Is [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] really Catholic?

[Arun]

nah lol. the guy was, though. the guy from mayhem. i always found it funny that he thought that about lotr.

[Gardener]

My Pastor has written two critiques of the talk in question, and here are the links (originally bulletin inserts)

http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf

http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_II.pdf

They were originally printed double-sided, so begin on the right side of page 1, under the title.

[verenaerin]

My Pastor has written two critiques of the talk in question, and here are the links (originally bulletin inserts)

http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf

http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_II.pdf

They were originally printed double-sided, so begin on the right side of page 1, under the title.

Very interesting. Can you post the rest when it comes out?

[Gardener]

Yes, I will post the others as they come out. Might be just one more based on what he was saying at an adult catechism class.

[verenaerin]

I just listened real quick to the voice of the priest. This is actually my favorite priest on audiosancto. I am really bummed if he is not a source for sermons and such.

[Gardener]

I just listened real quick to the voice of the priest. This is actually my favorite priest on audiosancto. I am really bummed if he is not a source for sermons and such.

Several on there sound very similar to each other. I thought I'd heard him before as well, but I have no idea who he is. Unless you are 100% sure, I wouldn't get upset just yet. Also, I try to confirm anything that seems "off", or any definitive statements, no matter who is giving the sermon.

The problem with the LOTR conference is that it's iffy as far as teaching what the Church teaches. It's more of an opinion than a proper sermon, and as long as the priest just sticks with Church teaching, no problem exists.

[rbjmartin]

I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.

[VeraeFidei]

I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.

For what it is worth, I think it is pretty darn safe to say that the reason they are anonymous is to protect the priests from higher-ups so that they can "speak their minds," pious talk about not creating personality cults aside.

I doubt, for example, that a sermon by an FSSP priest commanding that all NAB bibles (i.e. the English-language one used in the NO) must be burned would not result in a "problem" for him were his identity known.

[Gardener]

I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.

For what it is worth, I think it is pretty darn safe to say that the reason they are anonymous is to protect the priests from higher-ups so that they can "speak their minds," pious talk about not creating personality cults aside.

I doubt, for example, that a sermon by an FSSP priest commanding that all NAB bibles (i.e. the English-language one used in the NO) must be burned would not result in a "problem" for him were his identity known.

Has there been a sermon posted where an FSSP priest said such a thing?

The reason you have given is not the reason given on AS...

"Okay... so why not just say who the priests are?

Because they have duties and responsibilities as priests to care for the souls of the Faithful entrusted to them. By remaining unidentified, their attention for their flock won't be divided by folks outside of their parish who might seek them out for questions rather than going to their local priests. Moreover, the message they happen to be preaching -- the Catholic Faith -- is what is important, not the human beings who are preaching it."

As Fr. Jackson pointed out, this explanation for the anonymous nature is problematic and shifts time diversion to priests who are, apparently, NOT busy. In this, they can undo the clusterbungle of other priests who have the convenience of spreading all manner of potentially bad ideas with no recourse. If only those priests with so much free time would start sending in sermons to AS, they might be more dutifully engaged and find their extra time being devoted to their heretofore unattended flocks. LOL

[verenaerin]

I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.

I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.

Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?

[VeraeFidei]

I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.

For what it is worth, I think it is pretty darn safe to say that the reason they are anonymous is to protect the priests from higher-ups so that they can "speak their minds," pious talk about not creating personality cults aside.

I doubt, for example, that a sermon by an FSSP priest commanding that all NAB bibles (i.e. the English-language one used in the NO) must be burned would not result in a "problem" for him were his identity known.

Has there been a sermon posted where an FSSP priest said such a thing?

The reason you have given is not the reason given on AS...

"Okay... so why not just say who the priests are?

Because they have duties and responsibilities as priests to care for the souls of the Faithful entrusted to them. By remaining unidentified, their attention for their flock won't be divided by folks outside of their parish who might seek them out for questions rather than going to their local priests. Moreover, the message they happen to be preaching -- the Catholic Faith -- is what is important, not the human beings who are preaching it."

As Fr. Jackson pointed out, this explanation for the anonymous nature is problematic and shifts time diversion to priests who are, apparently, NOT busy. In this, they can undo the clusterbungle of other priests who have the convenience of spreading all manner of potentially bad ideas with no recourse. If only those priests with so much free time would start sending in sermons to AS, they might be more dutifully engaged and find their extra time being devoted to their heretofore unattended flocks. LOL

Yes, in the recently posted sermon, "Hatred of Heresy." I should clarify that he did perhaps not command, but stated in no uncertain terms that this should happen.

[Archer]

I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.

I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.

Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?

Man is fallen and priests are not perfect.  Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant. 

[Lydia Purpuraria]

I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.

I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.

Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?

Man is fallen and priests are not perfect.  Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant. 

Agreed. 

The priest in question is a good and holy priest. One may have a difference of opinion with him on the Lord of the Rings; but it is certainly no reason to question whether or not he can be trusted on the whole. 

If you listen to his sermons from the last year or so, there has been a theme of growth in holiness, detachment from worldly things, fleeing from error, etc. In a sense "detaching" from Lord of the Rings, or at least being aware of what can't be reconciled with the Catholic Faith is something that may have got my dander up a bit at first...but ultimately it was a message that I think I needed to hear. So I thank this good priest for that and pray that God blesses him abundantly.

