Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:26:57 PM

Title: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:26:57 PM
Mithrandylan says he is in the mood to talk Tolkien.

Wonderful! So am I! It's a nice thing to do in the winter weather.

In order to discuss the rest of Mith's reply on the Rethinking Tolkien thread, I have to do some studying.

My favorite scholar/thinker on this subject is Miss Paula Haigh, of happy memory. She devoted herself to the defense of the Faith, and was a true scholar. She had a Masters in Literature, and was working on a Doctorate, stopping just short of the Thesis.

I'm going to publish her entire Essay on the Origin of Myth: From Babylon To Middle Earth, because it is pivotal in this discussion of Tolkien's employment of myth as his delivery system.

Rather than quote it piecemeal in replies, I think the entire docuмent deserves proper perusal - at least by any nerd willing to devote the time.

Hopefully Mithrandylan is just such a nerd. ;)

Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
The Origin of Myth: from Babylon to Middle-Earth
Paula Haigh

The consensus of learned men today is that myth originated in our most remote evolutionary past. Lapsed Catholic Joseph Campbell, pre-eminent scholar of mythology, tells us that “our primal ancestors told stories to themselves about the animals they killed for food and about the supernatural world to which the animals seemed to go when they died. ... The hunt, became a ritual of sacrifice. ... and a magical, wonderful accord grew between the hunter and the hunted, as they were locked in a mystical timeless cycle of death burial and resurrection.” Primitive art, then, according to Campbell, gave form to the impulse we now call religion.” (The Power of Myth, 1988, p. xvi-ii)

Campbell goes on to note the thematic similarities amongst the myths of vastly differing cultures of the past, but he never makes any connection between these great religious themes and the stories told by our evolutionary ancestors around the campfires. He never found the real meaning of those different “masks of God”, as he calls them, the “stories of creation, of virgin births, incarnations, death and resurrection, second comings and judgment days.” He cannot tell us the real origin of these recurring themes, preserved in all cultures as myth. What he settles for, in the end, is a reduction of all mythical themes to human sentiment and invention.

However, it has never been docuмented or even claimed that a feral child or a primitive culture or community invented the great religious themes of the mythologies. They are, in fact, always given, always “handed down”. That they could be “campfire stories’’ invented by primitive men reflecting on their hunt is the merest imaginative speculation of the evolutionists reduced to wishful thinking.
The great truths of Faith are beyond our comprehension and certainly above and beyond the imagination of men. They are true Mysteries, transcending human reason. But their transmission, once revealed, is something else.

Campbell also liked to equate the sayings of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ with similar sentiments found in other religions. One of his favorite stories was that of the troubled woman who came to the Indian saint and sage Ramakrishna saying, “O Master, I do not find that I love God.” And he asked her, “Is there nothing, then, that you love?” To this she answered, “My little nephew.” And he said to her, “There is your love and service to God, in your love and service to that child.”

But Ramakrishna lived from 1836 to 1886 and was obviously influenced by Christianity: A similar influence, fraudulently claimed to be original with Hinduism, is that of Tibetan monasticism. The present Dalai Lama lets it be believed that his practice of monasticism, so similar to that of Christians, originated with Hinduism. But such is far from the truth. Cardinal Wiseman, in his “Lectures on Science and Religion” docuмents that monasticism was taken to the Far East in the 13th and 14th centuries by Christian missionaries and was quickly and easily adopted by the naturally contemplative inclinations of those Eastern religious people.
Campbell also loved to quote the Gospels and the Koran in the same breath, indicating an assumed identity of belief; and in his book, The Masks of God (1959), he makes a passionate plea for a gathering together of all the myths into some transcendent unity, some “great mystery pageant ... To make it serve the present hour, we have only to assemble – or reassemble – it in its full dimension, scientifically, and then bring it to life as our own in the way of art; the way of wonder – sympathetic, instructive delight, not judging morally, but participating with our own awakened humanity in the festival of the passing forms.” (p. 18)

Myth, then, for Campbell, both in its origin and culmination, is a celebration of humanity. According to him, the origins of myth lie in our evolutionary past and can, in fact, be reduced to the best in human nature such as the love of mother for child, of neighbor for suffering neighbor, as manifested by the Indian saint and sage, Ramakishna, as well as by Catholic­ Christian saints and heroes. In other words, religion itself evolved from man’s own nature and inventiveness which reach their highest peak in altruism.

The “Masks of God” turn out to be only the masks of human emotion and thought. This is the evolutionary world view built and ever building anew upon the imaginary speculations of so-called learned men.

Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:31:53 PM
Turning to a Catholic source, The Philosophical Dictionary by Jesuits W. Brugger and K. Baker (1972), we find but an echo of Campbell’s thesis. According to this dictionary, mythology presents a “total view of the nature, origin, value, meaning and goal of the world and of human life.” It is, in sum, a Weltanschauung, a world view. And this is certainly true. However, again, the Jesuit authors give us no definite clue as to the real origin of myth except, repeating Campbell and his colleagues, to say that myth is “a pre-scientific conviction that grows naturally in every man.”

