 |
|---|
| Support Free Republic! |
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 ...
In traditional Catholic societies, the King is, in a lessened sense, the Vicar of God. While not approximating the Sacral Kingship of non-Catholic peoples, the Catholic Monarchy nevertheless retains a certain sacredness. This remains the case, even when in conflict with the Church. After the calamities of the Reformation, English Civil War, Glorious, French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions, etc., the King became more than that; he became the exiled leader of the faithful, whose return alone would bring a return to the old ways, and an end to change and unrest.
[...]
The concept of society as an organic whole, without class conflict, with a communal structure, is one that has characterised Catholic social thought since the Roman Empire. In many ways the Shire expresses perfectly the economic and political ideals of the Church, as expressed by Leo XIII in Rerum novarum, and Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno. Traditional authority (the Thain), limited except in times of crisis; popular representation (the Mayor of Michel Delving), likewise limited; subsidiarity; and above all, minimal organisation and conflict. It is the sort of society envisioned by Distributists Belloc and Chesterton in Britain, by Salazar in Portugal, by the framers of the Irish Constitution, by Dollfuss in Austria, and by Smetona in Lithuania. How ever far short or close these dwellers in the real world came to their goal, the fact remains that it is something very close to the Shire they had in mind.”
In his Hieroglyphics: Notes on the Ecstatic in Literature, Mr. Arthur Machen declares, "Literature is the expression, through the artistic medium of words, of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and that which is in anyway out of harmony with these dogmas is not literature," for "Catholic dogma is merely the witness, under a special symbolism of the enduring facts of human nature and the universe."
Das est 'Gau' ideas at it's 'roots'.
The mythical 'Volk' earth-spirits moving again?
Sure isn't the 'work' of America's Founding Fathers is it?
Just more media brainwashing...(rewriting/rejecting) 'history'?
/sarcasm
See: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EA11Aa02.html
 Ring Ping!! |
Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...” –Thomas Jefferson, etal.
In traditional Catholic societies, the King is, in a lessened sense, the Vicar of God.
“Where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above.” –Thomas Paine
If you believe that Christianity is true, then you ought to take what Jefferson says about any topic with a grain or two of salt ... because he didn't.
This case, however, is a little different. Here all I was doing is pointing out the glaring discrepancies between this hierarchical/feudal understanding of society espoused by medieval Catholic thinkers, and the American principle of equality in human dignity before God, as asserted by our Founders.
I don't see how the two worldviews are compatible. Then again, I'm not a monarchist either :)
You're not the only one • Bttt! :)
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.
I saw this story too and basically, I'd have to agree.
Military service instills a certain discipline and respect that our society at large has lacked for several decades. The armed forces of the U.S. are now showing their mettle overseas and doing it with tremendous courage. I'd trust any American soldier—male or female—to protect my life and liberty if I had to. Their kind of grit and strength of character is somehow sadly absent in the mainstream of civilian society today.
Want proof? How about all these "reality" TV shows...the fact that guys 24-35 are living at home with Mommy in greater percentages than ever...the fact Al Gore got so many popular votes...the fact so many people whine and yet voter turnout is below 50%...the increasing proportion of freeloaders vs. producers in America...
In fact, if I had to "do it all over" again from age 18, I would've probably put off the expensive lark-life of college I enjoyed and enlisted in the Army instead. Honestly! I'd probably have been even better prepared for life, and yet less in debt today. If I have any regret in life thus far, that would be it.
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?
So that would make Catholicism Fantasy because thats what Lord of the Rings is !
Thanks.
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
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.
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]
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
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.