Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[badnewsbarrett]

Westminster Theological Seminary has actually produced a video series where they call it the Protestant Revolt. It’s the only term that makes sense, as it is more accurate as to what happened.

I’m watching this right here. theprotestantrevolt.com/
It certainly says “The Protestant Revolt” as the title, and it appears on screen right away if you begin watching the overview. But then the narrator/host uses Reformation terminology on a consistent basis, you can verify this immediately within the first 3 minutes of the video, and as far as I can tell so far he doesn’t make any argument for using the term “Protestant revolt” in place of that. It is rather interesting that Westminster went with this title, but for all the arguments made and things being presented, I don’t see any argument to stop calling it the Reformation and start calling it the Revolt. As I’m aware, anyway.

Personally, when I use the term revolt (and when I see it used in ways that are readily accepted by all), it tends to be fairly exclusive to rebellions and uprising against a state, or some other kind of actual ruler. I can certainly see why you’d be inclined to make comparisons and transfer terms so that it encompasses this type of thing too, but I’ll maintain that “revolt” is a term that most readily belongs to questions of loyalty to one’s government rather than one’s religion. There are quite a few examples during the course of the Reformation where one of these became decoupled from the other as well. Take England as an example- up to a certain point, fidelity to the crown and to the Pope were tied together. Then all of a sudden, the Church of England is separated from communion with Rome, and English citizens- who are still expected to obey their rulers- are supposed to follow the King, now also the head of their church, and not be properly Catholic anymore. So tell me this- when you’re put in a position where you can obey the king or the pope but not both of them, which type of disobedience is most properly associated with the word “revolt”?

Without making any particular argument in terms of doctrine and simply keeping it within the realm of how language is generally used, I’d argue that “revolt” most naturally lends itself to a rebellion against one’s government and there’s better words for what happened between the English crown and the Papacy in Rome.

I see nothing wrong with what St. Thomas wrote there.

Really? Even the parts where he says that heresy should be punishable by death?

After all, heresy was viewed as a capital crime back then.

Yes it was. And that was wrong. Moreover, let’s take a quick look at one of the things that Aquinas was best known for, and that was his work in the realm of natural law. Take a quick look here.
nlnrac.org/classical/aquinas
As a basic summary- no, Aquinas did not invent or promulgate the entire concept of natural law, but he is held up as a pre-eminent theorist on the matter, perhaps The pre-eminent theorist. And as it so happens, the whole purpose of examining natural law is to Not just affirm the rightness of laws currently on the books. The entire point and purpose of natural law is to critique existing laws according to an external framework that is used to evaluate and judge whether laws are good or not. This is the type of thing that Aquinas brought to a higher level than anyone before him, so if anyone is in a position to say “This law is bad, it should change,” it was most certainly him. There was literally no one else- from a philosophical standpoint- better positioned to do so.

But he did not say this was a bad way of doing things. In fact, he said “Good job you lawmakers who greenlight the capital punishment of heretics. In fact, you are being more merciful than you really need to be, because in my expert opinion you could be swifter, harsher, and more consistently deadly with your punishments and that would be absolutely fine with me, with God, and with all that God has revealed to us.” Then he answers multiple objections to his conclusions and reaffirms his position.

You’re absolutely sure you don’t see anything wrong with this picture? Something along the lines of “He reached the wrong conclusion despite being extremely well positioned to reach the right one”?

Now looking back through the lenses of history, one can say that heresy should not be a capital crime. But it was back then.

Looking back through the lenses of history is certainly helpful, but looking right in front of you through the lenses of “I’m the pre-eminent theorist on natural law, whose main function is to make exactly these kinds of calls and do it correctly” should, could, and pretty well ought to have been sufficient.

So St. Thomas is saying, rightly for his time, after the third time, hand the heretic over to the authorities to carry out what would be normal justice.

And he went on to say that if you were to do anything differently, you could go ahead and have him killed after the first offense, because that in his opinion would also be justified. He nudged this in exactly the wrong direction!