Now this is true of man’s natural intuitions and “convictions’ about the existence and omnipotence of a Supreme Being and of the immortality of the human soul. This can be docuмented from the records of ancient history, myth and the great Greek philosophers.
But it is something else altogether for the imaginary primitive man to invent the great religious themes that run through all the myths: creation, human sacrifice because of an original sin, incarnation, redemption, and the End of the world. Even the greatest Greek thinkers could not imagine an End of time itself.

A finer distinction is introduced by Richard Purtill, author of J.R.R. Tolkien: Myth, Morality and Religion (1984, newly published by Ignatius Press in 2003). This author boldly asserts that while religion as such, for example the natural pre-ambles, can be defended by reason and rational thought, there is on the other hand, “no such thing as apologetics of myth (though there are allegorical ‘explanations’ of myth).” (p. 7)

I contend that this is a false and misleading statement in that it confuses myth with the Truths of Faith. The Truths of Faith, such as Creation ex nihilo, the Trinity of Three Divine Persons in one Divine Nature, the Incarnation of the Second Person in the Immaculate Womb of the Ever-Virgin Mary, His Sacrificial Death on a Cross, His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, all in order to re-open the Gates of Heaven closed by the Original Sin of Adam; this with the account of Creation in Six Days, setting the pattern for the week in time; the account of the Temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve and the Prophetic Proto-Evangel of Redemption through a second Eve and a second Adam, with the setting of the eternal enmities between the Seed of the Serpent and the seed of the Woman (Genesis 3:15) – all these Truths are not subject to apologetical discourse based on rational explanation but only to exposition based on the Authority of God revealing.

It was the special mission of Adam and his sons and then of Noe and his sons, particularly of Sem, and from Sem to Abraham, the Father of the Chosen People, to preserve and transmit faithfully these essential Truths of Faith, of the primordial Revelation, until the time of the Gentiles, of Christ and the founding of His Church. The “Church, then, became the sole Guardian and teacher of the Truths of Faith, free from all contamination by myth and idolatry – until the time of the Great Apostasy.

Myths, however, are something else and can be explained by natural reason arguing rationally. This is because the myths are, both in their nature and in their origin, but the distortions and corruptions of the original primordial Revelation which Adam and his descendants and then the Chosen people brought down to the time of the Messiah.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:35:29 PM
Campbell is but a disciple of those earlier lapsed believers in the 18th and 19th centuries who first introduced the idea that the myths grew out of human invention, fears and superstitions, evolving into present-day Christianity.

However, there were not lacking either Catholic or Protestant defenders of the truth about myth. Foremost amongst the Catholic defenders was Dutch scholar of the mid-nineteenth century, Henri M. Luken who in his monumental book, Les Traditions de L’Humanite ou La Revelation Primitive de Dieu Parmie les Paiens (1862) summarizes an immense amount of docuмented evidence for the truth about the real origin of all mythologies. Here are some of the most relevant quotations from his Preface and the lengthy Introduction:

Quote
We have demonstrated that the primordial revelation was preserved more or less intact not only in the most primitive teachings but also that they have a greater significance than heretofore supposed. We hold that mythology, in great part, is only the primordial revelation degraded by forgetfulness of God and the dispersion of peoples. Mythology is the product of primitive notions of history in which heroes were divinized and ancestors were raised to the status of gods. Some of the gods of the pagans are none other than demons and some who were early founders of nations and cities, were made sovereigns over nature. We embrace completely the view of the Fathers of the Church. (From the Preface, 1856)

The sacred annals of Christianity teach us that in the beginning God most certainly revealed Himself to man who was created in moral perfection, that He instructed man and provided him with his material needs. Man’s moral education included the command to obey and submit his will to that of God. And when the holy Scriptures tell us that God made clothing of animal skins to cover man’s nudity after the Fall, they show that God indicated to man the means of providing for his bodily needs.

Christianity thus reveals that God Himself gave to man his first education. But it also reveals that man turned away from God and was drawn into disobedience, by the evil spirit. Thus he fell into sin.
God annihilated by the Deluge all of the first race of men because of their crimes. Only Noe was saved with his family by God’s instruction, and from this just man descended the men who re-peopled the earth after the Deluge.

Even though God revealed Himself anew to Noe in an extraordinary manner, men soon lost the notion of the true God and the great part of mankind fell into idolatry.

Paganism, then, is the spiritual destruction of man after the Fall. It is that bundle of intellectual “thorns and thistles” which was thrust into the human heart, as into a field abandoned by the beneficent Hand of God and left to the horrors of the savage state. It thus obliterated from itself the notions of the true religion that God had sown there.
... The “thorns and thistles”, these errors issued from the material soil and of the same corruption of sin, have they obliterated and entirely snuffed out the primitive revelation of which not a trace remains - or, can we discover certain vestiges, certain remnants in the vast solitudes of paganism?

It is evident that Christianity, with its doctrine of the primitive revelation and the original education of man by God Himself, responds affirmatively, even if there are no positive indications in the Scriptures.

Those who make a myth of Christianity do not deny that there are in paganism doctrines which agree with the Christian revelation. They even claim to have proof of their assertions ...

But in their hatred of Christianity, they see in it only a myth and explain the universal sentiment of all peoples as “a concordant march of ideas in the evolution of the religious system.”

