Caminus said:

I find this very difficult to believe, given Chesteron's brilliant ability to see and explain true historical causes and effects of events and movements.  Would you provide proof for this assertion?  I'm fairly certain you either missed his point or some distinction which great minds are apt to make.  

Moving on past the masterfully veiled insult ( my mind isn't subtle enough to comprehend GK Chesterton, which may be true, then again it isn't subtle enough to comprehend a lot of Vatican II "theologians" either like Hans urs von Balthasar )...

You didn't know he was pro-French Revolution?  Maybe he changed his mind sometime during his life, but from the available evidence, he was relentless in this stance.  It's the same with Hilaire Belloc, as roscoe, for once accurately, points out.

An Internet search will prove what I'm saying, it's no secret.  This is from an essay called "The Red Reactionary."

"If the French democracy
actually desired every detail of the mediaeval monarchy, they could have
it. I do not think they will or should, but they could."

There's a beauty for you.  He continues, in his proto-Vatican II way, to mix up concepts into his own peculiar blend of pompous and circuмstancial witticisms ( note the reference to Elgar, since both men had a very strange, very bloated, and very English take on the Catholic religion ).

"If another
Dauphin were actually crowned at Rheims; if another Joan of Arc actually
bore a miraculous banner before him; if mediaeval swords shook and.
blazed in every gauntlet; if the golden lilies glowed from every tapestry;
if this were really proved to be the will of France and the purpose of
Providence--such a scene would still be the lasting and final
justification of the French Revolution.

For no such scene could conceivably have happened under Louis XVI"

That's like saying praising Satan as the "lasting and final justification" for Christ's death on the Cross, for no such scene could have conceivably happened in the Garden of Eden... It is so backwards that it is mind-boggling.

It sounds clever, like so much of Chesterton, in the same way that a stand-up comic's jokes sound clever while really being gassbaggy and hollow... But in reality it makes no sense whatsoever.  Joan of Arc "happened" under Charles VII, a Catholic king just like Louis XVI.  

So a Joan of Arc figure could have easily happened under Louis XVI, if such were God's will, He could have raised a "Joan of Arc of the Vendee" who would have fought off the Revolutionary mob.

Here is something from a blog called First Principles --

"Surprisingly for the Catholic he was well on his way toward becoming, Chesterton also remained an apologist for the French Revolution. It was the great shining example of a patriotic spirit that could throw off the shackles of money and privilege, delivering common people from their bondage, granting them a social and political liberty theretofore unknown. Despite the carnage and blasphemy of the Reign of Terror, Chesterton hailed the French people for recovering a fundamental teaching of the Church that the Church itself had often neglected. By way of a triple theological, political, and visual pun—it occurs in his splendid book on his literary hero, Charles Dickens—Chesterton vividly stated the Christian premise undergirding democracy: “All men are equal as all pennies are equal, because the only value in any of them is that they bear the image of the King.”

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1283&theme=home&loc=b

This is to try to reconcile irreconciliables.  I realize that no one is perfect, but to defend the French Revolution crosses the line HUGELY.

Granted, if you interviewed pretty much any American Catholic at that time they would have said the same thing, democracy was seen as an advance, it was in the air back then.  The problem is that, as you say Caminus, Chesterton had the reputation of someone who was more perceptive about the real springs and motors of history.  He wasn't supposed to follow the same shibboleths as everyone else.  In this case, he did.

Lest you think this was a sin of youth, like The Man Who Was Thursday, I believe he maintained this position to the end, or at least I've never seen any proof that he retracted it.  You can research it further if you're so inclined.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

We would have to let Belloc clarify his stance on that. Although, I have not seen him on here in several weeks.

I am referring to the author-- not the poster. Mo re: the poster is Good Riddance.

My mistake. As for the poster, think what you want, but he has been a big contributer to this forum since he first joined.

Quote

Differences of opinion in the religious domain should be decided in an honourable, peaceful, theological discussion, which in the long run gives the right to those who deserve it, but prevents that these antagonisms degenerate into religious wars or violent conflicts, which always make impossible a political uniting of the peoples, which is so neces-sary, in the first place to eliminate the threat by Jєωιѕн Imperialism and later to secure world peace, which is indis-pensable for the progress and maintenance of the human race.

This goes too far.

How so?

I do not necessarily disagree, as I understand English well enough, but would like to see someone dissect and present the heart of the problem/s.  Thank you.

FWIW, it is possible that, in these wild days, we are naturally inclined to read something into this section that is not actually there.  I may come to see what others now see, but, at the moment, I just see him saying, roughly:

"There is a common enemy that is about finish the job of enslaving all of us.  We need to set aside various differences for the time being or we will all be toast.  Yes, we have our differences, but acrimonious discussion of them does not help anyone at this late stage of the game -- as it unnecessarily exacerbates a division that the common enemy is using to conquer us all."

I am NOT saying this perspective is or is not the BEST approach -- but that this is how I read the portion in question.  IOW, I see the advocating of mutual assistance on a temporal level in order to effectively resist a common enemy, but I do not see that the author is advocating any kind of religious union or cooperation.  MP seems to be saying, "However substantially we disagree about certain things, we will all soon be toast if we do not work together in order to expel/eliminate the common threat."

