# Looking for those of the Tolkien Religion!



## Teledhelwen (Apr 11, 2004)

Religious Tolkienists believe and worship the Valar & Iluvatar. I have been searching for these people for a year. This religion is not common and would be delighted to find someone to share it with. I am passionately in love with Middle-earth and my religion and I believe any true tolkienists should be, too. Please respond if you know anyone like me!


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 11, 2004)

I don't worship Iluvatar but am curious about the sort of beliefs someone of such a religion would hold.

You have searched for a year, and say believers are not common, but I wonder if you have found _ any_ ever?

I have looked for this myself but really didn't know where to start because I did not know what name such people might use for themselves or anything useful like that.

I am guessing a believer would hold that there was some divine influence on JRRT throughout his life which enabled him to record all of this stuff?

Are you familiar with The Notion Club Papers?

How do you view JRRT's earliest mythology along with the one it had evolved into 30 years later? Would you say that one was a more valid recording of events than the other? Did JRRT get a more clear look at the truth as time went on, or was there more truth in his first glimpses.... and what we have later as far as myth and language was Tolkien's own personal version of the former, and attempts to explain things left misterious in his glimpses? Or was everything, fromt he earliest to the latest versions of the tales ment to be taken together, and all of it valid?

What do you think of the role of his son Christopher in the publication of material after JRRT's death? Do you believe the full mythology did not make it to the public in Tolkien's lifetime for a high reason?

Do you believe that the events recorded by JRRT are a legitimate recording of history, or are they actually fiction created through JRRT to cause faith where other more ancient books of religion have failed? In other words Iluvatar is just a new name for a God who had long been known by others? And if so where the tales invented specific for our times?


I have a lot more questions if you don't mind answering these and more. Of course I know this isn't why you opened the thread so you can ignore them.


----------



## Teledhelwen (Apr 11, 2004)

*Reply to Nom*

What are the Notion Club papers?

For one, I believe Tolkien's latest mythology is the most accurate because in the Lost Tales it seems as if he is jotting down the content as he learned it. Christopher Tolkien is simply finishing his father's work as the Prophet's son and will defend it at any chance. 

We do not take Iluvatar in any way as close to the Christian God. The most insulting people (to me) are Christians who make allegories out of Lord of the Rings. For example, the Elves being catholic, the Dwarves protestants, and Quenya being like Latin.

I have heard of Tolkienists in Russia, being adopted during the Cold War. Though with my desperate hunting I have found nothing, at least, not on the web. That is why I joined the Tolkien Forum. No, I don't know even one man with a similar religion.

There are many forms of it, however, from my research. Bombadilists believe Iluvatar is truely Tom Bombadil. Tolkienologists simply worship Eru & the Valar. And so on and so forth. Sadly, the influence in the Soviet Union is not great enough and no church has yet been created. On a more cheerful note, according to a presentation by Mark Hooker at the University of Indiana, the possibility of a church within the next hundred years is indeed possible. That is my dream.

RGEO!


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 11, 2004)

Well met, Teledhelwen, and welcome to the Tolkien forum!

In many ways, I share your beliefs, and don't discard the possibility that Tolkien's stories could be true (however unlikely or even laughable this may seem to many). A Tolkien dedicated church is indeed an appealing idea, and I would certainly welcome it.  

P.S. The Notion Club papers are part of HoME IX.


----------



## Teledhelwen (Apr 11, 2004)

*Two Words*

Thank You!


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Apr 11, 2004)

*What Would Tolkien Do?*

As for the "Tolkien Religion" ... that would be Roman Catholic, J.R.R. Tolkien having been quite publicly known for his belonging and faithfulness to the Catholic Church. Here's what the Good Professor himself had to say about religion in relationship to "Lord of the Rings." To quote from a letter that Tolkien wrote to Robert Murray on December 2, 1953:



> _The Lord of the Rings_ is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults and practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.



Wishing everyone a Happy Easter,

Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Teledhelwen (Apr 11, 2004)

Gandalf The Grey said:


> As for the "Tolkien Religion" ... that would be Roman Catholic, J.R.R. Tolkien having been quite publicly known for his belonging and faithfulness to the Catholic Church. Here's what the Good Professor himself had to say about religion in relationship to "Lord of the Rings." To quote from a letter that Tolkien wrote to Robert Murray on December 2, 1953:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey Gandalf the Grey
Yes, he was Catholic but he did not follow his religion. I suggest that you do some research. He says quite specificly in LOTR that you shouldnt make a allegory out of his work. I am extremly ticked at you because I hate Catholics and Christians that GO BEYOND THE LIMIT TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. So do some research again and comment after your finished. OK? Byz.

