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

In short, both sides are nuts. And I heartily agree. I think a lot of conservative Chesterton fans gloss over those quotes

Maybe when I’m done with “Mere Christianity” by Lewis, I’ll give “Orthodoxy” another chance. I’m so bombastic with my reading that I read three or four things at once and end up not finishing anything! It’s the same with my guitar-playing. I get on a Stevie Ray Vaughan trip and as a result am in a Stratocaster mode and a week later I’m into a Steely Dan style trip wanting jazz. And then kicks in the sonic hard rock drives. I’m all over the place. I hate that about myself!

Your quote, as you likely know, is from the Apr 19, 1924 column in the ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS. It continues, in context, “Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types–the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.” Which empties a conservative philosophy of content and principle, and makes it merely a defend whatever might happen to be; say, Obama. Nah. Doesn’t work like that. Try Kirk’s (a great Chesterton scholar, himself) CONSERVATIVE MIND.

Only a person who doesn’t know much about Chesterton assumes he is a conservative,or would only appeal to conservatives, because he was a traditional RC. I like Chesterton primarily because I can find in him much that is mere Christianity, and even mere Catholicism. It’s why I started hand-copying his works, 47 years ago. As with Belloc (who, as you know, I’ve collected for 47 years, too), I love the man, love the writings, and don’t agree with a great deal of it. It’s called independent thinking. You didn’t think my library was made up only of authors I agreed with totally, did you? I got as much on Tolkien as I do on Lewis.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh Jim I’m just giving you a bad time, you know me! We’ve talked about Chesterton and Belloc and the fact that you don’t agree with EVERYTHING they say in times past. I know and respect that. And of course I know you don’t stock your library only with yesmen types. I have volumes on buddhism, hinduism, even have a Book of Mormon, Koran, and a ton of other things in my library on Cults of Ancient Rome, on and on. I have a lot of Victor Hanson stuff because he was my professor of ancient Greece despite my thinking the man has gone off the deep end as a conservative into virtual insanity. I have lots of works on Luther, some books on Orthodoxy, plenty on Anglicanism, you name it. So I can appreciate having a wide range of view in one’s library even though my library is 1/1000 of the one you describe as having in your home.

Can’t you tell when I’m razzing you!? I know you don’t like distributism! You’ve told me as much! I love razzing you about that stuff along with nukes and your lack of interest in the Civil War. What can I say!?

Your quote, as you likely know, is from the Apr 19, 1924 column in the ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS. It continues, in context, “Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types–the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.” Which empties a conservative philosophy of content and principle, and makes it merely a defend whatever might happen to be; say, Obama. Nah. Doesn’t work like that. Try Kirk’s (a great Chesterton scholar, himself) CONSERVATIVE MIND.

Only a person who doesn’t know much about Chesterton assumes he is a conservative,or would only appeal to conservatives, because he was a traditional RC. I like Chesterton primarily because I can find in him much that is mere Christianity, and even mere Catholicism. It’s why I started hand-copying his works, 47 years ago. As with Belloc (who, as you know, I’ve collected for 47 years, too), I love the man, love the writings, and don’t agree with a great deal of it. It’s called independent thinking. You didn’t think my library was made up only of authors I agreed with totally, did you? I got as much on Tolkien as I do on Lewis.

GKC

 

[kingal86]

The “leader” of the CoE is HRH Queen Elizabeth II
.

HM Queen Elizabeth II just to nick pick: HM for monarchs, HRH for princes and princesses I think. I doubt you can have you’re head chopped off for using the wrong title

 

[GKC]

Oh Jim I’m just giving you a bad time, you know me! We’ve talked about Chesterton and Belloc and the fact that you don’t agree with EVERYTHING they say in times past. I know and respect that. And of course I know you don’t stock your library only with yesmen types. I have volumes on buddhism, hinduism, even have a Book of Mormon, Koran, and a ton of other things in my library on Cults of Ancient Rome, on and on. I have a lot of Victor Hanson stuff because he was my professor of ancient Greece despite my thinking the man has gone off the deep end as a conservative into virtual insanity. I have lots of works on Luther, some books on Orthodoxy, plenty on Anglicanism, you name it. So I can appreciate having a wide range of view in one’s library even though my library is 1/1000 of the one you describe as having in your home.

Can’t you tell when I’m razzing you!? I know you don’t like distributism! You’ve told me as much! I love razzing you about that stuff along with nukes and your lack of interest in the Civil War. What can I say!?

I’m explaining it to the audience.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For the sake of those just tuning in! Attention: GKC is Not, I repeat, NOT a distributism fan!

I’m explaining it to the audience.

GKC

 

[GKC]

HM Queen Elizabeth II just to nick pick: HM for monarchs, HRH for princes and princesses I think. I doubt you can have you’re head chopped off for using the wrong title

And Supreme Governor (Act of Supremacy/1559), to pick another nick.

GKC