/lit/ - Literature

>>17766956
Just read Jane Austen and delude yourself about one day being rich and desirable.

>>17766956

>>17766956
no

>british traditionalism
You mean Liberalism?

Book of Common Prayer

>>17766956
Domboc
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Burke was a damned leftist

>>17766956
Parade’s End by Ford Madox Ford about Richard Tietjens, “the last tory”

>>17769383
Christopher

>>17766956
Read books by Peter Hitchens, Niall Ferguson, Burke, Hobbes, Thomas Carlyle, as well as the normal corpus of Greeks/Philosphers. Id also recommend reading the 39 articles and more depending on how recent you are to Anglicanism. I'd recommend following this too: https://mallarduk.com/the-conservative-reading-list/

>>17766956
just read scholasticism but ignore the theology

>>17766956
Anglicanism seems exhausting. Why not just become Catholic or Orthodox? On that note: Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited.

>>17771174
What makes you think Anglicanism would be exhausting?

>>17766956
I prefer modernism.

>>17771186
As I see it you neither get the authority of Catholicism nor the ascetic sincerity of the Orthodox. It appears to me as a patriotic decision which considering the profanity of that is a very strange thing to do and aligns one to the performative behaviours of the quasi secular church of today.

>>17771218
There are just as equally strong arguments against all other denominations. Modern Catholicism's pell-mell sprint towards the third world smacks more of opportunism than fervour; Orthodox?, It's 2021, any pretense of theological innocence as 'honest' is absurd.

Again, not saying that Anglicanism is any better, merely that it's all a bit difficult.

>>17771289
Of course it's difficult. I think the proper emotional sentiment would be towards the build-a-faith of protestantism but what's even the point if you end up as your own authority?

>>17771306
Is it so morally wrong to acknowledge the infinity variety of ways that Christianity can be interpreted , and choose to attach oneself to a specific variation that also provides non theological benefits? If the aesthetics of the thing weren't important there wouldn't be any necessity in having them at all; why can't we simply apply this type of view on the aesthetics to the other factors? Nation, politics, philosophy and whatever.

Thanks for all the recommendations anons.

>>17771174
I was raised Anglican so I have no reason to convert to any other form of Christian. But thanks anyway

>>17771171

>>17771324
I don't deny the relevance of aesthetics but I would be careful when binding the universals of Christianity to the particulars of a profane construct and the vision of a segregated church for any variety in culture seems dreadful and even primitivist. To me the issue though is more technical in nature. I want an institution that is capable of preservation and in the Anglican case the point in its creation was to deviate from that. It's not a good start, even protestants proper could authentically claim preservation as their motivation even though their methods were so inadequate. Ultimately these are indeed personal decsions. I can't fault a person who looks at modern Catholicism and sees anything but authoritative preservation and I am quite envious of the spririt you find in healthy protestant denominations.

>>17766956
1/4

>>17771346
>I was raised Anglican
So was Waugh. But alright, not trying to convert. I just think you might find his work interesting.

>>17766956
>>17771394
2/4

>>17766956
>>17771394
>>17771399
3/4

>>17766956
>>17771394
>>17771399
>>17771410
4/4

>>17771396
I will give it a read if I get the chance, I’m open to new ideas etc. But I just meant I’m not actively looking for any reason to convert

>>17766956
>>17771399
>>17771410
>>17771414
5/4

>>17771414
Hornblower in the TV section is a glaring oversight.

There you go OP, 4 brit charts and an intro to pol chart thrown in for good measure.

>>17771306
How can you reconcile the idea of the church being the only authority with the huge abuses it has committed using that position (selling indugences etc)

>>17771419
Brideshead Revistied is also half about Aristocracy so you can kind of get over the Catholic parts as an Anglican. Btw are you English or a Yankee?

>>17771450
It's not really a theological question for me. My view of it would simply concern what mechanism is most advantageous in preserving the faith (an act that by necessity includes authoritative interpretation). I see no hope of that in protestantism although I do value them in regard to their role as critics. The Catholic Church looks actually quite impressive if you consider that it is an institution that is now 2,000 years old and we should never be baffled by manifestations of human sinfulness.

>>17766956
>High Tory gang
>in 2021 Anno Domini
have sex I beg

>>17771671

>>17771682
Current Year +6 actually

>>17771650
Might I inquire as to why you so fervently want religion to be entangled with the state? Is it a moral necessity?, theological?, political? Do you actually believe it is ever a realistic prospect for a permutation of Christianity to be a cornerstone for any modern state?

>>17771693
I don't think the theocratic position is necessarily the Catholic one. As it concerns faith itself I don't think civilization is possible without it.

>>17768131
kek

>>17766956
>bri ish traditionalism
Sunni or Shia?

>>17771460
I’m english :)

>>17771693
No who you were replying to but any society built without god will crumble and fail

>>17766956
You need to read the founding father of this stuff, a guy named Edmund Burke.

I would also recommend reading Ecclesiastes in the Bible. Central to Burkeanism is a common sense view that humankind is not improvable, and so High Tories typically think of liberals and progressives as Christian extremists; people who somewhere in the back of their mentality think of humanity as potentially equal to God, even though they conceptually no longer identify with their original theological worldview.

>>17768217
based

>>17771693
Not who you were replying to, but if I were worried about the merger of the church and state in the modern world, the place I would worry most about is communist China; they may call it "state ideology" but it is nothing less than the merger of church and state, the one thing that protestants fought against for centuries.

Consider also that the Roman Catholic Church and the CCP are on good terms, and that as of Pope Francis, the Roman Church is a mouthpiece for socialism, and it gets worse with every encyclical. Communism and the Pontificate are easy friends if you know your history. And that's not even mentioning that Communism is just a radical spin off of 19th century left-wing Christian sentiments.

But I wonder why we care; history proves that most of mankind are childish and helpless without some tangible idol to worship. And the elites in the west arrogantly laugh at Communism and religion, even as they defraud the poor with low interest rates and money printing. So it will not surprise me when the Vatican falls under the boot of the Chinese, and the Chinese then use the Church as a proxy for control over the west.

>>17772278
>if the roman church denounces anglo-american ZOG capitalism as usurious and unfair it is muh socialism
Then why even bother with anglicanism, why not just remain a prosperity gospel low church evangelical?