It is not rehousing. It is altering the fundamental nature, the fea, of the Incarnate.
"it must be assumed that no alteration of their fundamental kind could be effected by the
Valar even in one case"
No, he does not:
"But whether they could have âsoulsâ or â
spiritsâ seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible âdelegationâ, I have represented at least the
Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the
Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them."
And? You need to show that he changed his mind.
That letter does not indicate he changed his mind.
Your claim was: "Here, the Valar clearly could make
Tuor an â
Elfâ if they could make
LĂșthien a âhuman!â,"
NoMe does not support that claim. As I demonstrated.
Eru is
the one who altered their fundamental fate.
"âWith regard to spirits: No fĂ«a can be repeated; each proceeds separately and uniquely from Eru, and so remains for ever separate and unique."
Do the Valar know and fully perceive the pattern of
Elves and
Men, such that a
Vala on his own can alter their fundamental nature?
Noting that in Comment 4
Tolkien wrote: "âWith regard to spirits: No fĂ«a can be repeated; each proceeds separately and uniquely from Eru, and so remains for ever separate and unique
SoâŠ
Melkor⊠Elves/Humans â Orcs?
And no FĂ«a is repeated. The FĂ«ar of each remained the same, with an alteration of the âcodeâ for the Longevity of the Hröaic Nasser involved.
You are claiming Melkor outright Created the Orcs, here.
While Tolkien entertained that, the act would not have been repeatable, as Eru could alter the demands of such an act, while not being able to withdraw the ability.
And the Valar are not made of Fëaic and/or Hröaic Nasser nor Erma.
They are âSomething else.â The Catholic and Judaic Angelology go into arcane and obscure territory with regard to âAre Angels REALLY âRealâ even,â and suggest that they are something
VERY MUCH LIKE Tolkienâs Fanar/PhĂąnya (Ephemeral Suggestions to our senses that they âcoalesceâ into something we mistake for Physical). Tolkienâs use of a word for âCloudâ or âVapourâ comes straight from Aquinas, too. But the Latin term (which it has been 30 years since I read it, or discussed it with a Jesuit friend who started teaching me the difference between the Vocabularium/Vocabularia Laicorum and Vocabularium/Vocabularia Clericorum/Sacerdotii â The Theological Vocubulary the Church uses when speaking to the Lay Congregants, and the Language they use when speaking among themselves, or to a class at a Seminary or to the students of a Catholic Universityâs Theological Major. Technically they have a separate Vocabularium/Vocabularia for the Lay Clergy, such as Deacons).
But the
AINUR (not just Valar) could make PhĂąnya of (the appearance or substanceÂč of) any NĂ€sser they wished, as long as they had not debased the PhĂąnya in such a way as to move it closer to Hröa.
But you seem to want to oppose everything I have ever said, using what are poor, poor textual exegetion or exegesical methods. Rather like a Biblical Literalist, in fact. Especially those unwilling to learn Greek, Latin, or Aramaic (or Saxon, French, Coptic, Spanish, Portugeuse, etc. for later works written leading-up to, during, or post Reformation, or those written as a Bridge from Pagan Polytheism⊠or Hebrew for
the Old Testament), and think even the English of King James is identical to Modern English, or that the Theological Terminology is identical to the Vernacular (The biggest examples of this error is in words like âKindsâ and âLike,â but these are relatively inconsequential to other terms, like âSame,â âSubstance,â âMakingâ and âCreatingâ in English, given the Multiplicity of Greek and Hebrew terms used for eitherÂČ) .
So⊠How is it Melkor did these things without permission, and in defiance of the âNatural State of Marriageâ regarding the Sexual Act of Reproduction, while Eru apparently had to stick his fingers in the universe every time an elf hiccoughed (not a very safe thing, as that risks universal annihilation â nihilism)?
MB
1. See the Early Heresies over Monophysitism, Nestorism, Paleologism, Manichaeanism, and others that dealt with the word âSubstanceâ in the Credo:
Consubstantial with the Father.
And the issue over áœÎŒÎżÎżÏÏÎčÎżÏ (Homoousia â Same Substance⊠Was Jesus AS MAN âthe same SUBSTANCE AS
GOD SINCE HE WAS GOD?!?!?â The answer is NO/Yes! â The Capitalization is to emphasize the paradoxâs divisions).