I am quite open to being shown that my understanding of MP's meaning is wrong.  Further, I totally understand that there really is no solution outside of that which the Church has always taught.  Our MAIN problem IS, in fact, spiritual and, therefore, all other measures will, in the end, amount to nothing, should we fail to be converted in heart.  In that sense, this passage might be tainted with a naturalistic perspective, but that is not the same as actually and openly advocating inter-religious dialog.  One might argue that such a perspective is a step in that direction, but that does not equate to having already arrived at said destination.

I have to disagree here; the quote (and I admit I'm reading it out of the context of whatever may surround it) reeks of the heresy of Americanism, which itself is a species of indifferentism.  He's saying, it seems to me, that stark religious debate is a hindrance to the "political uniting of peoples."  This erroneously presupposes that viable political unity between Catholics and people of other faiths is possible, especially in a level of equality.  If there is something that the failed American experiment has taught us, it is this kind of silent apostasy for the sake of political expedience inevitably leads to the rise of secular political atheism, whose attacks are ever aimed at the Church and her immutable truths.

We must labor in hope of peaceful solutions between men but we must not tolerate the pride that such peace comes from the natural works of man, nor suffer under the false desperation that Jєωιѕн imperialism, or any other philosophy, religion or institution will ever triumph over God or His Church in the final analysis, no matter how grave a threat it may temporarily represent.  The endgame was written before the pillars of creation had yet been erected.  In that context, we are obligated to establish the social reign of Christ the King in all lands, for all times, regardless of how politically inopportune it might seem.  Cooperation among men comes first and only in establishing the political reality of Christianity as first and exclusive recognized by the temporal state, then allowing non-Christians limited worship in charity, while evangelizing them as we are able.  That, as a matter of historical fact, is the only means of fostering the brotherhood, procuring the peace and stamping out those heresies that threaten the Church of Christ.

We must labor in hope of peaceful solutions between men but we must not tolerate the pride that such peace comes from the natural works of man, nor suffer under the false desperation that Jєωιѕн imperialism, or any other philosophy, religion or institution will ever triumph over God or His Church in the final analysis, no matter how grave a threat it may temporarily represent.

Agreed.  Based upon this point, I think it is fair to say that the portion quoted expresses a certain lack of supernatural faith and hope.  However, that is not the same thing as advocating inter-religious dialog, which was the question in the OP.

Quote from: JohnGrey

We must labor in hope of peaceful solutions between men but we must not tolerate the pride that such peace comes from the natural works of man, nor suffer under the false desperation that Jєωιѕн imperialism, or any other philosophy, religion or institution will ever triumph over God or His Church in the final analysis, no matter how grave a threat it may temporarily represent.

Agreed.  Based upon this point, I think it is fair to say that the portion quoted expresses a certain lack of supernatural faith and hope.  However, that is not the same thing as advocating inter-religious dialog, which was the question in the OP.

While it does not promote religious dialogue in the sense of two disparate religions attempting to come to a common expression of faith, I would absolutely argue that the attempt at political unity between them is tantamount to the same thing.  In doing so, the two religions are operating as tacit equals, as I sincerely doubt that one religion would be willing or content to operate in such an arrangement as being publicly held that it is false and perfidious by its political partner.  If, in the case of the political partnering of Holy Church an a false religion, there is not an open and public affirmation that the Church does not and will never consider the latter to be other than a false religion, then the effect is analogous: it has provided, as much by silence as by any formal declaration, that false religions are arguably salvific, and especially that they should considered as being on equal footing, socially and philosophically, with the Immaculate Bride of Christ.

Quote from: JohnGrey

I would absolutely argue that the attempt at political unity between them is tantamount to the same thing.

Is it clear he is saying that the religious bodies, as bodies, should form some kind of political union?  I do not see it that way, but please show me that I am wrong, if I am.

Directly, no.  However, can we reasonably assume that the only participation in this political union with non-Christians will be by laymen?  If we accept that this writing was in fact circulated among the attendees of the Apostate Council, then we must assume by its content and audience that it intended such a political union to include members of the Church's hierarchy.  Those aware of such participation would, barring an affirmation to the contrary, assume that such interaction had the blessing of the Church and that, as such, those non-Catholic partners were being recognized as having equivalent moral authority in seeking the redress of social wrongs.  Also, the other party of the political union need not be a religious organization; those seeking the correction of social evils without appeal to or driven by Christian charity, including secular humanists and atheists, should not be treated with either.  Such persons, who may support and agree with the Church in her battle with this enemy or that, and almost certainly as a means of self-preservation, would afterward contend with the Church in all things and deny her right to govern from a position of moral superiority.  Such an association would, by guilt of silence and equivocation of authority, impugn the Church's own authority to reform those social virtues rightly informed by her inerrant teachings on faith and morals.

When you have a chance, could you please address the questions I asked in my post at the bottom of page one?  Naturally, there is neither obligation nor rush, but I would like to know your thoughts.  Thank you.

Of course.  My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external.  Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.

In those cases, as you say pretty much all the world, where the social reign of Christ the King is denied by the naturalism and relativism of politicians, their is really only one course by which such a nation can prosper: evangelization.  The Great Commission given to Peter and his bishops was not simply for the salvation of souls but for the establishment and preservation of Christian society, so that the rulers of the nations would be among the faithful and, in submission to the Church and her Pontiff, rule in her stead.  This is especially necessary in representative republics as rulers are chosen from among the public.  If evangelization be successful, order will by the grace and mercy of God spring up from every direction.