Catholic Perspective on The Lord of the Rings

[Eljorahir]

Interesting topic.
When Merry offers his service to Theoden I always thought his statement, "As a father you shall be to me", seemed strange and out of place. Merry just met Theoden, and why should he take him as a father figure?
It's been a long time since I received the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. Now that I think about it, I wonder if this scene between Merry and Theoden was based on the confirmation ceremony. Both include "the laying on of hands" and confirming acceptance of a "father-figure".

'May I lay the sword of Meriadoc of the Shire on your lap, Theoden King?' he cried. 'Receive my service, if you will!'

'Gladly will I take it,' said the king; and laying his long old hands upon the brown hair of the hobbit, he blessed him. 'Rise now, Meriadoc, esquire of Rohan of the household of Meduseld!' he said. 'Take your sword and bear it unto good fortune!'

'As a father you shall be to me,' said Merry.

'For a little while,' said Theoden.

Image from Wikipedia, German wood cutting depicting Confirmation service (1679). With a little imagination, this could be Merry and Theoden:

 

[Deimos]

No question that there are doctrinal differences between denominations. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman (Curial) Catholicism, Protestantism with their sub-groups (all of which, btw, would probably have bee considered heretical by the original followers of Jesus centered around the Twelve Apostles); Sunna and Shia (and sub-groups) in Islam; Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan (and sub-groups) in Buddhism; and never mind the variations in Hinduism.

I do not doubt, as you pointed out, that JRRT was convinced, probably rightly so, that his writing was consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine of his time (the Second Vatican Council was still about seven years in the future when RoTK was published), other Christian denominations, and never mind non-Christian beliefs, having no influence. Where I think he erred, if he assumed parts of that doctrine to be exclusively RC (I don't know that or where he ever stated this so explicitly), is in this exclusivity. You mentioned Anglicanism; I've read a description of High Anglicanism being basically RC, just without the pope; perhaps so. I am assuming that the implication of exclusivity derives from his use of the word "fundamentally" in Letter #142 dated 02 December 1953 to Father Robert Murray, S.J., who had read parts of LoTR before its publication. Religions, like their secular counterparts political parties, compete with each other, and both need to emphasize the differences to their competitors in striving to gain followers, declare these differences to be fundamental and exclusive to their own specific "party"; and it goes almost without saying that each "party" considers their difference to be good.

I just thought of the one scene in LoTR which comes closest (on the good side) to a religious ritual: chapter V "The Window on the West" in Book Four in TT:

"Before they ate, Faramir and all his men turned and faced west in a moment of silence. Faramir signed to Frodo and Sam that they should do likewise.
'So we always do,' he said, as they sat down, 'we look towards Númenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and will ever be. Have you no such custom at meat?'"

Would you say that this scene contains anything exclusive to Roman Catholic belief, absent from or even contradicting beliefs of other Christian denominations?

No, absolutely not. But that was why I said "I would bet he recognized some good in Islam and all "pagan" religions. He could see, much as his friend CS Lewis saw, that all religions have some form of the Tao in their moral codes (Tao= Golden Rule)".
And then there is the very obvious difference in the religion of ME vs Christianity....no incarnate God/ redeemer. So Tolkien certainly drew on other faiths/religions, even pagan ones where they would not contradict Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular . But the fallen human nature/grace/redemption concepts-- (concepts essential to the stories)-- as he uses them are (doctrinally) distinctly Catholic.

Interesting topic.
When Merry offers his service to Theoden I always thought his statement, "As a father you shall be to me", seemed strange and out of place. Merry just met Theoden, and why should he take him as a father figure?
It's been a long time since I received the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. Now that I think about it, I wonder if this scene between Merry and Theoden was based on the confirmation ceremony. Both include "the laying on of hands" and confirming acceptance of a "father-figure".

'May I lay the sword of Meriadoc of the Shire on your lap, Theoden King?' he cried. 'Receive my service, if you will!'

'Gladly will I take it,' said the king; and laying his long old hands upon the brown hair of the hobbit, he blessed him. 'Rise now, Meriadoc, esquire of Rohan of the household of Meduseld!' he said. 'Take your sword and bear it unto good fortune!'

'As a father you shall be to me,' said Merry.

'For a little while,' said Theoden.

Image from Wikipedia, German wood cutting depicting Confirmation service (1679). With a little imagination, this could be Merry and Theoden:
View attachment 21020

I'm hazy as to when the practice first came about wherein a monarch laid on hands, but it is almost everywhere sung (as in epics), or recorded that monarchs "laid hands on" a subject for a variety of purposes.
Remember how Ioreth reminds everyone in the Houses of Healing "For it is said in old lore: The hands of the king are the of a healer." That is, a true monarch (as opposed to a pretender) will be able to heal the sick.
Monarchs (of the West or East) in our world were once considered either divinely appointed (West)** or divine themselves (East), so it was believed that a monarch laying on hands would undoubtedly produce healing or a even a supernatural effect.
**Everywhere in Western Civ history one can come across the phrase "the divine right of kings".

As regards Theoden and Merry, Merry first offered Theoden his Sword (meaning his service or fealty) and Theoden took him under his protection. And yes, even tho' ME is not Christian the actions of both are heavy with spiritual (religious) significance; so much so that both the man and the hobbit would have willingly preferred death rather than break his oath. (Cf. the shame and limbo-like existence of the Oathbreakers.)