2. Same
αΌΔÏÎŹÎČληÏÎż - ametavlito, ÏÎż ÏÎ±ÎœÎżÎŒÎżÎčÏÏÏ
ÏÎż - to panamoĂĂłtupo, ÎŻÎŽÎčÎż/ÎŻÎŽÎčÎżÏ - idio/idios (and Idiots â similar to Solipsism, but without the identification, only inability to contextualize/understand beyond the self), ÏαÏÏÎŒÎżÎčÎżÏ - paramoios, ÎżÎŒÎżÎčÎżÏ - (h)omoios (Root of the above áœÎŒÎżÎżÏÏÎčÎżÏ), etc⊠And that isnât even getting into âSimilar,â âAlikeâ, âIdetical,â âExactly the same,â âExactly the same AND Identicalâ (The root of the Mathematical Identities of =, ==, and ===, or =, âĄ, âŁ. The term â=â means something like âAnything that can take the place of something similarâ so:
âą (2 + 2) = (4)
âą (4 - 0) = (4)
âą (â10Âłâ°â°â°â
Ïââ10â
â10ÂČâčâčâčâ
Ïâ) = 4
âą âá· [-1, â] = âÂč/âÊł = 2 + 1 + Âč/â + Âč/â + Âč/ââ + Âč/ââ + âŻ= 4
âą xâŁÂŹP1(x)â§ÂŹP2(x)â§ÂŹP3(x)xâŁÂŹP1(x)â§ÂŹP2(x)â§ÂŹP3(x)
â§ÂŹP5(x)...â§ÂŹPN(x)â§xâ€Nâ§ÂŹP5(x)...â§ÂŹPN(x)â§xâ€N
= 4
The Mathematical Operator == or ââĄâ (with some caveats about WHICH MATH) means âexactly alike/Identicalâ but not âExactly Alike, Identical, and the Sameâ
So:
âą 4 = 4
âą 2 + 2 = 2 + 2
etc.
Whereas === or ⣠(or ââĄâ in some forms of math that have only two forms of basic identity⊠and we havenât even dealt with âââ, ââââ or âââââ) means âExactly the same, Identical, and Identical in space-time.â
âą 4 = (The 4 on the left side)
âą The Dutch Elm Tree in your front yard at the house you lived in from 1980 to 1990 = The Dutch Elm Tree in your front yard at the house you lived in from 1980 to 1990.
âą And I canât do Topological representations here, which is where this is most common, but⊠Examples:
â a Donut = Coffee Cup in Topological definition
â a Glazed Donut == a Glazed Donut in Topological Definition
â The ONLY Glazed donut bought at 2pm by Fred at Duncan Donuts on Peachtree in Georgia on February 29, 2013 === The ONLY Glazed donut bought at 2pm by Fred at Duncan Donuts on Peachtree in Georgia on February 29, 2013.
But these have to do with Exegesis because it was principally the Jews, Catholics, and Church of England/Scotland (Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches) that made explicit use of the original language whenever possible, and the Continental Protestant, and the American Protestant, and
especially Evangelical Faiths tended to have difficulty with sorting out the original textual language. The reasons behind that were valid in the 19th Century, but like much in Religion, the Modern Sciences caused some âtroublesâ with pretty-much every aspect of the Western Religions who did not back away from Textual Literalism. The Jesuits are thrilled with the challenge, while other groups are less enthusiastic about ambiguity.
Edit:
Did you not see my comment about pp.191-⊠of the Peter Hastings Letter?
Or that I mentioned prior comments that suggest different possibilities?
There is something in that text you seem determined to
NOT DO!
Go beyond âTextâ to âContext!â
Or to go from Scipture, to Apocrypha (Notes, Discussions with himself or others, etc.), to Theologia (from Tolkien Scholars to the Ultimate Source: Catholic Theology):
Letters; p. 190-191; Kindle.
⊠since inevitably my world is highly imperfect even on its own plane nor made wholly coherent â our Real World does not appear to be wholly coherent either; and I am actually not myself convinced that, though in every world on every plane all must ultimately be under the Will of God,
Tolkien says various versions of this same thing many
places.
I already looked for everything I could to indicate why I would be wrong.
Why is because of one word that the Modern Sciences are based-upon, and prior to that formalization in 1955 by Karl popper, it was regular Practice among the Clergy for quite some time, even if the Universities prior to the Secular University were spotty in their observation of that word, and took to Khunian Positivism for most of the Church History (why the Jesuits had such a troubled history at times in their relationships with other Monastic Orders).
But, to continue⊠To go back a page:
Ibid, p.190.
Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of
the Wise, and there is quite
a lot he does not know or understand. He does not know what â
wizardsâ are, or whence they came (though I do, even if exercising my subcreatorâs right I have thought it best in this Tale to leave the question a â
mysteryâ, not without pointers to the solution). Suffering and experience (and possibly
the Ring itself) gave
Frodo more insight; and you will read in Ch. I of Book VI the words to
Sam. âThe Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make real new things of its own. I donât think it gave life to the Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them.â In the legends of the Elder Days it is suggested that the Diabolus subjugated and corrupted some of the earliest Elves, before they had ever heard of the âgodsâ, let alone of God.
Tolkien here says âTreebeard and Frodo do not know what they are talking about.â
Thus, we
cannot USE ANYTHING THEY SAY, even if in agreement with Tolkien, about what is and isnât possible for Melkor to do. Tolkien struggled mightily with that, as he was loath to take-on the role of the âSatanic Diabolusâ of Melkor the
Morgoth Bauglir, nor of his lieutenant Devil
Sauron The Dark Lord of the Rings. The lesson of
Saruman was something Tolkien took deadly serious, given instructions to his sons, among his own CONSTANT âBut I canât,â âI recoil at,â âI cannot abide,â âThe idea repels me,â and so on at every instance of having to consider âJust
WHAT DID the
Source of ALL EVIL IN THE UNIVERSE âDOâ to Make/Create that Evil?