Teledhelwen, this post is bordering on a personal attack. Please calm down. -- ithrynluin


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Apr 11, 2004)

Nice try, but I've done my research.

Tolkien in fact practiced his Catholic religion to the point where he was able to convert C.S. Lewis to Christianity from the agnosticism into which Lewis had lapsed.

And yes, I'm quite familiar with the passage wherein Tolkien speaks of his dislike for allegory. However, Tolkien had no problem with applicability. I just exercise my freedom as a reader ... something with which Tolkien heartily agreed, as another quote from Tolkien himself amply proves.

Here's the relevant quote from the Good Professor:



> "...But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."



Above quote taken from Introduction to LotR, V. I, xi

Do you have any quotations to support your positions, *Teledhelwen*?


----------



## David Pence (Apr 11, 2004)

I would refrain from any further expressions of hatred, especially towards those of a particular religious beliefs. It may provoke some of the 'powers' that reside here at TTF.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I (Apr 11, 2004)

How does one attain salvation in this religion?


----------



## Snaga (Apr 12, 2004)

Why assume that salvation is a feature of this religion?

I hope people can be tolerant here. It is strange to me that people would create a religion from Tolkien's work, but it seems to me to do no harm. On that basis, I respect the right of Teledhelwen and anyone else to express their spirituality freely. Most of us have at least found deeper truths and beauty in Tolkien's work. Crushing the ideas of others comes only from Mordor, take it from an orc.


----------



## Teledhel (Apr 12, 2004)

*Back to this again*

My user name has been changed. I am extremely sorry for my outburst at "Gandalf the Grey", it only seemed as though he was taunting me with his "What Would Tolkien Do". I do not have any quotations for him, but whatever happened to love and faith? I could question his religion, too, try to prove him wrong, but I will not. I did not post this thread in order to have a religious war. I simply need information that will HELP me. Oh, and there is no concept of salvation in this religion, and I thank you for your interest.


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 12, 2004)

I am curious about some things in you religion, please answer my questions if you can:

1)(a)Which sources is the material of your religion drawn from?
(b)Do you believe all the things Tokien has written to be true?

2)Do you have any rituals?

3)What are the rules of social intercourse for people of your religion?

4)Is a religion or philosophy related to your religious ideas?


----------



## Uminya (Apr 12, 2004)

Well in the Lost Tales, the fate of Mankind is related. Those who lead truly pious lives will reside in Valinor, the majority of in-betweeners will go to the Battle Plain to await the Last Battle, and those evildoers will be sent to the depths of Angband/Utumno to endure torture and pain until the Last Battle.

And Tolkien, himself, was a Catholic...rather devout. I, myself, have wondered at whether or not Tolkien's writing were "inspired", and perhaps they were. However, I see them as mythology, like much of the Old Testament and Mahabharata, etc.


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Apr 13, 2004)

Teledhel said:


> My user name has been changed. I am extremely sorry for my outburst at "Gandalf the Grey", it only seemed as though he was taunting me with his "What Would Tolkien Do". I do not have any quotations for him, but whatever happened to love and faith? I could question his religion, too, try to prove him wrong, but I will not. I did not post this thread in order to have a religious war. I simply need information that will HELP me. Oh, and there is no concept of salvation in this religion, and I thank you for your interest.



Dear Teledhel,

First off, I forgive you. *nods good-naturedly *

As for my post title "What Would Tolkien Do" ... seeing as how you are discussing a religion based on Tolkien's literary works, it is both pertinent and legitimate to explore how the author himself would feel about your venture, based upon the author's own quoted statements regarding religion.

My answers are not meant to instigate a religious war. In fact, you ask whatever happened to love and faith? It has been love of truth and the importance of faith which moved me to post to this thread. This being an open and public forum, it is only to be expected that all are welcome to reply, even when viewpoints differ ... that's only fair. Of course, the ensuing discussion is presupposed to be, and hoped to be, courteous and civil among all conversation participants.

I shall leave you with another Tolkien quote, this one from "The Tolkien Reader," dated 1966. This quote demonstrates how Tolkien the author envisions the worship and religiosity of the elves he created to be properly directed:



> "God is the Lord of angels, and of men -- and of elves." -- J.R.R. Tolkien



Please notice that Tolkien did not say "Eru is the Lord of angels, and of men -- and of elves." Nor did he say "Ilúvatar is the Lord of angels, and of men -- and of elves." And his incorporation of the word "angels" into the quote shows that Tolkien was speaking of the real world he believed in according to his Catholic faith, since angels (to my knowledge) do not appear within the fictional world of Middle-earth as found in such writings as "The Hobbit," "The Lord of the Rings," "The Silmarillion," and the like.

-- Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 13, 2004)

Gandalf The Grey said:


> And his incorporation of the word "angels" into the quote shows that Tolkien was speaking of the real world he believed in according to his Catholic faith, since angels (to my knowledge) do not appear within the fictional world of Middle-earth as found in such writings as "The Hobbit," "The Lord of the Rings," "The Silmarillion," and the like.


The Maiar (and the Valar)? Though I think you are quite right in that they are not referred to as 'angels' in those three published works. Yet there's proof aplenty in the Letters:



> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #71_
> For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory', and its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side and various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, and angels.





> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131_
> The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the _Music of the Ainur. _God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose function is to exercise delegated authority in their spheres (of rule and government, _not_ creation, making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the making of the world. Their power and wisdom is derived from their Knowledge of the cosmogonical drama, which they perceived first as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'. On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.





> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131_
> In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth.





> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #153_
> As for 'whose authority decides these things?' The immediate 'authorities' are the Valar (the Powers or Authorities): the 'gods'. But they are only created spirits – of high angelic order we should say, with their attendant lesser angels – reverend, therefore, but not worshipful





> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #156_
> Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference. 'I am G. the _White,_ who has returned from death'. Probably he should rather have said to Wormtongue: 'I have not passed through death _(__not_ 'fire and flood') to bandy crooked words with a serving-man'. And so on. I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend. But G. is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an _incarnate_ 'angel'– strictly an _ἄ__γγελος_: that is, with the other _Istari,_ wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.





> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #156_
> That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' – no more violently than the release of St Peter from prison.


And so on and so forth...


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 13, 2004)

I too understood the Valar to be angelic in concept; with the addition of being able to clothe themselves in mortal flesh (I never heard of Judaeo-Christian angels doing this). Tolkien would turn in his grave at the prospect of a religion being formed based on his works.

Also, Lewis was not an agnostic (one who doesn't know). He was an atheist who had consciously rejected the notion of the existance of God. 

Tolkien states in his letters that Middle-earth religion had no organised worship practices, so any attempt to organise an Eru-based religion fails at the first post - organising it would remove its authenticity.

Morgoth worship was a practiced religion, but I suspect that is not what you had in mind.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 13, 2004)

The Númenóreans were monotheists but after the destruction of Meneltarma they didn’t set up any temples or shrines. They still had lore of course, about Eru and the Valar etc, but a lot of men tended to confused the Valar with "gods". 

The other races of men were didn't have any organised religion. Some worshipped Sauron.


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Apr 13, 2004)

Wow, *ithrynluin!* 

Thank you for taking this thread in such a worthwhile and intriguing direction. * bows * 

Actually, I'd already been aware that angels held a symbolic place in Tolkien's works ... So I quite agree with all you say, and (of course) with your quotes. In fact, I've thought myself and heard it said on another Tolkien forum that Gandalf the Grey represents St. Michael the Archangel ... which fascinates me, since St. Michael has been for some time one of my special and favorite patron saints.

I was definitely splitting hairs when I said that "angels" (meaning the specific word "angels") does not appear in Tolkien's works ... and could easily accept the symbolic existence of angels based on Tolkien's "applicability of the reader" to see them ... even without the additional quotes you so graciously provide.

Hallo *Eledhwen:* 

Regarding the ability of angels to clothe themselves in mortal flesh ... (if you'll pardon me for getting away from Tolkien for a bit) ... how do you understand the Bible story about Abraham and Sarah entertaining angels ... even serving them food and drink, and the later Bible verse probably based on that story which goes: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained Angels with out knowing it - Hebrew 13:2" ? An inquiring mind wants to know! 

And I see your point that C.S. Lewis can more properly have been called an atheist. You've made me curious to return to the source material I was using where I remember seeing the word "agnosticism" and track down exactly who it was that used the word and how. * nods *

-- Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 14, 2004)

First and foremost, I wish to make it clear that one's personal spiritual beliefs is his or her own, and I respect that. This post should in no way been seen as an attack on faith or spirituality in general or in particular.

Now having said that...


I find the concept of a faith based on the writings of Master Tolkien to be bit flawed from the very begining.

Eru was the creator of Arda, true. But Master Tolkien was the Creator of Eru. This means that the creation cycle in a Eru based mythology is backwards. Instead of the more usual *Supreme Being>Cosmos>Man* hierachy, you have instead a more complex *Man*(Tolkien)*>Cosmos>Supreme Being* equation. Very hard to follow. 
Tolkien created his Elves before he created his Valar. This makes the creation timeline very hard to follow. It's like saying B follows A yet A comes after B.