The Christian opinion of the rapport of history with primitive revelation poses a frontal attack on this fragile hypothesis of the evolution of religious ideas. Our view is founded on the most solid basis, and it is able to clarify things, or rather, it can do nothingbut clarify for it is its nature to clarify.

The myths were introduced into the hearts of men in the same measure that men compromised, tarnished and stifled the plant of the primitive revelation.

There is no other key with which to penetrate the depths of paganism, no other way to explain its myths and traditions than by recognizing it as a derivation and a deviation from the Christian Revelation. Paganism is nothing else than Christian truth denatured and rendered mythological.

Such are the valuable results of studying paganism. But it is also valuable and even much more valuable to understand a priori the truth and the divinity of Christianity. Thus it is ever true that Christian doctrine from the primitive revelation is found not only among the Jews but that all the people of the world possess these traditions; and we have irrefutable proof that this doctrine is in effect, the inheritance of all humanity, that this humanity, in its every member, descends from Adam, and, in a word, that sacred history is the true history of humanity.

Title: Re: Origen of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:41:04 PM
In Volume I, M. Luken takes up first of all the task of demonstrating the primitive monotheism of all peoples. Many other scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, have demonstrated the same truth.

In his discussion of theogonies and the creation of man in the myths, M. Luken finds no hint of an evolutionary concept. There are three kinds of theogonies: 1) the primal natural elements, sky, earth and water, are seen as gods; 2) Heroes and the founders of cities and nations are seen as gods; 3) pure spirits or genies corresponding to our angels are seen as gods. In all the pagan theogonies and cosmogonies, everything descends from above. Nothing evolves from below.

There are striking vestiges of the Six Days in all the myths. Among the Persians, the Zendacesta speaks of a Feast of Six Days in honor of the creation instituted by the first Legislator. These days are still celebrated by the sectarians of Zoroaster. The order of created beings follows the Biblical order in all the myths. The Six Days are honored among the Etruscans, the Indians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, Greeks, and Germans. M. Luken gives many other similarities such as the first Woman always created after the first Man.

Volume I concludes with the story of the Deluge in all pagan myths.
Volume II discusses the date of the Deluge. The greatest part of the ancient peoples inscribe at the head of their history the date of two or three thousand years before Christ as the date of the Deluge and the beginning of their national history. The book then goes on to discuss at length the Family of Noe and the division of the earth amongst his three sons, Sem, Cham and Japhet, who figure prominently in all the myths under one name or another.

The story of Cronos in Greek myth resembles the story of Noe insulted by his son Cham. The relation between Bel and Cham is explored as are those of many others, such as Adam and Kaedmon. The traditions of the woman-Virgin are many and varied and She is always related to the Sign of Virgo in the Zodiac. Other relations to the Signs of the Zodiac are discussed by M. Luken.

The Tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues and the dispersion are discussed at length as is the conviction in all myths of the necessity for a Redeemer and a Liberator.

The End of the World, the immortality of the soul, Heaven and hell, Paradise and purgatory are all discovered in paganism. The last theme explored is that of the system of evil spirits and good ones, with vestiges of the great War in Heaven between Michael and Lucifer with their followers.

There is appended to this impressive work of M. Luken a lengthy analysis of the origin of language. The conclusion is that given the very high degree of organization of all the earliest languages, it is impossible that language was a human invention. In effect, it is recognized that the perfection of language is contemporary with the creation of man. In other words, language was given to Adam by God Himself. And therefore, the infidel supposition that the first man was a grunting savage, falls to the ground as absurd.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:44:42 PM
In addition to the myths, there is the remarkable testimony of the heavenly constellations, the twelve signs of the Zodiac. As Kenneth Fleeting says in his book, God’s Voice in the Stars (Loiseauz, 1981), “There is nothing in the patterns of the stars themselves to indicate the meanings attached to them; the meanings were revealed first and were then associated with the groups of stars.” And Protestant scholar Joseph Seiss in his book The Gospel in the Stars, summarizes the conclusions of many researchers into the most ancient traditions: What Adam knew, Seth would also know, and so would Enoch. And living contemporaneously together for more than two, three, or even five ordinary lifetimes, there was the sublimest opportunity for them to observe, construct, and mature just such a system as astronomy presents, interwoven as it is with all the great facts, features, and hopes embraced in the promised redemption by the Seed of the Woman. In fact, it was the one great and only opportunity in the history of our race for such an accomplishment. (See this writer’s From the Beginning, Vol. II)

Catholic scholar Solange Hertz sums up the entire subject most concisely:

"Not only do the heavens relay to us by their immensity, beauty and order the perfections and power of their Creator, but apparently the history of the world can be read in the signs of the Zodiac marking the path traveled by the sun in the course of the year. The original significance of these twelve signs, or constellations, each with three subsidiary ones, is now being rediscovered by Christian scholars as it was first known to Adam and the ancients, before the interpretation of the Zodiac had been perverted by satanically inspired astrologers.
Put in proper order, beginning not with Aries as now deployed, but with Virgo, the sign under which our Lady was born, and ending with Leo rather than with Pisces, the Zodiac foretold in the stars the story of the Incarnation, the Redemption and the world to come long before the Bible was written. Virgo is of course the Blessed Virgin, and Leo is Jesus Christ, the lion of Judah, universal Lord of Creation.

