The story of the Reformation needs reforming

[GKC]

Hi JustaServant,
As an Anglican, I haven’t forgotten our Catholic roots. Anglo Catholics in the Anglican Communion are often sternly criticized by more “Reformed” Anglicans for our close connection to Catholicism. I discovered this quite unexpectedly on an Anglican Forum I’ve been involved with lately.

Anna

One reason why I passed up that forum.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

One reason why I passed up that forum.

GKC

I wondered about that.

Anna

 

[pablope]

More…
telegraph.co.uk/history/9350681/The-story-of-the-Reformation-needs-reforming.html

This may be of interest here:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/an-opc-pastor-enters-the-catholic-church/

As I began to dig down to the most foundational differences dividing Protestants and Catholic, the book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer was recommended to me…Bouyer claimed that the Catholic Church is necessary for the full flowering of the principles of the Reformation. Put differently – Protestantism needs Catholicism in order to become all it aspires to be, which, of course, if true means the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary. **Worse, it means that the Reformation was impossible from the outset because the reformers had unwittingly cut themselves off from the only source that could make their vision fruitful.
**…He enthusiastically affirms the positive principles of the Reformation showing the reader that, understood properly, each principle has its natural home in the Catholic faith.

Any thoughts?

 

[JustaServant]

Hi JustaServant,
As an Anglican, I haven’t forgotten our Catholic roots. Anglo Catholics in the Anglican Communion are often sternly criticized by more “Reformed” Anglicans for our close connection to Catholicism. I discovered this quite unexpectedly on an Anglican Forum I’ve been involved with lately.

Anna

History is a stern taskmaster. Oftentimes the results of decisions made hundreds of years ago are still felt today. Only then we are able to put those results into perspective and see whether those decisions were good, bad, or a little of both.

 

[Contarini]

This may be of interest here:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/an-opc-pastor-enters-the-catholic-church/

As I began to dig down to the most foundational differences dividing Protestants and Catholic, the book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer was recommended to me…Bouyer claimed that the Catholic Church is necessary for the full flowering of the principles of the Reformation. Put differently – Protestantism needs Catholicism in order to become all it aspires to be, which, of course, if true means the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary. **Worse, it means that the Reformation was impossible from the outset because the reformers had unwittingly cut themselves off from the only source that could make their vision fruitful.
**…He enthusiastically affirms the positive principles of the Reformation showing the reader that, understood properly, each principle has its natural home in the Catholic faith.

Any thoughts?

I read this book years ago and was convinced by it, and have certainly not changed my mind.

the only question for me is how to go about undoing the damage.

Individual conversion is the popular approach on this forum, but it’s not clear to me that it does the job.

Edwin

 

[josephback]

I will if I can find it.

It’s on Amazon .com as well as aquinasand more .com. Just type in the title. I also saw him once in a Catholic bookstore in Minnetonka, MN but with another title, called “The Great Heresies”. That’s on Amazon too. Needless to say I don’t think he’s politically correct

 

[Contarini]

It’s on Amazon .com as well as aquinasand more .com. Just type in the title. I also saw him once in a Catholic bookstore in Minnetonka, MN but with another title, called “The Great Heresies”. That’s on Amazon too. Needless to say I don’t think he’s politically correct

“Politically correct” isn’t the point.

Correct is the point.

Does Belloc give a fair picture of history?

I think pretty clearly he doesn’t.

He’s entertaining and certainly worth reading, but there are many better modern historians who attempt to do justice to all the evidence rather than constructing propaganda.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

“Politically correct” isn’t the point.

Correct is the point.

Does Belloc give a fair picture of history?

I think pretty clearly he doesn’t.

He’s entertaining and certainly worth reading, but there are many better modern historians who attempt to do justice to all the evidence rather than constructing propaganda.

Edwin

In essence, I agree. And (as you know) I’ve collected and read him for over 45 years: around 65 of his titles and maybe 25 books on him, in hand. But I think reading him is essential, for an insight into one school of historical thought. And I like him.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I wondered about that.

Anna

I acknowledge, repeatedly, the motley-ness of the Anglican crew (new way to say it). But I don’t enjoy wrestling with it.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

In essence, I agree. And (as you know) I’ve collected and read him for over 45 years: around 65 of his titles and maybe 25 books on him, in hand. But I think reading him is essential, for an insight into one school of historical thought. And I like him.

GKC

Well, he’s immense fun.

And I find his letter to Chesterton on the occasion of Chesterton’s reception into the Roman Communion to be deeply moving.

Also I love the story about what he told the voters when running for Parliament.

And historically speaking, he helped shake the Whig interpretation loose. It’s just that others have done the job of shattering it to pieces, cleaning up the bits, and suggesting better paradigms in a much more nuanced and meticulous way since.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In essence, I agree. And (as you know) I’ve collected and read him for over 45 years: around 65 of his titles and maybe 25 books on him, in hand. But I think reading him is essential, for an insight into one school of historical thought. And I like him.

GKC

Well, he’s immense fun, especially his comic verse.

And I find his letter to Chesterton on the occasion of Chesterton’s reception into the Roman Communion to be deeply moving.

Also I love the story about what he told the voters when running for Parliament.

And historically speaking, he helped shake the Whig interpretation loose. It’s just that others have done the job of shattering it to pieces, cleaning up the bits, and suggesting better paradigms in a much more nuanced and meticulous way since.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

By the way, this is completely off topic, but have you encountered a young adult series called “The Young Chesterton Chronicles”?

Alternate history steampunk mish-mash with Chesterton as an American (!) teenager fighting aliens (at least he does this in the first book). . … .