Another analogy that fits. 
Let us say that agreat architect decides to build the Empire State Building (as happened in 1930). Then one day a small child on a sight-seeing trip to New York is amazed at the wonder of the sky-scraper.
When the child gets back home he decides to pull out his leggo brand building blocks and make a model of his beloved Empire State Building. And so he does, keeping it in a very special place on his toy shelf.

The Creator is the Architect and the Creation is the Building, the Sub-Creator is the Child and the Sub-creation is the model. The concept of Prayer to Eru (a sub-creation) by a human being (a creation) is like a New York businessman trying to open an office in the Model rather than the real Empire State Building.

I for one just don't get it.



Thank you for your time
you may now continue your discussion.

RD


----------



## Walter (Apr 14, 2004)

I do not agree that the Valar (or Maiar) were _angelic_ in concept. IMO they were pagan deities _in concept_ and angelic _only in the revision_. 

Tolkien - consciously or not - embedded elements of various Indo-european and Semitic myths (and probably a few more) in his invented mythology and the Valar originally resemble the Germanic/Nordic Aesir more closely than anything else. Any observative reader will find parallels galore between the Eddic poems (and Snorri's account thereof) and the Lost Tales.

Also Letter #142 should be seen in context. Isolating a single sentence (I am glad that GtG at least added the 2nd sentence as well which is usually all too readily omitted) to prove that _The Lord of the Rings_ is of course _a fundamentally religious and Catholic work_ may be effective, but will hardly cover the "truth" about that issue. With context I mean not only the entire letter and the relationship of Tolkien with the person it was addressed to, but also the totality of Tolkien's Legendarium as well as other statements of Tolkien regarding the same issue. Then there might be a fair chance to come a little closer to Tolkien's 'sub-creation' in its full complexity, as it developed throughout his lifetime.

For anyone interested in more "ammunition" that LotR is _fundamentally Catholic_ Pearce's and Birzer's books may come in handy. For anyone interested in a more balanced and objective approach, Shippey's or Flieger's books may prove good resources for further information...


----------



## Snaga (Apr 14, 2004)

Rangerdave said:


> Eru was the creator of Arda, true. But Master Tolkien was the Creator of Eru. This means that the creation cycle in a Eru based mythology is backwards.


Its always people who give a name to "God". And an atheist would tell you that its always people who create God.


----------



## faila (Apr 20, 2004)

Snaga said:


> Its always people who give a name to "God". And an atheist would tell you that its always people who create God.


You say its always people who give a name to God, but obviously this statement would be impossible to know completely. Assuming that God is completely sovereign it might in the end appear that he was named by humans but he actually named himself working through a human. (wow read it a couple times i swear it make sense.)

If Tolkiens mythology is real then how come we see no evidence of him believing it?


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 21, 2004)

faila said:


> If Tolkiens mythology is real then how come we see no evidence of him believing it?


Not only did he not believe it, he attempted to completely rewrite it to fit in with modern cosmogonic theory (see HoME 10). He sent the changes to friends for comment, and they said they preferred the original, so I suspect the changes were abandoned.

Having said that, Tolkien retrospectively believed that he had a divine helping hand in the writing of The Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Paul (Apr 21, 2004)

Didn't Tolkien state somewhere that all the stuff he wrote was fiction? How can you follow a relgion that has no truth to it at all?


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 21, 2004)

Paul said:


> Didn't Tolkien state somewhere that all the stuff he wrote was fiction? How can you follow a relgion that has no truth to it at all?


Ask Ron L Hubbard (deceased?)


----------



## Walter (Apr 21, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> Not only did he not believe it, he attempted to completely rewrite it to fit in with modern cosmogonic theory (see HoME 10).


Did he really ever attempt to _completely rewrite it_ (=the mythology)?

I am aware that he attempted to replace the "flat earth" version of the _Ainulindalë_ with a "round earth" version and eventually refrained from that, probably mostly because of Mrs Katherine Farrer's response (regardless of the fact that he gave it another try lateron). But as Christopher mentions, this probably would have been a "devastating surgery" for Tolkien's mythology as a whole.

After all the Two Trees and their captured light in the Silmarils are those elements which represent the factual and methaphorical core of his mythology (at least of the first age), to abandon these would indeed have meant to rewrite the entire legendarium, but I cannot see that Tolkien ever made any serious attempts of such an enormous task.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Apr 21, 2004)

Didn't he really *believe* in the mythology he created himself?