(This, incidentally, provides the answer to the mystery of the Sphinx which, having the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion is simply a compendium in stone of the ancient Zodiac.) Capricorn, the sign under which our Lord and Savior was born, is quite properly the Goat, a sacrificial animal offered for the remission of sins under the old law.. Its back legs, however, terminate in the tail of a fish, signifying that its death produces life. In the accurate chronological order Capricorn is the fifth of the twelve signs, occurring appropriately at the beginning of the age of the Son in world history.

God explicitly refers to the Zodiac when He asks Job out of the whirlwind, “Have you fitted a curb to the Pleiades, or loosened the bond of Orion? Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or guide the Bear with its twin?” (Job 38:31-32). The Creator allowed Adam to name the animals, but the naming of the stars He reserved to Himself as He set them in their appointed places. The Psalmist speaks of God as the one “Who telleth the number of the stars and calleth them by name” (Ps.146:4) and the prophet Isaias says, “Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these things: who bringeth out their host by number and calleth them all by their names.” (40:26) The story is told by the stars in their forty-eight constellations as He set them in order in the beginning, making of them, as the Psalmist says, “faithful witnesses in heaven” (Ps. 88:38) of His plan for the world..." (“The Scientific Illusion”, The Remnant, Feb. 28, 2003)

There are, then, these two great witnesses of an original, primordial Revelation: the more terrestrial mythologies as degradations of the pure tradition preserved by-the Chosen people, and the cosmic Zodiac, more lately perverted by astrologers. “The Gospel in the Stars” has suffered less from the corruptions of unfaithful men than the mythologies subject to human transmission and elaboration. But both remain eloquent testimony to the Truth of an Original, Primordial Revelation and Tradition.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:47:43 PM

ENTER MODERNISM
Catholic theologians and exegetes have stopped short of explicitly accepting the atheist’s doctrine that all religion has evolved from primitive polytheism and mythology. However, there exist scandalous compromises and equivocations when confronting the evolutionary world view. Primarily, there is the JEDP or Docuмentary hypothesis which implicitly denies the integral and inspired authorship of Moses while the cracks in this opinion allow for the entrance of a pagan influence.

Marist Father Bruce Vawter in his 1977 book On Genesis unequivocally states that he remains “convinced of the docuмentary hypothesis ... despite all its shortcomings and the obvious objections against it.” (p. 16-23) And Jesuit Father Kenneth Baker in his 1998 book Inside the Bible, also admits that modem scholars have modified the Traditional belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch “by showing how parts were contributed by other authors over the centuries....” (p. 17)

The JEDP or Docuмentary theory flies in the face of the Decrees of the Biblical Commission under Pope St. Plus X which condemned as false the assertion that the books of the Pentateuch “have not Moses for their author but have been compiled from sources for the most part posterior to the time of Moses.” (Rome and the Study of Scripture, 7th ed., 1964., # 181, p. 118)

It is admitted that Moses may have employed sources such as written docuмents or oral traditions from which under divine inspiration he selected some, either literally or in substance, and summarized or amplified. (Ibid. # 183, p. 119) But Moses must be acknowledged as writing under divine inspiration and as the principal and inspired author. This does not admit of multiple non-inspired authors such as the Docuмentary hypothesis posits. Fr. Bruce Vawter discusses the JEDP theory in his book On Genesis in the section on “The Sources of Genesis” and he allows that Moses borrowed from the myths:

"The materials of Genesis are raw bits and pieces of myth, legends, saga, and whatnot out of which the J and E and P authors shared their several sources: they are the stuff from which the true authorship of Genesis emerged." (p. 24)

This is heresy attacking the integrity of the Mosaic authorship and his divine inspiration.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:49:21 PM
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his 1965 Dictionary of the Bible, under the article “Creation” asserts that in order to understand the OT idea of creation, it is necessary to have some knowledge of the mythology of creation in Mesopotamia and Canaan, since the OT incorporated some motifs from this mythology, against which as a whole it took a stand in direct contradiction.”

This is to impugn and to lay restrictions that never existed upon the understanding of all Traditional commentary up to McKenzie’s own Dictionary! And to assert that “as a whole” Genesis stands in contradiction to the myths from which it is said to have borrowed is but to imply the Modernist heresy that divides Scripture into truths of salvation and errors of science and history.

And this is, indeed, what Fr. Bruce Vawter asserted in his earlier book, A Path Through Genesis (1956): “we can say, therefore, that while Genesis undoubtedly contains errors, it teaches none.” (p. 27) Modernist equivocation impugns not only the integrity and inspiration of the Mosaic authorship but the primary authorship of God Himself “Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” (Act of Faith)

It is certain that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church held with an absolute unanimity the inspired and authentic, that is, integral authorship of Moses. And this doctrine of the Fathers is confirmed by the Decrees of the Biblical Commission under Pope St. Plus X.
Any source material that Moses may have used came to him from the Primordial Tradition of the Original Revelation, oral or written and not from the mythologies. The entire purpose of the Chosen People was to preserve and transmit this precious content of the Original Revelation pure and uncontaminated by the surrounding pagan myths and idolatries. It was a treasury of doctrine about God, about His Law, His proper worship, and the Prophecies of His Incarnation and Redemption. (See this writer’s From the Beginning, Vol. II, pp. 8 ff.)