[Adeodatus]

One may have a difference of opinion with him on the Lord of the Rings; but it is certainly no reason to question whether or not he can be trusted on the whole. 

I would normally agree, but in this case the arguments being presented are so ludicrous that they indicate a severe breakdown in the faculty of judgment.

If you personally were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because it's a waste of my time, because if you've seen one stalactite you've seen them all, and really all I'm doing is just bothering the bats who after all have every right to be left alone... that is a difference of opinion between the two of us. Normal people disagree about all sorts of things all the time and it's totally unremarkable. However, if you were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because Hell is under ground and cultivating an enjoyment of underground things only cultivates an affinity for Hell... that is an assertion that is so stupid and irrational that it no longer qualifies as a mere disagreement between normal people. That would be of the same order as if you told me that I should not speak to police officers because they are all secretly Reptoid Aliens wearing disguises, and have come from the planet Reptulon to invade us. That would be an irrational claim and evidence of a dangerously erratic personality. If you were to tell me something like that then I could no longer trust your advice about anything.

In my opinion, the arguments presented by this anonymous person are so absurd and bizarre that they demonstrate not only a mere lack of academic rigor but the lack of any operative measure of the virtue of prudence. Whatever this person's station, having said such things as he has I doubt that I could trust his judgment as where to find a good cheeseburger, let alone anything concerning my soul. Why would you risk the most important thing in your entire life? To me, this person sounds like a madman. I shudder to think about the damage that he probably does to the Catholic Faith if he is prone to spout off such folly. It's not a question of merely being wrong, or insulting Tolkien. That's no matter. It's a question of saying things that are ludicrous and irrational.

That is my own opinion, take it or leave it, but it is conditioned by prudence.

[Maximilian]

That is my own opinion, take it or leave it, but it is conditioned by prudence.

No it is not conditioned by prudence. Other people on this thread have already told you that they consider the author of this talk to be a holy priest. So a prudent response would have taken that into account and considered the possibility that you might be wrong.

A prudent response would also weigh the cost vs benefits involved in possibly slandering a holy priest. What potential benefit can you gain from using such intemperate language? Meanwhile the cost could be as high as an eternity in hell if you are wrong about him.

One may have a difference of opinion with him on the Lord of the Rings; but it is certainly no reason to question whether or not he can be trusted on the whole. 

I would normally agree, but in this case the arguments being presented are so ludicrous that they indicate a severe breakdown in the faculty of judgment.

So you are saying, "I might consider the idea that a priest with whom I disagree about some topic could possibly still be a good and holy person, but not when it comes to "Lord of the Rings." If you disagree with me on that topic then the only possibility is that you are completely crazy!"

If you personally were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because it's a waste of my time, because if you've seen one stalactite you've seen them all, and really all I'm doing is just bothering the bats who after all have every right to be left alone... that is a difference of opinion between the two of us. Normal people disagree about all sorts of things all the time and it's totally unremarkable. However, if you were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because Hell is under ground and cultivating an enjoyment of underground things only cultivates an affinity for Hell... that is an assertion that is so stupid and irrational that it no longer qualifies as a mere disagreement between normal people. That would be of the same order as if you told me that I should not speak to police officers because they are all secretly Reptoid Aliens wearing disguises, and have come from the planet Reptulon to invade us. That would be an irrational claim and evidence of a dangerously erratic personality. If you were to tell me something like that then I could no longer trust your advice about anything.

I have deleted the paragraph where you gratuitously insult a priest since I don't want to be a party to repeating scandalous language even in order to reply to it.

But as far as the specific item of referring to images of underground, you should consider the possibility that this priest might have a better and more finely developed sense of the inherent connections that exist between created objects and supernatural realities.

For example, why does Holy Scripture consistently use "dark" to refer to evil and "light" to refer to good? It would be easy to ridicule someone who criticizes the use of "darkness" as a metaphor. But then you would also be ridiculing St. John the Evangelist and Christ himself.

Someone might likewise temariously decide to attack St. John of the Cross for calling his work, "Ascent of Mount Carmel." "How stupid is that to think that climbing a mountain brings you closer to God?" is what someone might say if they took a reductionistic view and failed to see the spiritual significance.

Perhaps we should also attack Dante for using underground imagery in "The Inferno" while placing the "Paradiso" up in heaven. What should we think if someone were to come along and reverse that scenario, and place hell up above and place heaven underground? Is this harmless, or is it instead a disordering of nature's relationship to the supernatural? Was Dante making merely arbitrary choices when he placed hell underground and heaven above, or was he reflecting some elements of the divine scheme for creation?

Was Jesus making a mistake when he called hell a pit and a chasm? Or is there some reality to that? When Mary showed the children of Fatima the vision of hell, didn't she open up the earth to reveal the lake of fire underground?  Perhaps you think that the Blessed Virgin should know better than to think that hell is below the earth?

If an author sets out to take these images which have been sanctified by many centuries of usage in Scripture and tradition and to reverse them, what would be the purpose? For example, Philip Pullman in his trilogy "His Dark Materials" admits that he is deliberately setting out to create the opposite of Christian imagery. Are we supposed to find this harmless, or is it profoundly disorienting and dangerous?