It’s as crazy as it sounds but very entertaining.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

By the way, this is completely off topic, but have you encountered a young adult series called “The Young Chesterton Chronicles”?

Alternate history steampunk mish-mash with Chesterton as an American (!) teenager fighting aliens (at least he does this in the first book). . … .

It’s as crazy as it sounds but very entertaining.

Edwin

I have not. Though I have heard of it.

I’ve heard of the Black Death too, but have managed to avoid that, likewise.

I have read one mediocre mystery in which GKC was the central character. The idea didn’t offend me, but the execution there was poor. “Young Chesterton Chronicles” sounds like a concept that would appeal to me about the same as does the current BBC Holmes mess.

Purist, that’s me.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I have not. Though I have heard of it.

I’ve heard of the Black Death too, but have managed to avoid that, likewise.

I have read one mediocre mystery in which GKC was the central character. The idea didn’t offend me, but the execution there was poor. “Young Chesterton Chronicles” sounds like a concept that would appeal to me about the same as does the current BBC Holmes mess.

Purist, that’s me.

GKC

OK, you can avoid “Young Chesterton” and the Black Death.

Just tell me that you don’t also avoid Connie Willis’ Doomsday Book?

Edwin

 

[manualman]

“Politically correct” isn’t the point.

Correct is the point.

Does Belloc give a fair picture of history?

I think pretty clearly he doesn’t.

He’s entertaining and certainly worth reading, but there are many better modern historians who attempt to do justice to all the evidence rather than constructing propaganda.

Belloc paints history in bright colors and with a mighty thick paintbrush. IMO, it’s not so much that he’s “unfair” as that he was warring against a highly entrenched bias in the other direction. You have to read him in the context in which he wrote. One does not unseat such predominant paradigms with nearly inscrutable details and nuances. It may be true that there are more complete historians who do a better job telling both sides even-handedly with all the multifaceted issues discussed (if you can stay awake long enough to read them). But the English speaking world is still highly influenced by the bigotry of post-reformation English ‘nobility’. Belloc’s work isn’t yet done. A fantastic read for anyone who grew up reading history in English.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I acknowledge, repeatedly, the motley-ness of the Anglican crew (new way to say it). But I don’t enjoy wrestling with it.

GKC

GKC,

Anglicans can be very hard on Anglicans. It’s just very unpleasant when you are on the receiving end of it. Surprisingly, it is much worse than hearing Catholics tell me our Orders are invalid.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Anglicans can be very hard on Anglicans. It’s just very unpleasant when you are on the receiving end of it. Surprisingly, it is much worse than hearing Catholics tell me our Orders are invalid.

Hence, I rarely engage in that sort of thing. Though my “motley crew” phrase does not imply any approval of the situation. I like many RCs more than I do many flavors of Anglicans.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Belloc paints history in bright colors and with a mighty thick paintbrush. IMO, it’s not so much that he’s “unfair” as that he was warring against a highly entrenched bias in the other direction. You have to read him in the context in which he wrote. One does not unseat such predominant paradigms with nearly inscrutable details and nuances. It may be true that there are more complete historians who do a better job telling both sides even-handedly with all the multifaceted issues discussed (if you can stay awake long enough to read them). But the English speaking world is still highly influenced by the bigotry of post-reformation English ‘nobility’. Belloc’s work isn’t yet done. A fantastic read for anyone who grew up reading history in English.

Belloc said that when he was confronted with a bias that bent history, his reaction was not to straighten it, but to bend it in the opposite direction.

I can stay awake long enough to read all sides of things that interest me. Belloc has interested me for nigh unto 50 years.

GKC

 

[GKC]

OK, you can avoid “Young Chesterton” and the Black Death.

Just tell me that you don’t also avoid Connie Willis’ Doomsday Book?

Edwin

Are you kidding? My copy is signed/inscribed. Likewise, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG. Like that copy of Kurtz I once sent you.

And I had lunch with Gene Wolfe last week.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Belloc paints history in bright colors and with a mighty thick paintbrush. IMO, it’s not so much that he’s “unfair” as that he was warring against a highly entrenched bias in the other direction. You have to read him in the context in which he wrote. One does not unseat such predominant paradigms with nearly inscrutable details and nuances.

You don’t need to be “inscrutable” to avoid generalizations that mislead more than they enlighten.

Belloc’s approach as you and GKC describe it (and I think you describe it accurately) is similar to Luther’s in theology, ironically. Luther messed us up for 500 years by overreacting to a semi-Pelagian strand of late medieval theology.

Belloc’s influence on the folks on this forum makes many of them simply incapable of understanding the Reformation. That doesn’t further Christian unity or any other worthy goal.

The answer to distortion is fairness, not the opposite distortion.

It may be true that there are more complete historians who do a better job telling both sides even-handedly with all the multifaceted issues discussed (if you can stay awake long enough to read them)./quote]

Eamon Duffy is pretty readable, but maybe that’s just by academic standards.

Duffy’s biased enough himself in all conscience, but within the parameters of responsible modern scholarship. I wouldn’t recommend folks to follow him uncritically, but he makes Belloc’s case in a much more solid way than Belloc himself did.

I think the best way to approach the English Reformation is through the two books I was assigned to start off the seminar I took in grad school on the subject: A. G. Dickens’ English Reformation for a moderate, nuanced statement of the more “Whig” approach, and Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars as the critique. I had to write a comparative review of the two books, and I think this did a lot to open my eyes to the flaws in the Whig narrative, even in the relatively modest form presented by Dickens. Both of these books are highly readable, in my opinion, and should be accessible to any educated person with an interest in the subject.

Edwin