CathInfo.com

Hey man. Tolkien first published The Hobbit, then LOTR.

No one claimed otherwise.  If you care to think about it, perhaps that is why I listed the books in that order.

Another poster here said that the "God figure" is mentioned in the Silmarillion, a posthumous work which came out in 1977.

So the 4 main books make no mention at all of this "God figure."

The other poster is correct that the creator-god of the Lord of the Rings mythology is named in The Silmarilion, however, there are indeed references to the creator-god of the mythology in The Lord of the Rings.  

I thought it reasonable that, if this God figure was prevalent in Tolkien's 4 main books (which it turns out it isn't) then Jackson would probably include it in the movies, even though of course movie adaptations change a lot of stuff and details.

I think your response is over the top and unwarranted because there is no such God figure in the 4 main books.

First, perhaps you should see a few of Peter Jackson's other films before making any assumptions about how Peter Jackson would adapt The Lord of the Rings to film.  In any event, I'm not sure anyone suggested the mythological creator-god was prevalent in the books, just that it is referenced and part of the mythology while in the Harry Potter series this is not the case at all or that such references are to Black Masses and modern occult and pagan practices.  

No, i will not read any of these books. I already attempted to do so years ago when i was in the Novus Ordo, when the movies came out and all the hoopla over them was in rage, and i found them boring.

Fair enough.  If your reading and comprehension skills and taste in literature are such than you do not desire to read the stories that is your affair.  You shouldn't ask a question about which you have nothing to base an opinion and then dispute the absolutely reasonable answers you get.

I once heard a critique by an SSPX priest of Tolkien's books and i thought it was good. It was all negative of course. I don't remember the priest's name or the name of the talk either. Perhaps someone here knows.

I once heard a critique by an SSPX priest of Tolkien's books that were positive.  

I have read the entire series (Hobbit + Lord of the Rings + Silmarillion + Children of Hurin + Tales from the Perilous Realm) less the books of notes; and, had I the time again, I should fling them all on a pyre and say the Little Office of Our Lady several times in the wasted time.

Firstly, I regard fantasy literature as essentially sinful, the equivalent in our times of the chivalric nonsense that Ignαzιo de Loyola stuffed his head with before becoming St Ignatius. Has not Holy Church a hundredfold more pure, real wonders than the vanities of a corrupted mind? Let us use our time in sincere prayer and loathing of our rotten flesh.

There is at least one case of impurity (the dwarf Gimli's ''courtly love'', or syruped and begowned adulterous lust, for a married woman, presented entirely positively, indeed praised),  indeed these fester through Mediaeval writings and Wagner's operas. The Children of Hurin has a case of (admittedly accidental) incest uncondemned. Such filth ought never be mentioned: have we not the Lives of the Saints to read?

The cosmology of the Silmarillion is essentially Gnostic; and it is worth pointing out that the contradictory accounts of the dwarves and elves are given without condemnation of one or the other, a grave relativism.

Taints of paganism  are present too, Gandalf described as an 'Odinic wanderer'', ''dwarves'' and ''elves'', which are essentially wicked and pagan, regarded positively. His Modernistic ideas on myth  and his distaste for allegory, long used by the Church Fathers, both were used in an article I once read to make a case he was a Gnostic.

His presentation of Purgatory (implied) in ''Leaf by Niggle'' is essentially humanistic, a more or less pleasant time of self-knowing and hard labour, not the blazing agony that awaits us poor vermin for our sins -- as we richly deserve.

I have never seen a revolutionary or other enemy of Christ make good use of an untainted work. The Breviary has never inspired a sordid fantasy novel! Thus, I regard it as deeply tainted and to be avoided.

At the end of the day, what benefit is there in reading these books? What? What contribution do they have towards Catholicism, devotion, piety, spirituality? What advantage do they have over traditional official Catholic works? Writings of Saints and Catechisms?

Tolkien didn't intent to write a pro-Catholic, pro-Church, quasi theological story.  He wrote a good, ol fashioned campfire tale which children could relate to, which taught the evils of greed, love of power and the 'end justifies the means'...and which taught the goodness of virtue, humility, and doing the right thing in the face of hardship.

It's not meant to be Catholic; it's meant to be a story with catholic symbolism.