It is easy to see the absolute importance for Faith of adhering firmly to the inspired and integral authorship of Moses when we witness today such heretical notions being accepted as that Genesis is the result of more than one non-Mosaic author and that Moses, in so far as he may have had anything to do with the writing of Genesis, borrowed material from the mythologies.

Both of these heretical opinions strongly imply that religion, and especially Christianity is, after all, but the evolution of human ideas arising from primitive fears and dreams.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:52:27 PM

THE TWO BABYLONS
The compromises and heresies of contemporary Catholic theologians and exegetes play right into the hands of certain Fundamentalists today who hold with the most vehement zeal the theory set forth by 19th century British scholar of mythology, Alexander Hislop, in his book The Two Babylons, first published in 1853, continually reprinted and kept in print to this day by Chick Publications, one of the most rabidly anti­-Catholic groups in America.

Hislop’s thesis, in brief, is that the Catholic Church grew directly out of paganism inasmuch as the Christianity it professes was fatally corrupted by the adoption and assimilation of pagan rituals and other customs. “Proof’ for this thesis is offered by extensive descriptions of pagan deities with abundant illustrations of the same. There are, for example, pictures of “A Woman with Cup from Babylon”, “Triune Deity of Ancient Assyria and Pagan Siberians”; “A Goddess Mother and Son from Babylon and from India”. Christmas is said to have sprung from pagan festivals of the winter solstice, Easter is said to originate with worship of the Cosmic Egg, and the Sign of the Cross is traced to the ancient Tau symbol.

All of which can just as well and with much sounder reason be emphasized as those very vestiges of the Primordial revelation that another 19th century Protestant scholar, Joseph Seiss, did bring forth in his book on The Gospel in the Stars (1882). In fact, Seiss points this out himself in his Preface, stating that “instead of proving Christianity a mere revival of old mythologies, they give powerful impulse toward the conclusion that the constellations and their associated myths and traditions are themselves, in their original, from the very same prophetic Spirit whence the Sacred Scriptures have come, and that they are of a piece with the Biblical records in the system of God’s universal enunciations of the Christ.”

However, the Hislop prejudice has endured and finds a new manifestation in the Left Behind series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. One could even say that this same hatred of the true Church is responsible for the bizarre dispensationalism that harbors the heresy of a Rapture along with all the subsequent errors of interpretation concerning the End Times.

An excellent book has recently appeared from Ignatius Press entitled Will Catholics be “Left Behind?” (2003), by Carl E. Olson. Olson’s treatment of the subject is impeccably scholarly and most thorough, but one cannot help lament that this key issue of the origin of the mythologies apparently remains an unknown to author Olson. However, he recognizes the baneful influence of Hislop on the fundamentalist dispensationalists. He says:

"In Revelation Unveiled LaHaye uses the traditional Fundamentalist tactic of correlating the church of Thyatira (Rev 2:18-19) with “the Pagan Church” of Rome. According to LaHaye, this apostate Church mixed paganism with Christianity, resulting in the Dark Ages and the existence of “Babylonian mysticism”, a term he uses repeatedly in describing Catholicism. ... LaHaye later praises “the greatest book ever written on [Babylon] ... the masterpiece The Two Babylons, by Rev. Alexander Hislop” and states that “to my knowledge” the book has never been refuted." (p.62)

Olson rightly counters, though not with the right sources: He says
Unfortunately, he [LaHaye]is apparently ignorant of the works of Catholic apologetics and historical scholarship that soundly refutes the claims of Hislop and others like him. (p. 62-3)

Olson then singles out a recent book by Evangelical scholar Ralph Woodward who at first, back in 1966, embraced Hislop’s view but later on, after further study in 1988 admitted:

"... it became clear – Hislop’s `history’ was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities – why anything could be `proved’; ... Woodrow then wrote The Babylon Connection? and admitted the errors of his first book. For a Catholic critique of both Hislop and Woodrow, see Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism ..." ( p. 63 n)

Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:54:43 PM
And so I have consulted Keating’s 1988 book but find only essentially the same refutations as those in Woodrow, namely, that similarities do not prove descent. This is certainly true and could be brought, also, against the devolution of the myths from the Primordial Revelation except for one all-important point. Hislop was reasoning from an unproven assumption – that Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity, just as Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) attempted to prove evolution from the superficial similarities of the early embryos of different species, including man, reasoning from his assumed premise that all species evolved from a common ancestor. (His “homology” has, incidentally, been totally discredited, since the similarities were shown to grow into and to be designed for very different functions in each species.)