 

[badnewsbarrett]

It most definitely was a revolt:

Martin Luther THE REFORMATION
Background of the Revolt
history-world.org/reformation.htm

THE LUTHERAN REVOLT
'The Lutheran Revolt takes its name from Martin Luther (1483-1546), a German Augustinian monk who ultimately rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of “justification by works.” Luther instead believed in a doctrine of “justification by faith alone.” ’
faculty.unlv.edu/gbrown/westernciv/wc201/wciv2c3/wciv2c3lsec2.html

Christendom Founder Debunks the Protestant Reformation as a Revolt
March 1, 2007
“Though most Protestants today do not know it, the destruction of the Catholic Church was the declared objective of the first Protestants,’” Carroll said at the beginning of his lecture. “They were rebels, not reformers.”
christendom.edu/2007/03/01/christendom-founder-debunks-the-protestant-reformation-as-a-revolt/

I do acknowledge that use of words like “revolt” and “deformation” come from within Catholicism, and those who go this way with it are truly, properly, most faithful Catholics and I expect them to be passionate ones at that. This pattern of language, however- at least in the fairly modern era- is generally at a lower level in the hierarchy if it’s in the actual hierarchy at all, and when it comes to Catholics who actually talk to Protestants in an official capacity on behalf of church bodies, that whole thing has been wiped pretty clean. I actually am fairly familiar with Carroll, there was a point where I had a reason to sit down in the library of a Catholic school and find some things that I needed from the History of Christendom series. My overall conclusion was that if he’d published his work in the form of comics instead of pseudo-history books, we’d be having arguments as to whether Carroll is the evil twin of Jack Chick or is it the other way around. I really can’t stand the guy.

He died about five years ago, in 2011. May he rest in peace. I still can’t stand him though, he’s just awful. I’m having some trouble with locating any other names that might be attached to the other links, it probably doesn’t matter though.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

As a priest, I compliment you on your responses. I also react with horror at the positions that you had to respond to from Catholics – who would do well to acquaint themselves with Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint and especially with what the Holy See is articulating currently in matters related to relations between those who are in full communion with Rome and those who are in various states of impaired communion. There has been much development in thought in fifty years and there has also been much revision of thought when assessing the past…both with regard to the events in the East of the first millennium and with the Reformation in the West. You will be reading more about that…very soon.

As to specific comments I would like to add:
(1) You are responding to language that is not only not what emanates from the Holy See since the Council, it is directly in opposition to the language and thought in the wake of the new path toward Christian Unity embraced in and through the Council. “Revolt” and “revolution” are terms which no Vatican dicastery – and certainly not the Pope himself – would ever countenance in the post-conciliar reality. Such terminology is diametrically opposite to what is used today and it would draw rebuke. As Pope Saint John Paul II wrote, “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord” (Ut Unum Sint 3)

(2) Pope Saint John Paul’s address on John Hus presents a wonderful complement to what you say here…as does, of course, Dignitatis Humanae which charts a new course on the Church’s position on the issue of religious freedom. w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html

(3) You have every right to take offence at this. I take offence at it. The Holy Father would take offence at it. It speaks very sadly, for all the world to see, on this website…and I think especially of those who read and never contribute. What this person has expressed is not according to the mind of Pope Saint John Paul II who wrote: “The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as ‘Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church’. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.” (Ut Unum Sint 42)

As an Evangelical Protestant, I thank you very much for your kind words, charitable and elevated discourse, and…my goodness, you have done some good research. Thank you for taking the time, as I’m sure you are a constantly busy man. In all my life, I’ve had barely a handful of in-person conversations with Catholic priests and none of them were very long ones, so this type of thing is a bit of a treat for me. From what little I have seen and been made aware of though, I expect you to be fantastic people, well trained, great for anyone to talk to, and really know what you’re doing.

And…I also expect you to be very busy on a consistent basis, but as to all the other stuff, I thank you again for reinforcing my general expectations and for taking the time when you can. You even agreed with me on something, so I’m going to go ahead and enjoy that- especially since, in fairness, I can’t reasonably expect you to agree with me on everything.

To everyone else- for what it’s worth, I do make a bit of a distinction between use of the word “revolt” and use of the word “deformation.” When it comes to revolt, I understand where that’s coming from. I quibble with it, I look to who it’s in usage with and in what capacity, but I understand there can be decent rationale behind it and it’s not necessarily intended in any malicious way. I don’t really agree with some aspects of the line of reasoning, but I typically trust that with this word, there’s more of an attempt at historical accuracy and less an attempt at being harshly mean-spirited or causing offense. “Deformation” seems a bit more that way to me, when it comes to general intent and effect.

 

[Abu]

As late as 1988, St John Paul II issued the great *Christifideles Laici *for our vocation and mission.

St Paul taught:
“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

As Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M. lucidly explains in Authenticity (A Biblical Theology of Discernment), Ignatius, 1997, p 136:
“Paul wants the Colossians to teach and admonish one another (Col 3:16).”
“Jude wishes the brothers to correct the confused in their community.” (Jude 22).
“Jesus Himself had already said that if a brother offends, one is to go to him and admonish him in order to win him back to health (Mt 18:15f)."