From H.Carpenter's biography of J.R.R.Tolkien:



> Once more he refers to his own mythology. His eyes fix on some distant object, and he seems to have forgotten that I am there.... but the mind (T's) is far away, roaming the plains and the mountains of Middle-earth





> He says that he has to clear up an apparent contradiction in a passage of the LotR that has been pointed out in a letter from a reader.... He explains it all in great detail, *talking about his book not as a work of fiction, but as a chronicle of actual events*; he seems to see himself not as an author who has made a slight error that must now be corrected or explained away, but as *a historian who must cast light on an obscurity in a historical document*.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 21, 2004)

I stand corrected of sloppy posting, Walter.

I meant to only say that the Cosmogenesis was rewritten.

Lhun's observations are interesting. Tolkien often 'went to find out' what people had asked him. I assumed it was because he gained so much additional inspiration from the nomenclature he devised. I think he believed in his religion for Middle-earth, but not for this world. To transfer Iluvatar et al to the modern world would be folly, as they are real only in Middle-earth.


----------



## faila (Apr 22, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> Ask Ron L Hubbard (deceased?)


he did it for the money i think..........and isnt it L. Ron hubbard? He made mass amounts of money off his cult. (Edit: but he did write some great science fiction, though not as great as Robert A. heinlen or Larry Niven but still good)


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 23, 2004)

I liked the Heinlein stuff.

The point is, though, that Tolkien created a much more interesting 'religion', but did not even contemplate exporting it into the real world, considering the one he already practiced to be the Real Thing.


----------



## Walter (Apr 23, 2004)

Did Tolkien actually create a "religion" for his legendarium? And did he really consider the one he practiced the real thing?

I mean all we have is a little bit of information that would support such a point of view and a little bit of information that would be able to question this. 

Can one be real sure about anyone elses religion to make statements in such a "matter-of-factly" way?

_Scio me nihil scire..._


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 23, 2004)

Rangerdave said:


> I find the concept of a faith based on the writings of Master Tolkien to be bit flawed from the very begining.
> 
> Eru was the creator of Arda, true. But Master Tolkien was the Creator of Eru. This means that the creation cycle in a Eru based mythology is backwards. Instead of the more usual *Supreme Being>Cosmos>Man* hierachy, you have instead a more complex *Man*(Tolkien)*>Cosmos>Supreme Being* equation. Very hard to follow.


I don't see the sense in this. One could say that Tolkien was merely a medium through whom the whole mythology was conveyed to the rest of the world, whether the professor would agree with that or not. And what you say about the creation cycle being backwards, that could easily be said of Christianity (and other religions? I don't know them well enough to tell), in the sense that the men who wrote the Bible were also the creators of it, and of God. The fact that Christianity is 2000+ years old, and therefore drastically older than any would-be Tolkien religion, does not render the latter any less believable in my eyes. Faith is not based on proof, as much as it is based on 'blind' belief.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 23, 2004)

Walter said:


> Did Tolkien actually create a "religion" for his legendarium? And did he really consider the one he practiced the real thing?
> 
> I mean all we have is a little bit of information that would support such a point of view and a little bit of information that would be able to question this.
> 
> ...


Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. He practiced his religion, professing daily devotions; he confessed catholicism in his letters and evangelised (notably CS Lewis).

Added to this, I am also a practicing Christian, and it takes one to know one, so to speak  .


----------



## Walter (Apr 23, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. He practiced his religion, professing daily devotions; he confessed catholicism in his letters and evangelised (notably CS Lewis).
> 
> Added to this, I am also a practicing Christian, and it takes one to know one, so to speak  .


I envy you, honestly...

_I wull't I war a wengerl mehr katholisch, do war des åll's ganz leicht, I gangat jeden Sunndoch in die Kirch'n, tat meine Sündn beichtn (und warat's los)..._
'I wish I were a little more Catholic, then all would be quite easy, I would go to church each sunday and confess my sins (and would be rid of them)' 
Song lyrics: H.v.Goisern, prose translation ChW


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 23, 2004)

> 'I wish I were a little more Catholic, then all would be quite easy, I would go to church each sunday and confess my sins (and would be rid of them)'



One can confess your sins without going to church or being a Catholick, of course.  

And getting "rid of" your sins? Well you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.


----------



## Walter (Apr 23, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> One can confess your sins without going to church or being a Catholick, of course.
> 
> And getting "rid of" your sins? Well you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.


But why then does the priest say "Ego te absolvo..." when one is done confessing?


----------



## joxy (Apr 23, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> ....you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.


Confession, better known now as Reconciliation, does just that for you.


----------



## faila (Apr 24, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> One can confess your sins without going to church or being a Catholick, of course.
> 
> And getting "rid of" your sins? Well you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.


