The Lord of the Rings: A Catholic View

The Cool-Ohm Zone ^ | -- | Charles Coulombe

[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.”

[Pyro7480]

Thanks for the link to your take on Tolkien. My only slight criticism is that you can't print it out.

[SuziQ]

This is an interesting article on the Catholic view of LOTR. It's a long read, but well worth it.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Lord of the Rings is indeed a Catholic work

So that would make Catholicism Fantasy because thats what Lord of the Rings is !

[what's up]

That is a fantastic article.

Thanks.

[MarkL]

Probably the most amazing thing to me about these three stories is the number of moral lessons they offer. Two that occured to me during the movie were:

The price of apathy is blood - the accumulation of evil in Mordor was characterized as being attributable to man's inattentiveness.

Something that was left out of the movie which was quite important, was the "Scourage of the Shire." Remember in Fellowship, the scene in the Tavern, where one Hobbit states more or less, that if you don't go looking for trouble, no trouble will come to you. The Scourage of the Shire shows that there's no place to hide from evil. That even if you don't want to get involved, too bad... You will be involved whether you want to be or not.

Strength of character trumps physical strength - Only the virtuous Frodo was capable of carrying the ring, even though he was physically perhaps the weakest.

Another important point was that Frodo wasn't the real hero... It was Sam. It was Sam that got Frodo to where he needed to go, and he never abandoned Frodo. In fact, as true as Frodo was, in the end, he faltered, and would have failed, had it not been for Gollum. Showing that even the most stout of heart can (and will fail) against evil, unless you've got help, and a lot of luck.

Mark

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

I don't know much about Tom Paine's religious views,>>

He was an antireligious bigot and spent his entire adult life an excommunicate from the Church of England. He repented on his death bed.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

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.>>

I would argue that the first cause of the Reformation came 150 years before: the Great Plague, when God killed a third of the world. Think of it. It's like 2 billion people dying in a year today. The plague exterminated the Eastern Roman Empire, and almost wiped out the Eastern Church in a flood of Islam. And Western Christianity never came to terms with why.

Between the economic changes that the plague (and subsequent labor shortages) engendered and the invention of the printing press, the Reformation was inevitable. (What was NOT inevitable was Luther's victory in permanently shattering the Patriarchate of the West. Alas.)

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Another important point was that Frodo wasn't the real hero... It was Sam. >>

No the real hero was Frodo; second place to Bilbo, and third place to the others. It is revealed in the hierarchy of rewards given the Ringbearers and company.

Pippin and Merry become the Thain and the Master of Brandybuck Hall; they are revered for all their lives as the Travelers and hailed as the heroes of their day, and when they die "they are buried among the great of Gondor". Old Sam Gardener gets married to his sweetie, has a dozen kids and is elected Mayor every year continually until he is ninety-six.

What does Frodo (and Bilbo) get?

...And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them, a far green country under a swift sunrise.

Heaven, in other words. (Actually, Sam gets to take a Grey Ship as well, since he too was a ringbearer, "if only for a little while.") Something so wonderful it can only be hinted at.

No, Sam is not the first hero of the books (although he is a hero!). Frodo is.

[John O]

Pretty much what I was trying to say.

Good. We agree on that.

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.

This we'll never agree on. The reformation gave the scriptures back to the people. Christianity was not designed to be run by a caste of holy men who served as intermediaries between man and God. It was designed to be a relationship between Jesus and each man on a personal level. You can be Christian and never set foot in a church (Although we are commanded to not forsake the gathering together in fellowship so this is unlikely except for castaways etc). You can be a Christian and never take communion, be baptised etc. All these things are good but none of them defines Christianity.

[since we are probably going to devolve into a 'my church is better' type arguement where everyone loses, lets just agree to disagree]

[John O]

I never said that Christianity is dormant.

You said Christiandom which is defined (by websters) as 1. Christians as a whole, 2.The Christian world, 3. Christianity.

Unless you are defining it entirely differently it seems to me that Christiandom has been doing pretty well (not as well as we should however), it's anything but dormant

Abuses as defined by whom?

Seems that Calvin nailed 87(?) abuses to the door of that church. Scriptural violations by the church. Pretty straightforward

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?

Everyone who chooses to study the scriptures with a mind open to Jesus will see the truth. Are we infallible? no way, not even close. But as we encounter failures in our understanding of scripture we correct them and grow.

There is no infallible person on this earth. No one. Not even the pope. Proof of the popes' fallibility can be seen in the very failures that Calvin pointed out. When the french popes moved the church from Rome to France they were obviously seeking political power more than the holiness of God (some of these guys had mistresses for crying out loud). Shows me that the selection process is flawed and that the pope (and college of Cardinals) is not near to infallible.

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?

Without getting into the all but inevitable 'my church is better' contest let's just say that all Christian churches agree on the main points of doctrine (Nicene creed stuff if I remember the title correctly) After that all is details. I personally believe that the pentecostals (Assemblies of God types) come the closest to a correct reading of all of scripture.

(Oh, BTW, the church is not made up of denominations. It's made up of people who have Christ as their Savior. It is made of Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Lutherans,Episcopalians etc. But not every one who calls themselves Catholic etc is Christian. I was Catholic for 20 years before I became a Christian (in a baptist church))

God bless and keep you

[Lloyd227]

"the privilege of meeting one person worthy--and theoretically capable of inheriting--a crown..."

This is a very interesting thing to say. I'd be interested in hearing more, private email is fine if you'd rather not post, but please tell more.

Best regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd227]

Was Tolkein Catholic? Practicing?

Sorry, but I don't see a Catholic work in Lord of the Rings. It's a very fine story and well told, but what exactly makes it any more "Catholic" than any other brand of Christian?

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Was Tolkein Catholic? Practicing?>>>

Not merely Catholic, but almost fanatical by our standards.

Sorry, but I don't see a Catholic work in Lord of the Rings. It's a very fine story and well told, but what exactly makes it any more "Catholic" than any other brand of Christian?>>

Read the article and then you may rejoin the discussion. :)

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Exactly. Words more like blessing, benefaction, favor, remedy, illumination, enhancement, amelioration and Godsend come to my mind.>>

Don't worry. God will let you into heaven anyway.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Seems that Calvin nailed 87(?) abuses to the door of that church.>>

That's Luther, that's 95 theses.

Calvin wasn't predestined to nail any theses to the wall, so he didn't. He DID nail a lot of Catholics though.

[ArrogantBustard]

Find yourself a copy of the original Jerusalem Bible. On one of the first few pages, you'll find a list of the translators ... you'll find the name J. R. R. Tolkien among them ... same fellow.