So, in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation* Christifideles Laici *(on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) 1988, St John Paul II teaches:
Extract #44:
“The Church evangelizes when she seeks to convert, solely through the divine power of the message she proclaims (cf. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18; 2:4), both the personal and collective consciences of people, the activities in which they engage, and the lives and concrete milieux which are theirs. Strata of humanity are transformed: for the Church it is a question not only of preaching the Gospel in ever-wider geographic areas or to ever-greater numbers of people, but also of affecting and as it were challenging, through the power of the Gospel, mankind’s criteria of judgment, determining values, points of interest, lines of thought, sources of inspiration and models of life, which are in contrast with the Word of God and the plan of salvation. All this could be expressed in the following words: What matters is to evangelize humanity’s culture and the cultures of the human family… the split between the Gospel and culture is without a doubt the drama of our time, just as it was of other times. Therefore, every effort must be made to ensure a full evangelization of culture, or more correctly of cultures”(165).

Extract #64:
’The whole Church, Pastors and lay faithful alike, standing on the threshold of the Third Millennium, ought to feel more strong]y the Church’s responsibility to obey the command of Christ, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15), and take up anew the missionary endeavour. A great venture, both challenging and wonderful, is entrusted to the Church – that of a re-evangelization, which is so much needed by the present world. The lay faithful ought to regard themselves as an active and responsible part of this venture, called as they are to proclaim and to live the gospel in service to the person and to society while respecting the totality of the values and needs of both.’ [My emphases].

 

[josie_L]

I do acknowledge that use of words like “revolt” and “deformation” come from within Catholicism, and those who go this way with it are truly, properly, most faithful Catholics and I expect them to be passionate ones at that. This pattern of language, however- at least in the fairly modern era- is generally at a lower level in the hierarchy if it’s in the actual hierarchy at all, and when it comes to Catholics who actually talk to Protestants in an official capacity on behalf of church bodies, that whole thing has been wiped pretty clean. I actually am fairly familiar with Carroll, there was a point where I had a reason to sit down in the library of a Catholic school and find some things that I needed from the History of Christendom series. My overall conclusion was that if he’d published his work in the form of comics instead of pseudo-history books, we’d be having arguments as to whether Carroll is the evil twin of Jack Chick or is it the other way around. I really can’t stand the guy.

He died about five years ago, in 2011. May he rest in peace. I still can’t stand him though, he’s just awful. I’m having some trouble with locating any other names that might be attached to the other links, it probably doesn’t matter though.

A taste of Jack Chick’s (a)historical views:

Here are just a few things you will “learn” if you start reading Chick tracts and comic books:

The Catholic Church keeps “the name of every Protestant church member in the world” in a “big computer” in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.[1]

But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the
Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.[2]

The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[3] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

“Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin” to create Communism, and it was “believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican.”[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family.[6] The Communist “liberation theology” movement also is a Vatican plot.[7]

The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.[8] Further, “Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the ‘˜Millennial Kingdom’ under Pope Pius XII.”[9]

The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.[10]

The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.[11]

“Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years”[12] and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.[13]

catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick

It is beyond the realm of reality to compare Jack Chick to historian William Carroll:

Awards

Carroll has received numerous awards throughout his academic career. He received an Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters from Christendom College in 1999, the college’s Pro Deo et Patria Award for Distinguished Service to God and Country in 2007, and the college’s inaugural Queen Isabel Catholic Vision of History Award in 2007. In 1995 he was the inaugural recipient of the Pius XI Award in history from the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, an organization of which he was a board member.[4]

He had published articles through the Society’s periodical, the Catholic Social Science Review.[5] Carroll is also known for his major work, the multi-volume “History of Christendom”. At the time of his death, only five volumes had been published; Anne Carroll helped complete the sixth volume, published in the summer of 2013. Together the series presents a narrative account of Western Civilization and Catholic history from antiquity (about 2000 BC) through the year 2010. The series is noteworthy for its frank Catholic understanding of crucial historical events, including the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, and the “accursed” twentieth century’s twin horrors (in his terms), Communism and Nazism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_H._Carroll

Jack Chick is nothing but an anti-Catholic bigot, a hate monger.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

As late as 1988, St John Paul II issued the great *Christifideles Laici *for our vocation and mission.

St Paul taught:
“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

As Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M. lucidly explains in Authenticity (A Biblical Theology of Discernment), Ignatius, 1997, p 136:
“Paul wants the Colossians to teach and admonish one another (Col 3:16).”
“Jude wishes the brothers to correct the confused in their community.” (Jude 22).
“Jesus Himself had already said that if a brother offends, one is to go to him and admonish him in order to win him back to health (Mt 18:15f)."