So⊠We have to go to Theology. Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas were those who most influenced Tolkien (Says Shippey, Drout, and Hostetter, among others)âŠ
But we do have a few statements from Tolkien in Letters and HoM-e, which include such gems as:
Ibid.
I am not sure about
Trolls. I think they are mere âcounterfeitsâ, and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no âawareâ metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal,
Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested.
âI am not sure about Trolls.â
While he above questions that the Elves are âjustâ what Melkor used to âMakeâ the Orcs, the âI am not sure about Trolls.â, indicates that he might be thinking of a later comment he makes about Melkor
CREATING THE ORCS (at the least and most the Very First Generation, along with the âother sorts of Trollsâ he mentioned, with âother origins.â After that, due to Catholic Theology concerning Godâs ability to âPunish/Correctâ Sin, Melkor would have not been able to repeat that act without expending himself TOTALLY to do so. Prior to the Act, Eru would, like the Catholic God, have been forbidden by his âown
NATURAL LAWâ from doing anything to stop the âSinâ or âViolation of
Enumerated LawâÂł ), but we have a
far more direct quote to that effect on p.195:
Ibid, p.195
So in this myth, it is âfeignedâ (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that
He gave special âsub-creativeâ powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions.
But if they âfellâ, as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things âfor himself, to be their Lordâ, these would then âbeâ, even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other ârationalâ creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least âbeâ real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even âmockingâ the Children of God. They would be Morgothâs greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad.
Tolkien does not just drop suggestions like this haphazardly.
So⊠The
Ultimate Source of All Evil, who seeks to violate all Axani, and would violate every Ănati if there was a way to do so,
WOULD DO THE MOST EVIL THING POSSIBLE. That is Catholicism 101, and something Tolkien
RIGHTLY FEARED GIVEN HE BELIEVED IT AS DEEPLY AS HE DID.
It is here that we do not need Eru for anything but âPermission.â
Tolkien already said that, as I quoted.
God doesnât stick his fingers in the Universe without risking its annihilation, as I already pointed-out (again, basic Catholic Theology, and why they Exported God
OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE at some point â The debate over that âwhenâ is ongoing).
There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between Consubstantiation, and the Altering of the fabric of Reality. This is why Catholicism has the Angels and Saints as âIntermediariesâ to â
Do stuffâ
inside the Universe.
St. Gabriel: âHey God! This Nephilim just popped-up out of the Ocean? Shouldnât you smite it?â
God: âYes! You shall smite it in my name!â
St. Gabriel: â
Smite at THEE FOUL NEPHELIM IN THE NAME OF ELOHIM/YHWH/GOD/Etc. The Creator and Maker of All things (including you, apparently)!â
Rampaging Nephelim: âAazrrrggggg!!!! God has smitten me and I am dead, even though it was Gabrielâs
Sword/Spear/Lance/Lightning-Bolt/Fist that God used in the Smiting. <Deceasing Noises>â
Divine Providence, And the things associated with it are not the same as âAlterations within the Fabric of the Universeâ those are mediated by the Angels (and later Saints).
And in the case of
Beren and LĂșthien, it wasnât Eru who did it. He was merely âAppealed to.â Again⊠Eru âYeah, we had this discussion before. You have the Power, and I give you permission. Body-swap away,
Manwë (or more likely
Aulë and Nåmo/
Mandos â Thatâs sort of their area of expertise).
Text is great, but it isnât the end of the Story. Tolkien says so himself (Fundamentally Catholic â meaning you cannot ignore what his Faith demands of him, which he says in that same Letter).
3. The Catholic Article on
The Law of God is pretty good in laying out the basic differentiation between the âEnumeratedâ (Civil/Ecclesiatic) Law and the âNaturalâ (Divine) Law.
Euthyphro not withstanding, God does not Violate either.
But God CANNOT VIOLATE NATURAL LAW, any more than we can.
And, to make clearâŠ
I did suggest that there could be something else Tolkien determined (and why I considered that not likely).
Notice it was Feb 21 that he made his post, and that I didnât respond until a few days ago (I saws it on Feb 21, when he posted it).
That was because I was âlooking into the issueâ when I could over the intervening time, as well or poorly as that turned out to be. And spending weeks looking for reasons that it wouldnât be what I figured led to nothing that categorically ruled it out, and much that suggested Eru wouldnât risk blowing-up creation for something the Valar could do in their sleep.
But/And/So/Because of/Thus⊠given the Text, Context, Apocrypha, and Theologia otherwise, combined with the demands of his Faith⊠Not Likely.
MB
Sorry⊠Doing this on my iPhone via WiFi, as to why it is separate.