Divine Mercy in the Lord of the Rings (article by Joseph Pearce)

Friends of Mercy Newsletter - Vol. 15, No. 7 | November/December 2003 | Joseph Perace

[Pyro7480]

I don't know if someone who is a professor in "Women and Gender" is entirely trustworthy, but she is absolutely right. ;-)

[ahadams2]

maybe he's a 'sola Scriptura' trad Catholic....

I'm sorry but as an Anglican that was beyond my fallen nature to resist!:-)

[Maximilian]

don't find the date of the destruction of the Ring, the twenty-fifth of March, as being an indication of what Tolkien was trying to do with his epic? Or is it a mere coincidence to you?

Every day in the calendar is a feast of something or other. So no matter what date Tolkien chose, you could have made the same argument. As to March 25th, the destruction of the ring has nothing in common with the angelic annunciation of a message. They are events that are not categorically similar.

[NYer]

And the Christlike symbolism is all through the books: Frodo the Deliverer, Gandalf the Resurrected, Aragorn the Returning King.

According to Professor Jane Chance, an "expert" on Tolkien, ...

Tolkien distinguished between the primary world, which is the world of pain, suffering, turbulence that we live in day-to-day, in which we have finite lives. But he talks about fairy tales as a creation of a secondary world, in which the reader finds escape, consolation, and recovery, where the colors are brighter, as he says, where you are sick and are always healed. It's the recovery of Paradise, if that's what you want to call it. We all long for a secondary world. But he would see the Bible as truth in the primary world.

He would never identify his secondary world as real—the Grey Havens, for instance, as Heaven. He never used Christian terminology to describe his world, because it would be a violation of the secondary-world construction to introduce the primary world into it.

[ecurbh]

Ring Ping!!

There and Back Again: The Journeys of Flat Frodo

Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.

[xzins]

I have a request of you my brother. Check you freepmail.

[Maximilian]

According to Jane Chance, professor of English, Medieval Studies, and Women and Gender at Rice University

As though she will be able to make Catholic distinctions.

"Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, close to being Tridentine in his conservative Catholicism."

My suspicions confirmed immediately. This statement demonstrates a simple ignorance. Tolkien lived virtually his entire life prior to Vatican II, certainly all the years that were spent writing the trilogy occurred before Vatican II, so there was no "Tridentine" or "conservative" Catholicism at the time. A Catholic in the early 1950's would have found these labels meaningless.

[Maximilian]

He would never identify his secondary world as real—the Grey Havens, for instance, as Heaven. He never used Christian terminology to describe his world, because it would be a violation of the secondary-world construction to introduce the primary world into it.

This much I can agree with. Tolkien was creating an alternate reality, and he wanted that reality to exist on its own. Therefore he avoided like the plague anything that smelled of "allegory." He was desperately afraid of being interpreted as a simple allegory like "Animal Farm," when his intention was entirely different.

So when Catholics, like Joseph Pearce and those on this forum, attempt to discover all kinds of hidden Christian symbolism, they are violating the nature of his work, as well as searching for something that doesn't exist.

[Pyro7480]

These could just as easily be Hindu or Zoroastrian symbols. Next I'll be hearing that "Gilgamesh" is also a Catholic work. It has a hundred times more symbolism that could be interpreted as being "Christ-like."

You bring up an interesting point. Tolkien was a great admirer of northern European folklore, in particular Beowulf. The anonymous author of Beowulf wrote the epic poem at the time Christianity was slowly spreading throughout England. It is almost certain that this author was a Christian himself. He used the poem to sanctify the best of the old pagan ways. This sanctification is in the tradition of St. Augustine's argument that Christianity could be compatible with a post-Roman world. Clement of Alexandria also argued along these line when hed said that the pre-Christian paganism of the Greco-Roman world was a "prepatory teaching for those who [would] later embrace the faith."

Just because something is pagan doesn't automatically mean it is evil.

[Pyro7480]

So when Catholics, like Joseph Pearce and those on this forum, attempt to discover all kinds of hidden Christian symbolism, they are violating the nature of his work, as well as searching for something that doesn't exist.

You are right that Tolkien despised allegory, but when Pearce and Birzer use Tolkien's own words about his creation, aren't they being faithful to his work, and discovering something that is ACTUALLY in the story??

[jboot]

I knew someone would do better than me. Has anyone yet pointed out that Gandalf is a Maia, or lesser angel, and not a man? Or that the Balrog was of the same order, but fallen and a servant of Morgoth?

[Maximilian]

The anonymous author of Beowulf wrote the epic poem at the time Christianity was slowly spreading throughout England. It is almost certain that this author was a Christian himself. He used the poem to sanctify the best of the old pagan ways.