So, in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation* Christifideles Laici *(on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) 1988, St John Paul II teaches:
Extract #44:
“The Church evangelizes when she seeks to convert, solely through the divine power of the message she proclaims (cf. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18; 2:4), both the personal and collective consciences of people, the activities in which they engage, and the lives and concrete milieux which are theirs. Strata of humanity are transformed: for the Church it is a question not only of preaching the Gospel in ever-wider geographic areas or to ever-greater numbers of people, but also of affecting and as it were challenging, through the power of the Gospel, mankind’s criteria of judgment, determining values, points of interest, lines of thought, sources of inspiration and models of life, which are in contrast with the Word of God and the plan of salvation. All this could be expressed in the following words: What matters is to evangelize humanity’s culture and the cultures of the human family… the split between the Gospel and culture is without a doubt the drama of our time, just as it was of other times. Therefore, every effort must be made to ensure a full evangelization of culture, or more correctly of cultures”(165).

Extract #64:
’The whole Church, Pastors and lay faithful alike, standing on the threshold of the Third Millennium, ought to feel more strong]y the Church’s responsibility to obey the command of Christ, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15), and take up anew the missionary endeavour. A great venture, both challenging and wonderful, is entrusted to the Church – that of a re-evangelization, which is so much needed by the present world. The lay faithful ought to regard themselves as an active and responsible part of this venture, called as they are to proclaim and to live the gospel in service to the person and to society while respecting the totality of the values and needs of both.’ [My emphases].

I respect and affirm both the spirit and specific content of what is presented herein, and I thank you for bringing these sources to bear. I will eventually remark in some detail, however, that preserving the unity of Christianity through war and conquest- or, for that matter, spreading and maintaining Christian identity and practice through the coercive rule of law and punishment- is not in accordance with the ideals quoted herein. There are some other things I could say, but I’ll focus on what you’ve contributed here by initially saying that I do see this in the Catholic Church somewhere close to this century or the last one, but I don’t see it in the way that the Catholic Church decided to handle itself vis a vis the Reformers.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

A taste of Jack Chick’s (a)historical views:

It is beyond the scope of reality to compare Jack Chick to historian William Carroll:

Jack Chick is nothing but an anti-Catholic bigot, a hate monger.

Well, I have a pretty low view of William Carroll. I neither trust nor respect his work. This is not a reflection of how I feel about every Catholic historian or for that matter any other Catholic historian that I’ve read at any length, it’s really just him.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Carroll has received numerous awards throughout his academic career. He received an Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters from Christendom College in 1999, the college’s Pro Deo et Patria Award for Distinguished Service to God and Country in 2007…

For the record- and you may not be aware of this- Carroll was the founder and first president of Christendom College. So some of these awards were, in effect, given to himself. It’s exactly like talking about Jerry Falwell Sr. (or Jr.) and bringing up the awards and honors that Liberty University has bestowed upon them. Not that there’s anything egregiously problematic with LU, it’s just a particular relationship between a school and its founder that makes these awards seem less merit-based and more circumstantial, a formality of sorts.

It is rather impressive whenever someone is able to establish a private religious school and run it reasonably well. I’ll give him that, taken somewhat on its own. When that school gives its founder awards, though, it doesn’t really do anything for the marginal level of impressiveness. Just saying.

 

[Duane1966]

For the record- and you may not be aware of this- Carroll was the founder and first president of Christendom College. So some of these awards were, in effect, given to himself. It’s exactly like talking about Jerry Falwell Sr. (or Jr.) and bringing up the awards and honors that Liberty University has bestowed upon them. Not that there’s anything egregiously problematic with LU, it’s just a particular relationship between a school and its founder that makes these awards seem less merit-based and more circumstantial, a formality of sorts.

It is rather impressive whenever someone is able to establish a private religious school and run it reasonably well. I’ll give him that, taken somewhat on its own. When that school gives its founder awards, though, it doesn’t really do anything for the marginal level of impressiveness. Just saying.

Thanks again for my laugh of the day Badnews. Almost every time I read your posts, tears come to my eyes. The founder of Christendom College is Warren H Carroll.

 

[Duane1966]

For the record- and you may not be aware of this- Carroll was the founder and first president of Christendom College. So some of these awards were, in effect, given to himself. It’s exactly like talking about Jerry Falwell Sr. (or Jr.) and bringing up the awards and honors that Liberty University has bestowed upon them. Not that there’s anything egregiously problematic with LU, it’s just a particular relationship between a school and its founder that makes these awards seem less merit-based and more circumstantial, a formality of sorts.