 I must say that you do basically get rid of your sins....you may have a punishment on this earth, but once confessed their no eternal punishment...so basically its gotten rid of. (note: Im not a catholic...so my beliefs are different in some areas)
Back on subject:
When the apostles and the writers of the word of God wrote their books they would of admitted and known that they were writing truth. Tolkien said his work was fiction, and never believed in it. Why would a god choose to work through someone who didnt believe in him? THe whole belief in a relgion that the person who created it didnt believe seems slightly wierd.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 24, 2004)

> But why then does the priest say "Ego te absolvo..." when one is done confessing?



Well....I don't really know much about the Christian confessional procedure to comment. I think (personally) that it isn't a matter of getting rid your sins, but it is a matter of realising you have sinned and that it is wrong. I think you should work it out yourself and that you do not need to go to a priest to get rid of them, so to speak.

A lot of people may also misinterpret the nature of confessionals. They may just go there and (in their hearts) not really repent of their sins and think that if they just go to the priest and tell him about their sins and put on a act of repentance then that would be o.k. 

For example, if we were to take, say, literature as an example, do you really think 'The Prince' from Lampedusa's 'The Leopard' or Oskar's mother from 'The Tin Drum' truly repented of their sins or do you think they just went to confessional to make themselves feel better? Admittedly these are fictional accounts, but I'm sure something like what I'm describing happens in real life.

And imagine confessing to a corrupt priest? There are and were some corrupt priests. Isn't it a bit paradoxical that your "path" to god is somebody who is immoral? 

Not that I'm taking a bash at Christianity or repentance. I'm just airing my rather silly views on the topic. 

And sorry about my spelling of 'CatholicK' reading Don Quixote has messed up my c/k's


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 24, 2004)

I have found about 8 places in the Bible with variations on: "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in mercy/love". This Lord is entirely compatible with the one in Tolkien's mythology (where would The Lord of the Rings be without mercy?).


faila said:


> Why would a god choose to work through someone who didnt believe in him?


The Bible (especially the OT) is full of just such incidences. But the fact is that Tolkien was not just a nominal Catholic, he lived his religion: _"I fell in love with the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning - and by the mercy of God never have fallen out again: but alas! I indeed did not live up to it. ... Out of wickedness and sloth I almost ceased to practise my religion - especially at Leeds, and at 22 Northmoor Road. Not for me the Hound of Heaven, but the never-ceasing silent appeal of Tabernacle, and the sense of starving hunger. I regret those days bitterly (and suffer for them with such patience as I can be given); most of all because I failed as a father. Now I pray for you all, unceasingly, that the Healer shall heal my defects, and that none of you shall ever cease to cry Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini." _("Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.") - Letter 250 1.Nov.63 to Michael Tolkien.

Despite the God of Middle-earth resembling the Christian God in character, the above does not sound like someone who would want the religion he created in Myth to be exported into the real world.


----------



## Walter (Apr 24, 2004)

In my understanding letter #250 is one where Tolkien not only expresses his own doubts about his faith - after all it appears that he has been at least pondering to leave the church - but also openly questions religion, church and its proponents, the clerus. 

So, IMO the part quoted above is hardly representative for the contents of Letter #250, apropriate maybe within the context of a debate where one wants to make a point rather than present some information in an unbiased way.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 24, 2004)

Fighting talk!

The letter is a response to a most despondent son, many miles away. Tolkien speaks mainly of the failings of Christians, whilst maintaining devotion to the Faith. It might be summed up in the quote _"For myself, I find I become less cynical rather than more - remembering my own sins and follies; and realize that men's hearts are not often as bad as their acts, and very seldom as bad as their words. (...) You speak of 'sagging faith', however. That is quite another matter. In the last resort faith is an act of will, inspired by love. Our love may be chilled and our will eroded by the spectacle of the shortcomings, folly and even sins of the Church and its ministers, but I do not think that one who has once had faith goes back over the line for these reasons."_ The 'ifs' that Tolkien uses towards the middle of the letter, if you read it carefully, are hypothetical. Even skimming the letter, one must conclude that it would be unthinkable for such a man to write to a depressed, convalescing son in such terms if it were not to build the latter's faith up.

Though I am not a Catholic, having put myself under the care of Church pastors who turned out to be less than holy, causing more pain than healing, I can relate to Tolkien's words in this letter. 

I am particularly fascinated by his claims for the emotional healing powers of the Sacrament. I have not tested his claim, being too idle to attend church every day to receive it (I think it is 7.00am on weekdays at our local Anglican Church), though I would love to hear the opinions of those who have. (There are those who would tell me that Anglican communion is not the real thing anyway, seeing as how that group were all excommunicated from the RC Church about 500 years ago.)


