GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CHESTERTONRULES

Guest
“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
 
This is very fine, but it fails to take into account the possibility that the statues are condemned by the scrolls.

If they are, then you have four options:

A. Keep the scrolls and get rid of the statues.

B. Keep the statues and get rid of the scrolls.

C. Get rid of both the statues & the scrolls.

D. Keep both the statues & the scrolls.

One of these is “not sensible from any standpoint”, and it is neither A, B, nor C.
 
This is very fine, but it fails to take into account the possibility that the statues are condemned by the scrolls.

If they are, then you have four options:

A. Keep the scrolls and get rid of the statues.

B. Keep the statues and get rid of the scrolls.

C. Get rid of both the statues & the scrolls.

D. Keep both the statues & the scrolls.

One of these is “not sensible from any standpoint”, and it is neither A, B, nor C.
And here we see the Protestant logic “in the flesh”. :rolleyes:
 
This is very fine, but it fails to take into account the possibility that the statues are condemned by the scrolls.

If they are, then you have four options:

A. Keep the scrolls and get rid of the statues.

B. Keep the statues and get rid of the scrolls.

C. Get rid of both the statues & the scrolls.

D. Keep both the statues & the scrolls.

One of these is “not sensible from any standpoint”, and it is neither A, B, nor C.
and that is exactly what GK is talking about…you sound like the man on the street.

:confused: ?
 
Chesterton’s usual glib, superior screed; overblown, unnecessarily dense bombast.

His analogy fails anyway because this is not a case of a bystander observing a parade but a member of a family indicting another member of a family for negligence, deriliction and abuse.
 
“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION, Chap. II, “The Obvious Blunders”, pp.31-32, Burns, Oates and Washburn 1929 ed.

BTW, been meaning to tell you, you have a fine board name.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION, Chap. II, “The Obvious Blunders”, pp.31-32, Burns, Oates and Washburn 1929 ed.

BTW, been meaning to tell you, you have a fine board name.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
As do you!👍
 
Ethan, your logic depends on the scrolls condemning the statues. That is a false premise. What is condemned in the Bible is idol worship, not images and statues.

We Catholics do not give the worship that belongs only to God (latria) to Mary and the saints. We venerate them and give them special honor (dulia). That’s only “worship” in the sense that a music lover might say they “worship Beethoven.”

Above all, we do **not **give *latria *nor *dulia *to the statues and images in our Churches. It may seem that we do, from appearances, I’ll grant you that. But don’t judge by apperances, but from doctrine and dogma. We know they are only images; even the ones that have miracles connected to them.

Personally, I like being surrounded by beautiful stained glass pictures of Jesus, Mary and the Saints, and by statues of the Holy Family. When my mind wanders (thanks to my ADD), everything around me draws my mind back to God.

When I attended various non-Catholic churches before my conversion, sometimes I’d “miss” the whole sermon, gazing out the windows, or at the other people. :whacky:

God bless you,

Ruthie
 
Been studying, collecting and reading my man for around 45 years.

GKC
I have 43 years to go. What a find, I can’t wait.

If you are lucky you will never finish!(although it doesn’t really matter, I am already re-reading the three books I own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top