It is rather impressive whenever someone is able to establish a private religious school and run it reasonably well. I’ll give him that, taken somewhat on its own. When that school gives its founder awards, though, it doesn’t really do anything for the marginal level of impressiveness. Just saying.

The Carroll Josie is talking about is William, who is a respected historian. For some reason you are talking about Warren, who founded Christendom college. Two different people. Just saying.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The Carroll Josie is talking about is William, who is a respected historian. For some reason you are talking about Warren, who founded Christendom college. Two different people. Just saying.

Actually, the Carroll Josie is talking about is Warren, too. The original reference by Abu was to Warren, and bnb’s response was about Warren but somehow William’s name crept in. The awards Josie is talking about were indeed Warren’s college’s awards to Warren.

By contrast, William is a respected Oxford historian of religion and science.

 

[Duane1966]

Actually, the Carroll Josie is talking about is Warren, too. The original reference by Abu was to Warren, and bnb’s response was about Warren but somehow William’s name crept in. The awards Josie is talking about were indeed Warren’s college’s awards to Warren.

By contrast, William is a respected Oxford church historian.

Thank you. I stand corrected. Now mind your own business.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thank you. I stand corrected. Now mind your own business.

I’ll creep back into my warren.

 

[GKC]

Thank you. I stand corrected. Now mind your own business.

You have to be careful with first names, when Picky Picky is around. I can testify.

 

[josie_L]

Well, I have a pretty low view of William Carroll. I neither trust nor respect his work. This is not a reflection of how I feel about every Catholic historian or for that matter any other Catholic historian that I’ve read at any length, it’s really just him.

You compared him to Jack Chick and called him his “evil twin” so I suggest you back up that claim or retract your statement, i.e., you don’t defame a dead man’s reputation by comparing him to a hate MONGER, and then leave it at that!!!

Now, THAT is offensive!!!

 

[Picky_Picky]

You have to be careful with first names, when Picky Picky is around. I can testify.

Ah, the old wound still troubling you? Don’t scratch it, now!

 

[josie_L]

For the record- and you may not be aware of this- Carroll was the founder and first president of Christendom College. So some of these awards were, in effect, given to himself. It’s exactly like talking about Jerry Falwell Sr. (or Jr.) and bringing up the awards and honors that Liberty University has bestowed upon them. Not that there’s anything egregiously problematic with LU, it’s just a particular relationship between a school and its founder that makes these awards seem less merit-based and more circumstantial, a formality of sorts.

It is rather impressive whenever someone is able to establish a private religious school and run it reasonably well. I’ll give him that, taken somewhat on its own. When that school gives its founder awards, though, it doesn’t really do anything for the marginal level of impressiveness. Just saying.

Yes, I noticed his awards were given to him by Christendom College, but if you think that that takes away from the fact that he was a RESPECTED and published historian (with a Ph.D) who founded a college, then I have to ask you “Who do you think you are???”

Really, “who are you” to judge a man so harshly that you would compare him to such a bigoted, hateful liar??

 

[GKC]

Ah, the old wound still troubling you? Don’t scratch it, now!

Self-inflicted, too. I’m still sleeping with a night light.

As to Dr. Warren, I have only read a chapter of one of his books, the only one I own, Vol 4 of his HISTORY. Chosen to see how he treated Henry and all that. It’s not particularly good, as I recall, not particularly bad, sort of via media. He makes use of Scarisbrick, which is laudable, and made me want to obtain a copy of Parmiter’s KING’S GREAT MATTER, which is available on line, if I could only force myself to consume so many electrons.

I may be recalling him wrongly, but nothing in that small bit of his work would suggest a kinship to something like Chick.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Self-inflicted, too. I’m still sleeping with a night light.

As to Dr. Warren, I have only read a chapter of one of his books, the only one I own, Vol 4 of his HISTORY. Chosen to see how he treated Henry and all that. It’s not particularly good, as I recall, not particularly bad, sort of via media. He makes use of Scarisbrick, which is laudable, and made me want to obtain a copy of Parmiter’s KING’S GREAT MATTER, which is available on line, if I could only force myself to consume so many electrons.

I may be recalling him wrongly, but nothing in that small bit of his work would suggest a kinship to something like Chick.

I suspect that if he were something like Chick you would most certainly recall it.

 

[GKC]

I suspect that if he were something like Chick you would most certainly recall it.

I’ve just thumbed it again. There’s nothing of Chickdom at all in those 64 pages. Milder than my man Belloc. And footnotes, too…