But in our thesis that the myths are degradations of a Primordial Revelation we reason from an infallible Tradition based ultimately in Scripture and more proximately in Theology. This thesis is the only refutation of Hislop’s calumnies that can stand the test of both reason and Faith. But it is a doctrine of which neither Evangelical Woodrow nor Catholics Keating and Olson seem to be aware.
Olson quotes LaHaye in other contexts that bring out some interesting and relevant points:

"In Revelation Unveiled LaHaye dedicates a chapter to the “Babylonian idolatrous religion” – the Catholic faith. He also makes the unsubstantiated charge that “nearly every distinctively Catholic doctrine or practice is based on the pagan activities of Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists, Mohammedans, and primitive religionists”. In fact, LaHaye claims, “In India we find that Hinduism is so parallel to the practices of Romanism that many of the Hindus can become Roman Catholics and need not give up Hinduism.” The Catholic Church is “not the only form of Babylonian Religion, but merely the one that has infiltrated Christianity”. Catholicism, LaHaye insists, is at the heart of the “plan of the Devil” – ecuмenical unity and “a one-world religious system.” (p. 64)

As noted before, Hinduism and particularly Tibetan monasticism, came under the influence of Catholic missionaries in the 13th and 14th centuries. The more passive temperament of Eastern peoples, as opposed to the activism of the West, made the adoption of contemplative orders both easy and appealing.

But LaHaye’s accusation of the Catholic Church’s primary role in contemporary ecuмenism is another subject and relates directly to the Great Apostasy of 2 Thessalonians, an apostasy that can only take place from the one true Church that Christ founded as His Own Mystical Body – which salient point completely destroys LaHaye’s position, since he fails to see the Catholic Church as the only one that Christ ever founded; and He founded it upon Peter.
Olson continues:

"Not surprisingly, LaHaye has never retreated from these sorts of erroneous statements. This makes the success of the Left Behind books all the more bothersome, especially considering how popular they appear to be among so many Catholics. LaHaye and Jenkins’ apocalyptic potboilers have been written for one main purpose, and it has nothing to do with leaving a literary heritage; it is to spread and encourage LaHaye’s Fundamentalist, dispensationalist, anti-Catholic beliefs. The novels are simply fictionalized narratives based on his previous works of “Bible prophecy’; they are also largely dependent on the works and ideas of other dispensationalists, especially Hal Lindsey. As one Evangelical critic flatly states: “Left Behind is a rehash of Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth.” (pp. 64-65)
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:55:56 PM
What a pity that Olson could not have enlightened his readers about the true origins of myth and thereby revealed the true origins of LaHaye’s maliciously distorted vision.. For an appreciation of the real origin of all the mythologies as corruptions of an original, Primordial Revelation, would surely have made clear not only the errors of LaHaye about the Rapture and the End Times generally (especially the part played by the Jews), but also the source of so much anti-Catholicism amongst the Protestants.

It all comes down to the fact that only the Catholic Church has preserved and taught the Truths of Faith and of reason in their purity as well as in their fullness.

Outside of Christ’s Mystical Body reflected in the absolute Purity of the Immaculate Ever­ Virgin Mary, there is only error; and what little particles of truth there may be, these are contaminated by the surrounding paganism - just as in Old Testament times when wicked men under the inspiration of Satan and his agents, corrupted and distorted the Original Revelation to their own human and hellish purposes.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:57:15 PM

OUT OF CHAOS – ILUVATAR!
The “chaos” referred to here is that welter of fantasy and science fiction that appeared mainly in pulp magazines from the 1890’s through the 1930’s when Lewis and Tolkien first began inventing their neo-pagan stories of Narnia and Middle Earth.

There is high-brow fantasy and low-brow fantasy. The high-brow line grows directly out of the Victorian Fairy Tale: Ruskin’s King of the Golden River, Oscar Wilde’s The Happy Prince and Other Stories most notably, The Selfish Giant; and George MacDonald’s many novels and stories, beginning with At the Back of the North Wind.

The low-brow line cannot be discounted because its themes of lost worlds, adventures on other planets and jungle heroics appear in even the high-brow stories of Lewis and Tolkien. These spring mainly from Kipling’s Mowgli, raised by wolves as told in the Jungle Books (1894-5) and E.R. Burroughs’ Tarzan of the Apes (1912). Unlike Mowgli, Tarzan went on to fantastic adventures on Mars and Venus and into the core of the Earth.

The two World Wars interrupted this deluge of fantasy and science fiction and reduced it to a trickle, but in the 1960’s, there was a great revival of these genres that continues to this day. It is worth noting, by way of parenthesis – though more important – that the lid seemed to fly off of everything in the 1960’s. There was the so-called “sɛҳuąƖ revolution”, there was the hippie revolution with its amoral “flower children” and there was Vatican Council II. If it is true that “As the Church goes, so goes the world,” then there is a direct cause and effect relationship between this explosion of decadence in the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council.

The Harry Potter books and movies represent an emphasis on magic and wizardry, the “good” demonology corresponding to the “good” witches of Oz, whereas Tolkien’s emphasis is on the human condition and predicament. Narnia blends the old world myths with chivalry and moral “lessons for children” harking back to the Victorian emphasis.

