Posted on 01/04/2004 11:33:19 PM PST by B-Chan
“It has been said that the dominant note of the traditional Catholic liturgy was intense longing. This is also true of her art, her literature, her whole life. It is a longing for things that cannot be in this world: unearthly truth, unearthly purity, unearthly justice, unearthly beauty. By all these earmarks, Lord of the Rings is indeed a Catholic work, as its author believed; but it is more. It is this age's great Catholic epic, fit to stand beside the Grail legends, Le Morte d'Arthur, and The Canterbury Tales. It is at once a great comfort to the individual Catholic, and a tribute to the enduring power and greatness of the Catholic tradition, that JRRT created this work. In an age which has seen an almost total rejection of the Faith on the part of the Civilisation she created, the loss of the Faith on the part of many lay Catholics, and apparent uncertainty among her hierarchy, Lord of the Rings assures us, both by its existence and its message, that the darkness cannot triumph forever.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thinline.com ...
There really isn't much of a "glaring discrepancy," to my mind. In fact, John Locke's ideas can trace some of their origins back to the writings of St. Thomas More and others. "Hierarchy" is not license for dictatorship, by any means.
A hierarchical view of society is firmly rooted in the pages of the New Testament. (Read 1 Timothy and the end of Hebrews if you don't believe me.) Now, you can argue that the inspired authors "didn't know any better," lacking, as they did, the pure light of Jefferson and the other American Founding Fathers. But do you really want to go there?
The jury is still out on the American experiment, from the POV of this Christian, and I hope all thinking Christians. I see plenty of signs that this Republic is collapsing into despotism, a despotism that will make the Catholic feudal/hierarchical view look absolutely heavenly by comparison. There was a story here a few days ago about how the American military thinks it's "more moral" than the country it defends. A military dictatorship lies down that particular road ... and that may be one of the better options!
The Roman Republic lasted, what, about 400 years? At the rate we're going, we'll be lucky to get to 250.
Not quite so simple. There is nothing INTRINSICALLY GOOD about heirachical structures.
The New Testament sees the church as heirachical by charism (see I Tim and Hebrews) and society as heirarchical yet fallen.
The structure of the church mediates grace (i.e. does good things), while the fallen structure of the world imposes the sword on unjust and just alike (see Romans and James).
One structure is redeemed; the other is not. Yet.
After a quick reading of I Tim and Hebrews I don't see where you are coming from. Both books entreat for prayers for rulers and those in Authority but that doesn't necessarily imply hierarchy to me. (a group with one elected executive who answers only to the group and to God is not hierarchical)
If he's referring to the Protestant Reformation then calamity is the wrong word to use.
You misunderstand. I didn't say they were wrong. I said it's a bad sign that they think so ... and, I might add, to the extent they're right, it's an even worse sign.
"Hierarchy," as a term, is probably a bit of a red herring. The concept that there are "rulers and those in authority" is obviously not pure egalitarianism, however. And the rulers for whom Paul asked prayers were not elected, at least not by popular franchise.
Quite so ... It's not nearly strong enough. 'Disaster' comes closer ... perhaps 'catastrophe' would be better, or maybe 'fiasco'. As usually understood in 21st Century English, 'tragedy' is certainly not strong enough.
There are rulers put in place by God's hand. How He chooses to move His hand (whether through inherited kingship or through election) is up to Him.
What makes you think that Christianity is dormant? Millions are getting saved yearly and Christianity is still the fastest growing belief system.
Even with that though I agree with your last line. Even now Lord come.
Actually the abuses by the Roman Catholic church (indulgences etc) were the first symptoms. The reformation was intended to bring the church back to biblical truth.
Pretty much what I was trying to say.
No, actually, the first symptoms were the increasingly aggressive moves by the state against the Church. (cf St. Thomas Becket, King Philip the Fair of France, etc.) The Reformation was the ultimate triumph of the state, using a thin veneer of Christianity to pretend to "bring the church back to biblical truth," to cover up a naked grab for power -- temporal and spiritual -- and wealth.
I never said that Christianity is dormant. Please re-read my post.
...[T]he abuses by the Roman Catholic church (indulgences etc) were the first symptoms.
Abuses as defined by whom?
The reformation was intended to bring the church back to biblical truth.
Biblical truth as defined by whom? Who is it that has the infallible gift of knowing what is biblical truth and what is not? Martin Luther? John Calvin? Henry VIII? Your pastor? You?
If the reformation was intended to bring the church back to biblical truth, the people who began it (and who continue it) did a piss-poor job. Pray, which of the two zillion Protestant denominations that have spring from this "reformation" currently teaches the biblical truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.