 

[AaronAzrael]

The topic offers multiple layers for consideration but I'd like to reflect a bit on the comparison between the Bible's God and Eru Iluvatar.
The God in both lores is centralised. Since the Trinity is three faces of one Source, it still counts as one source and it is a similar way to depict the oneness of the fountain of life. Furthermore, both Eru Iluvatar and Sabaoth gave authority to other divinities they birthed so they could co-create together. The Elohim, the angel hierarchy, saints, etc. vs the Ainu, Vala, Maia... So both in Tolkien's literature and the Bible God does not retain all power for himself, he enjoys sharing manifestation, creation for the purpose of community, love and sharing the experience of enriching/learning. Both are centred aroud the Flame; "Scripture describes God as a "consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29 / Deuteronomy 4:24) who cleanses, refines, and transforms the hearts of believers." and Eru Iluvatar holds the Flame Imperishable. So Life is the Flame. Both retain justice not as vengeance but they allow free wil to develop naturally before cosmic law restores all for God's glory in righteousness. Both encourage faith, hope and the inner path as the definitive one in the forces of life. For example, Feanor's fate was decided by his deviation due to pride, anger, etc, while in LOTR they succeeded because of courage and honour, most of all. The same way, in our world our deeds guide us through the seeming, leading us to through trials of faith, by fate, until we achieve redemption/successful mission/establish values above the material worth.

 

[AaronAzrael]

Furhtermore: the Redemption topic.

Let's first take Boromir's example. Often times we need to choose between familiar duty and the truth. They get mixed in us, but we should remember we cannot fill an alchemical vessel with corruption and manna at the same time, and expect good results. He was both honorable and hypocritical, not by essence, but by obligation. So providence put him on a crossroad, where he had to make the definitive choice spontaneously, firmly, without overthinking. And he did. He still had to pay the price but ultimately it turned to a heroic deed that won him divine justice and being honoured by his most important friends, and since they loved him for who he was, since they portrayed the quest for redeeming the goodness through bravery, it was ultimately a greater reward than trying to fit in the shoes of a father who had no morals. Gollum is a similar case but a more lunatic one. I think Frodo's forgiveness was healing and an example how forgiving is not a matter of expecting, but unconditional giving. Otherwise if you choose when to forgive, you let in the evil currents, just like Sam, although he was right to be suspicious, kind of was driven mad by his hatred towards Gollum. For we can be observant and intelligently cautious, yet let go of bitterness. And if we trace our past, we will find ourselves in a situations where we weren't graceful, so Eru should be the ultimate judge, or Mandos by his passed-on authority. So humbleness, refraining from anger and bitterness in dire times is a must (now a bit farther off the lore), because the situation is a trial if we have faith in God. And just as if Feanor would have trusted the Valar, he could have still lived, but he chose the path of pride. Whereas Faramir could have died but was spared for a better future, because he still loved his father, although he received nothing but the cold shoulder and resentment. And not always humbleness means prolonged life, too, for sometimes the redemption meets us with a tragic event that at the time of death redeems us (like Boromir) for the higher purposes of the wandering spirit.

 

[Ent]

Without going too deeply into the 'religious' aspects, since it contains inherent risks, Ent will add this:
"As a father you will be to me" also speaks to the 'adoption' issue.
Adoption in Scripture is a Big Issue. The adopted one cannot be unadopted.
Yet while Tolkien said he wanted his mythology to be "consonant" with Christian thought and belief, that does not mean 'the same as.'
There are massive differences in the Creation account, for example, between Catholic or other 'Christian' beliefs (which also differ among themselves)
Books could be written on both the similarities (and many have) and the differences (and Ent has not seen a book with a focus on the differences)

 

[AaronAzrael]

I think the matter is about the approach to Tolkien. I love interpretations and sometimes comparison with other religions. I think it transpires in Ea Redemption's too. Some people have a scholar approach and try to get into Tolkien's specific mind and just stick to the book's strict lore when analysing. To me, Tolkien had an insight and the world is so vast, he probably hadn't figured all consciously either - because an author's mind can always develop, etc etc so I am not too afraid to analyse because I know there will always be people that disagree. I have the inspiration to write and it holds a certain essense that drives me, it feels like alchemy, so I try not to limit myself otherwise I'd lose it. I am saying it because I encourage you to speak openly despite all the risks - I mean, there always will be disagreements but this is what makes an argument rich and a lot of people actually enjoy it because it leads to a proper discussion

 

[AaronAzrael]

I didn't know that but apparently there is a whole Wikipedia page about it XD

Christianity in Middle-earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deimos]

Without going too deeply into the 'religious' aspects, since it contains inherent risks, Ent will add this:
"As a father you will be to me" also speaks to the 'adoption' issue.
Adoption in Scripture is a Big Issue. The adopted one cannot be unadopted.
Yet while Tolkien said he wanted his mythology to be "consonant" with Christian thought and belief, that does not mean 'the same as.'
There are massive differences in the Creation account, for example, between Catholic or other 'Christian' beliefs (which also differ among themselves)
Books could be written on both the similarities (and many have) and the differences (and Ent has not seen a book with a focus on the differences)

BINGO-eth.

 

[wondering]

I think also some of the connections were at first unconscious, deriving from Tolkien's own background but not intentionally placed as religious symbolism, and recognized once written. I think that's what Tolkien means by LOTR becoming a Catholic work "consciously in the revision". I think a lot of the religious themes and connections emerged in the writing rather than being planned in.

I would have to re-check HOME V, but I believe at the time Tolkien began writing LOTR Orcs were still considered to be creations of Melkor, "in envy and mockery" of the Elves yes, but still made from stone and slime not by corrupting pre-existing living and 'ensouled' beings. I believe the inability of evil to create ("it can only mock") emerged during the writing of LOTR and was only revised into the Silmarillion texts afterward, and the religious and philosophical implications became more and more central to Tolkien moving forward.

I would not be surprised if the Eucharistic connections of lembas weren't consciously worked in at first - lembas being originally a device to make the story work - but were played up once discovered.