But it is hardly possible to describe any modem fantasy as being “for children” mainly because most children today have lost their innocence in front of the TV and at school and most adults seem never to have matured at all, much less attained the wisdom of age.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 04:58:51 PM
Greek and Roman mythology invaded Christendom in the Renaissance, and by the time Thomas Bulfinch wrote his Age of Fable (1855-63), this mythology with some influences from the East, had become an established part of literary life. But it is fair to say that with the rise of the fantasy and science fiction genres just described, culminating with the great literary achievements of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, mythology as such has become a part of life itself! In fact, whereas in ancient times, mythology was an expression of Religion, today Religion is reduced to mythology. A new kind of mythology has become part of the modern world-view and is, in fact, the religion of a humanistic neo-paganism.

The same thing has happened to us in the 20th and 21st centuries that happened to the Cainites before the Flood and to the sons of Noe after the Flood, especially to Ham and Japheth, whose sons migrated North and South after the dispersion from Babel not more than 4 to 6 thousand years ago.

Such massive defections and reconstructions of a new religion do not happen quickly, certainly not over night and hardly over a century, as we know from our own most recent history. The Holy Ghost fortifies a conservative element that resists the degrading changes and even to the end, a “remnant” will remain.

But it may be instructive for that very remnant to consider this neo­paganism that confronts us and indeed, more and more forms the concrete matrix and spiritual ambience in which we are forced to live.

The Lord of the Rings with The Hobbit is hailed even by Traditionalists as “the magnificent achievement of the great Catholic writer J.R.R. Tolkien ... the best feature about his writing is the strong Catholic sensibility that informs this long story from beginning to end...” (Catholic Treasures ad)

Others have been more or less explicit about the Catholicity of Tolkien’s literary work, but I will focus on “the strong Catholic sensibility that informs” the work because it probably comes closest to describing what most Catholic readers experience. And I have found in Richard Purtill’s book, J.R.R. Tolkien: Myth. Morality and Religion (1984, republished by Ignatius Press in 2003) the kind of detailed analysis that I believe reveals very well what so many perceive as a “Catholic sensibility”.

First of all, without going into Purtill’s many distinctions of myth and belief, primary, secondary and intermediate which I find confusing, I will say I agree that Tolkien’s work is literary myth though I believe it bodes well to becoming primary or original myth because of its similarities to what most Catholics today perceive as “creationism”. Its differences are what might enable it to become an original myth in its own right, magicians and hobbits notwithstanding, given the present propensity of Catholics to absorb neo-pagan and neo-gnostic influences.

In his chapter “Tolkien’s Creation Myth” Purtill describes the several ways in which Tolkien departs from traditional Catholic doctrine concerning the Creation. But above all, my Catholic sensibility is alerted by the very phrase “Creation Myth” which immediately connects Tolkien’s story with the creation myths of the most ancient peoples, in other words, with the primary, original myths that descended with distortion from the Primordial Revelation given to Adam and put into permanent form by Moses in the book of Genesis.
In other words, this chapter heading would seem to indicate an alternative to the Mosaic account, but it could also be seen as a degradation, which will be discussed later.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:00:34 PM
The first deviation from Catholic theology and one Purtill says is “an element original to Tolkien” (as if that were something to be praised!) is that the angels, or Ainur, created before the material universe, are invited by Iluvatar to finish the work of adorning which Moses describes as the Work of the Third through the Sixth Days of Creation week. (There is no hint of the Six Days in Tolkien’s creation myth.)

In fact, Catholic theology insists that the Works of the Six Days are Works that only God could perform because, while the plants, animals, and even man himself, were made of the already created materials or matter, their absolute originality and sudden appearance in mature age at God’s Word, and with man at God’s Hand, render these Works uniquely of the Order of Creation, established forever, as opposed to the Order of Generation which latter begins only with the appearance of the originals and is subject to change within certain limits.

After this first departure from Tradition, Purtill goes on to describe the second:

"The work of the angelic Ainur as “sub-creators’’ of the world was already a major departure from traditional ʝʊdɛօ-Christian theology; now we get a further departure. The Ainur themselves take on material form, modeled on the form of the to-be-created Elves and Men that they have seen in the Great Music." (p. 1214)

Purtill, referring to Genesis 6:4 says:

"A passage in the Old Testament that says that the “sons of God had relations with the daughters of men who bore children to them (Genesis 6:4) has been interpreted in some para-scriptural legends as meaning that angelic beings took human form and had intercourse with human women. Tolkien mentions one case of this kind, but with the sexes reversed. Melian is one of the Maiar, lesser Ainur who took physical form to help and serve the Valar. She falls in love with and marries Elwe, one of the Elves, and their descendants are some of the wisest and fairest and most powerful of the Elves." (p. 124)
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:03:58 PM
In the Catholic Tradition, some of the early Fathers believed that the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:4 referred to fallen angels who had intercourse with the daughters of the Cainites who bore giants. But the view of St. Augustine prevailed. In The City of God, Book 15, chapter 23, after a lengthy analysis, as was his wont, the Saint concludes that the “Sons of God’ were the sons of Seth who “sunk into this community’ of men, namely the apostate Cainites, “when they forsook righteousness.” In Biblical history, it is akin to Solomon, who married women who fell into idolatry and caused him to do the same, at least materially, as he built idolatrous temples to please the women he loved.