----------



## Walter (Apr 24, 2004)

No, I have no desire for a fight or anything of the like, too high is my respect for you, your knowledge and your beliefs.

But I feel people are often reading their beliefs or thoughts into the words of an author they like. And when posts here get an "evangelizing" touch, I sometimes feel obligued to point out that a "theological" approach to Tolkien and his works is not the only possible way to enjoy his epos, and not necessarily the best or right one...

If there is one crucial sentence in this letter, it is 

_However, He alone knows each soul and its circumstances._ 

IMHO, that is, of course...


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 24, 2004)

Sorry, did I get preachy? The Bible is to me what the 6.30 out of Paddington is to a trainspotter - exciting! The quote you give is, of course, the most important, and the truth that is most frequently overlooked. It also happens to be the one I am most grateful for.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Apr 25, 2004)

This probably will be the only post I'll make in this thread.

First of all, I find it a silly idea to call "religion" the mere state of liking Tolkien's writings! 
Second, even that I don't find the Bible exciting from any other point of view but historical, or/and Christianity or/and any other religion truly and honestly contributing to the development of the human individual, I still know what these are about, I have a fair idea of their structure and function ... and I can't see too much a resemblance between *THE* God in the Christian religion and Eru - Iluvatar in Tolkien's mythology. 
Tolkien's dieties were created as the fundamental elements *any* mythology would have. And in this, they are much more like pagan dieties than any of those worshiped in Christian religion.

As for sins and their absolution ... Ask a most fanaticly faithful Conquistador after having slain a village of Indians and after having robbed the dead bodies from all the gold he could've found on them, after which he has gone and destroyed the temples and the constructions of a civilization ages older than his own...  What if he repents?! What if his sins have been forgiven? Will this bring back the dead to life? Will this bring back the demolished cultural and architectural sites?


----------



## Teledhelwen (Apr 26, 2004)

*Farewell*

I am extremely disappointed at where this thread is going. This is what happens when I look for others of my religion. I will be leaving the Tolkien Forum  Namarie, my friends, and may the Valar protect you.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 27, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> As for sins and their absolution ... Ask a most fanaticly faithful Conquistador after having slain a village of Indians and after having robbed the dead bodies from all the gold he could've found on them, after which he has gone and destroyed the temples and the constructions of a civilization ages older than his own...  What if he repents?! What if his sins have been forgiven? Will this bring back the dead to life? Will this bring back the demolished cultural and architectural sites?


This is probably the greatest similarity between real Christianity and Tolkien's Middle-earth religion. Even Saruman was offered mercy in the hope that he would find a cure; and as the hymn by Charles Wesley states: "The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives."

And Walter - I offer this for comparison, not to preach  

I am sorry that Teledhelwen has chosen to leave such a rich Tolkien Forum because its members do not worship Iluvatar, but Professor Tolkien would have been apalled if we did.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 27, 2004)

Teledhelwen said:


> I am extremely disappointed at where this thread is going. This is what happens when I look for others of my religion. I will be leaving the Tolkien Forum  Namarie, my friends, and may the Valar protect you.


Any discussion concerning Middle-Earth religion or religion based on Middle-Earth is bound to get intertwined with Christianity - Tolkien's own religion. Your desire to leave the forum seems to me unreasonable and uncalled for. But if that is your wish I bid you a fond farewell and the best of luck in all your endeavours.


----------



## Walter (Apr 27, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> This is probably the greatest similarity between real Christianity and Tolkien's Middle-earth religion. Even Saruman was offered mercy in the hope that he would find a cure; and as the hymn by Charles Wesley states: "The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives."


An interesting point indeed! But Saruman was not to receive pardon from Jesus or anyone else. Not even Aragorn.

As interesting IMO - in this context (sorry for the lengthy quote, but the passage is IMO crucial to understanding Tolkien's stance on that issue:



> ...one thing he knew clearly: those days were heathen - heathen, noble, and hopeless.
> But if the specifically Christian was suppressed,20 so also were the old gods. Partly because they had not really existed, and had been always, in the Christian view, only delusions or lies fabricated by the evil one, the gastbona, to whom the hopeless turned especially in times of need. Partly because their old names (certainly not forgotten) had been potent, and were connected in memory still, not only with mythology or such fairy-tale matter as we find, say, in Gylfaginning, but with active heathendom, religion and wigweorþung. Most of all because they were not actually essential to the theme. The monsters had been the foes of the gods, the captains of men, and within Time the monsters would win. In the heroic siege and last defeat men and gods alike had been imagined in the same host. Now the heroic figures, the men of old, hæleð under heofenum, remained and still fought on until defeat. For the monsters do not depart, whether the gods go or come. A Christian was (and is) still like his forefathers a mortal hemmed in a hostile world. The monsters remained the enemies of mankind, the infantry of the old war, and became inevitably the enemies of the one God, ece Dryhten, the eternal Captain of the new. Even so the vision of the war changes. For it begins to dissolve, even as the contest on the fields of Time thus takes on its largest aspect. The tragedy of the great temporal defeat remains for a while poignant, but ceases to be finally important. It is no defeat, for the end of the world is part of the design of Metod, the Arbiter who is above the mortal world. Beyond there appears a possibility of eternal victory (or eternal defeat), and the real battle is between the soul and its adversaries. So the old monsters became images of the evil spirit or spirits, or rather the evil spirits entered into the monsters and took visible shape in the hideous bodies of the þyrsas and sigelhearwan of heathen imagination.
> But that shift is not complete in Beowulf- whatever may have been true of its period in general. Its author is still concerned primarily with man on earth, rehandling in a new perspective an ancient theme: that man, each man and all men, and all their works shall die. A theme no Christian need despise. Yet this theme plainly would not be so treated, but for the nearness of a pagan time. The shadow of its despair, if only as a mood, as an intense emotion of regret, is still there. The worth of defeated valour in this world is deeply felt. As the poet looks back into the past, surveying the history of kings and warriors in the old traditions, he sees that all glory (or as we might say 'culture' or 'civilization') ends in night. The solution of that tragedy is not treated - it does not arise out of the material. We get in fact a poem from a pregnant moment of poise, looking back into the pit, by a man learned in old tales who was struggling, as it were, to get a general view of them all, perceiving their common tragedy of inevitable ruin, and yet feeling this more poetically because he was himself removed from the direct pressure of its despair. He could view from without, but still feel immediately and from within, the old dogma: despair of the event, combined with faith in the value of doomed resistance. He was still dealing with the great temporal tragedy, and not yet writing an allegorical homily in verse. Grendel inhabits the visible world and eats the flesh and blood of men; he enters their houses by the doors. The dragon wields a physical fire, and covets gold not souls; he is slain with iron in his belly. Beowulf's byrne was made by Weland, and the iron shield he bore against the serpent by his own smiths: it was not yet the breastplate of righteousness, nor the shield of faith for the quenching of all the fiery darts of the wicked.
> Almost we might say that this poem was (in one direction) inspired by the debate that had long been held and continued after, and that it was one of the chief contributions to the controversy: shall we or shall we not consign the heathen ancestors to perdition? What good will it do posterity to read the battles of Hector? Quid Hinieldus *** Christo? The author of Beowulf showed forth the permanent value of that pietas which treasures the memory of man's struggles in the dark past, man fallen and not yet saved, disgraced but not dethroned. It would seem to have been part of the English temper in its strong sense of tradition, dependent doubtless on dynasties, noble houses, and their code of honour, and strengthened, it may be, by the more inquisitive and less severe Celtic learning, that it should, at least in some quarters and despite grave and Gallic voices, preserve much from the northern past to blend with southern learning, and new faith.
> ...


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Apr 28, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> This is probably the greatest similarity between real Christianity and Tolkien's Middle-earth religion. Even Saruman was offered mercy in the hope that he would find a cure; and as the hymn by Charles Wesley states: "The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives."


I can't find the connection between my example and your statemnet, El! 

And ... BTW, would it really be the right thing to call Tolkien's mythology a "religion"????


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 28, 2004)

Your quote, Walter, is about Tolkien's views on Beowulf isn't it? The way I read LotR, the 'pardon' was unspoken, and came with the 'cure'. Gandalf offered Saruman a way out. His previous rank was no longer available, but he was offered fellowship. It seems to me that one who was considered 'reformed' was allowed back into the fold, being perceived as a changed person and no longer a danger. In this, Tolkien's myth goes further than the actual practices of modern Christianity.

And yes, Lhun; I am using the word 'religion' quite loosely - perhaps too much so, as it is the practice of deference to a deity that makes a religion, not the existence of said deity.



> Beowulf's byrne was made by Weland, and the iron shield he bore against the serpent by his own smiths: it was not yet the breastplate of righteousness, nor the shield of faith for the quenching of all the fiery darts of the wicked.


This is interesting; for most of the British gods (who were barely distinguishable from men) were 'converted' into saints via the tales of monks who, unable to wean people off their gods, embellished or distorted the original stories with Christian content so the people venerated a Christianised figure. They were obviously pretty good storytellers, judging by the number of local saints dotted around Wales, Cornwall and Ireland.


----------

