G.K. Chesterton, on sola scriptura

A quotation from "The Catholic Church and Conversion", by G.K. Chesterton.

". . . I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. 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."

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• xtranormal
• Catholic Church
• G.K. Chesterton
• Catholicism
• sola scriptura
• Bible
• tradition

[VictorLepanto]

I like Chesterton very much & I am a thoroughly convinced Catholic, but here Chesterton has a very lame argument. If I take a a diamond & toss into a pile of mud, it gets covered in mud & it's beauty is obscured. Underneath the mud it is still the pure diamond. One just needs to take from the mud & wash it off. Of course that presents a false notion of how we came to have the scriptures, no one ever just found the scriptures as if they were buried in the woods on a golden book.

[BaronGrackle]

@VictorLepanto I think it only works if you keep the metaphor in the realm of foreign religion. It'd be like a group said that the Book of Mormon was the only source of divine truth, but Joseph Smith and all other Mormons taught lies.

[drdst17]

Protestantism is heresy.  It is deficient, and exists only because men wish to create their own Personal Jesus based upon their interpretations of Holy Scripture. It is born of the ego, and is not sufficient in any possible way.

[BaronGrackle]

@TenderTrap86 I know, right? The man almost looks like Einstein now!

[Flobbyoiboyz]

When I first read this quote as a Protestant, I didn't understand it at all because I'd never heard the point that we have the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church (or else on no authority at all). Chesterton assumed a lot of knowledge in his audience; people aren't so educated in religious matters these days. Now that I'm Catholic I appreciate him much better. :)

It is weird hearing this quote read by the "Sexy Grandpa Time" guy of the Geico commericals...

[BaronGrackle]

@keepcompletecontrol Not exactly. :-) The conclusion is: if you trust the Bible, consider also trusting the group of people who compiled the Bible.

[BaronGrackle]

@megaead69 Welcome aboard! I came in just 8 years ago, myself. :-)

And yes, I wouldn't be here now if not for encountering a number of Catholics who were knowledgeable about our faith and were able to point me to further reading as well as answer questions themselves.

[megaead69]

@drdst17 Ah, yes indeed. Though, if we Catholics did a better job living out our faith and being able to explain the teachings of the Church as well as the Biblical basis for her authority. I converted to Catholicism last year, after being very anti-Catholic prior to then.

[NYCZ31]

@roxykattx "I don't see why a person cannot choose what parts of Christianity to believe in." What "parts" would you consider optional? Christianity is a system of beliefs that all support one another. Leave something out and you've compromised the entire system. Or maybe you really mean that some of the moral beliefs should be optional. God is a Trinity? Sure. Divorce and re-marriage? Oh, that was fine for medieval times, not today. I don't think almighty God would agree.

[BaronGrackle]

@roxykattx Doubtful. If I'm not mistaken, that has more to do with "God told me himself" than "It has to be in the Bible to be true".