It would be too far afield to get into Beowulf on this thread, but the fact is that the epic is an uneasy amalgamation of Christian and pagan elements. As the story progresses, the author seems to drop the Christian elements along the way and revert to a raw barbarism. As an epic poem it is wonderful, but as an attempt to "baptize paganism," it is a mixed bag at best. Nor would it make sense for Tolkien to try to repeat the process some 1400 years later. It may not have been his intention, but the result of his work has been to resurrect paganism, not baptize it.

[Maximilian]

when Pearce and Birzer use Tolkien's own words about his creation, aren't they being faithful to his work, and discovering something that is ACTUALLY in the story??

No, no. The whole point is that this alleged symbolism does not actually exist in the story. One has to read it in from the outside. The world created by Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings does not present the reader with any supreme being or afterlife, or any reality at all existing on a supernatural plane of existence.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

I was always under the impression that when Gandalf stated he was a "servant of the Secret Fire", he was referring to Narya, the Ring of Fire that he carried and originally received from Cirdain the Shipwright.

I don't doubt the existance of religion in Tolkien's work, and see many parallels, but this case in particular may not be what you think it is, ahadams2.

[Corin Stormhands]

We're not talking about the Silmarillion, we're talking about the Lord of the Rings. And in the trilogy, there is no reference to God. The Silmarillion was written later and never finished in Tolkien's lifetime.

You cannot separate the two. You do not have to read the Silmarillion to understand the Lord of the Rings. But, by doing so, you get a clearer picture of Tolkien's intent.

[Corin Stormhands]

Your ad hominem arguments have somehow failed to convince me.

It is hardly an ad hominem argument to point out that you don't understand something.

These could just as easily be Hindu or Zoroastrian symbols.

Only in the sense that Hinduism and Zorastrianism are perversions of the truth of the Gospel.

[Pyro7480]

Though the statement was probably made in ignorance, her assessment is true of Tolkien's last years. According to Birzer, Tolkien "failed to understand the necessity of the Second Vatican Council of the mid-1960s, especially its acceptance of the use of the vernacular in the Mass." Clyde Kilby, a professor of English at Wheaton College, who helped Tolkien organize his various writings that were going to be used in the Simirillion, described Tolkien's attitude about the post-counciliar period in this way:
"[Tolkien] was appalled that even the sacred Eucharist might be attended by 'dirty youth, women in trousers, and often with their hair unkept and uncovered,' and what was worse, the grevious suffering given by 'stupid, tired, dimmed, and even bad priest.' An anecdote I have heard involved his attendance at Mass not long after Vatican II. An expert in Latin, he had reluctantly composed himself to its abolishment in favor of English. But when he arrived next time at services and seated himself in the middle of a bench, he began to notice other changes than the language, one a diminution of genuflection. His disappointment was such that he rose up and made his way awkwardly to the aisle and there made three very low bows, then stomped out of the church."

However, as Birzer points out, "[d]espite his disappointment with what he viewed as the liberalization of the Church, Tolkien remained a loyal and practicing Catholic." In a post on another thread, I stated that traditionalist Catholics should emulate Tolkien's example in remaining a loyal and practicing Catholic. The preceding excerpt from Birzers' book, along with the rest of the passage it's taken from, is what inspired me finally to start attending the Traditional Latin Mass. I think it is a shame that you can't see the tremendous benefit of Tolkien's "sub-Creation." Speaking of Tolkien's example, I think he demonstrated his merciful attitude and loyalty to Jesus Christ and His Church when he said:
"The only cure for the sagging of fainting faith is Communion. I can recommend this as an exercise: make your Communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn--open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to Communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a Mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people. (It could not be worse than the mess of the feeding the Five Thousand after which Our Lord propounded the feeding that was to come.)"

[Maximilian]

Has anyone yet pointed out that Gandalf is a Maia, or lesser angel, and not a man? Or that the Balrog was of the same order, but fallen and a servant of Morgoth?

This is speculation that, once again, does NOT exist in the trilogy. Compare for example, the Silmarillion, in which the ultimate outcome is the ironic realization that the entire struggle of the elves against Morgoth which had occupied the narrative was a futile struggle doomed to failure, because Morgoth was a Valar and could never be defeated by elves or men. There is similar speculation about the nature of Tom Bombadillo, but ultimately there is no clear answer because the story never tells you who or what he is. Were Saruman and Radagast and Sauron also Maia? The story doesn't say so.

Nor were that the case, would it make the stories any more "Christian." A satanic allegory would certainly include angels and fallen angels.

[Pyro7480]

See my post #10.

[Corin Stormhands]

He never used Christian terminology to describe his world, because it would be a violation of the secondary-world construction to introduce the primary world into it.

Granted. And somewhere in my files I have a quote from Tolkien where he says that he did not intend LOTR as a "Christian" work, but because he is a Christian, that is reflected in his work.