But Tolkien’s mythology, while there may be superficial resemblances, is very far, indeed, from the Catholic view of mankind’s history. How is it that Tolkien’s mythology still manifests “a strong Catholic sensibility”? I think it lies mainly in the characterizations of the Hobbits, especially Frodo and Sam. But more of that later.

I will take this opportunity to voice my strongest objection possible to the comparison of Manwe’s consort, Varda, and also the comparison of Galadriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Tolkien is quoted as saying, in a letter:

"I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians) ... " (p. 116)

And of Varda or Elbereth, Purtill says:

"After creating a rather elaborate pantheon of “gods’’, Token in one sense did nothing with it: the Valar play almost no part in the stories in the later parts of The Silmarillion; much less do they play a part in The Lord of the Rings. Occasionally the names of some of the Valar are mentioned, especially that of Varda or Elbereth, one of the Valor who takes a female foil and who is spoken of in teems that are reminiscent of traditional Catholic language about the Virgin Mary.
I looked up Varda or Elbereth in The Silmarillion and she is indeed described in terms reminiscent of Catholic language about the Virgin Mary. But remember that Varda is the consort of the valar, or angel Manwe. 

"Tolkien writes:

"The Great among these spirits the Elves name the Valar, the Powers of Arda [Earth] and Men have often called them gods.
Tolkien is writing mythology in reverse. The Greeks named the powers of Earth gods and Tolkien now is taking the part of the Greeks and pointing out that Men called these superior beings gods. 

"And so, the Lords of the Valar are seven; and the Valier, the Queens of the Valar, are seven also. These were their names in the Elvish tongue as it was spoken in Valinor, though they have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold The names of the Lords in due order are: Manwe, Ulmo, Aule, Orome, .... and the names of the Queens are: Varda, Yavanna, Nienna, ...

"...Manwe is dearest to IIuvatar and understands most clearly his purposes. He was appointed to be, in the fullness of time, the first of all Kings: lord of the realm of Atria and ruler of all that dwell therein. In Arda his delight is in the winds and the clouds, and in all the regions of the air, from the heights to the depths...."
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:06:31 PM
This is very reminiscent of Gnostic theogonies where the Demiurge, the Christ-figure, is reduced to a later emanation of the Pleroma, or Plenum. But:

"...with Manwe dwells Varda, Lady of the Stars, who knows all the regions of Ea Too great is her beauty to be declared in the words of Men or of Elves; for the light of Iluvatar lives still in her face. In light is her power and her joy. Out of the deeps of Fa she came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her, and feared her more than all others whom Em made. Manwe and Varda are seldom parted, and they remain in Valinor. ... Of all the Great Ones who dwell in this world the Elves hold Varda most in reverence and love. Elbereth they name her, and they call upon her name out of the shadows of Middle-earth, and uplift it in song at the rising of the stars."

Manwe corresponds in Greek mythology to Uranus who is wedded to Gaia, or Earth, as the Sky spreads over earth. It would seem that Tolkien, perhaps even unwittingly, is writing a kinds of reverse myth, perhaps trying to lift up the ancient gods and goddesses to the level of Divine Revelation? In any case, my Catholic sensibilities are deeply offended by this placing of a figure so obviously intended to resemble the Ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, in a context so inappropriate to say the least Manwe, as God of the Air, in no way resembles the blessed Trinity, much less the Second Person. 

Now we know that Mary, beloved by God from all Eternity and an essential part of His Plan for Creation, is the Daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost. She is the nearest any creature could come to an incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

In the context of the Fall, She is the Second Eve, repairing by Her obedience the disobedience of Eve. But more than this, just as human nature is incomplete with only one sex, so the Incarnation and Redemption could not be fully realized without Mary as Co-Redemptrix.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:10:04 PM
Now Tolkien’s mythology is totally lacking in anything resembling the Incarnation, in the order of which Mary is a necessary person. And so, there is simply no place in Token’s pantheon or mythology for such a personage as the blessed Virgin Mary, and for this reason, his use of temps that call to mind traditional descriptions of Mary, as Queen of the Angels and Star of the Sea, become extremely offensive, and actually contaminated by the surrounding mythology of pagan beings.

The same must be said of any attempt to find an analogy between Frodo and Christ. It is simply ridiculous – unless the sense of the reader is totally lacking in a real appreciation of Who Christ is and what He did while on Earth. The same is true of any analogy between the female characters and Mary in Tolkien. The reader must be lacking in the supernatural sense of Who Mary really is in the plan of God for Creation. And this true sense of the supernatural is exactly and precisely what I fear is lacking in those Catholics who praise Token’s work as Catholic. Great literature it may be, but Catholic it is not!

One could say that C.S. Lewis’s Aslan is more of a Christ-figure than any character in Tolkien. Creaky as he is, Aslan is still a faint symbol of the Great Lion of Judah Frodo, on the other hand, is a typical Gnostic hero, a child of the Defect, wounded, vulnerable, and at the end, a failure. Even Harry Potter, the Ovaltine-needing boy, comes off as more of a real hero than Frodo. But that is part of the humanistic aspect of Tolkien’s characters which Purtill brings out in his analysis.

Actually, the ancient myths more accurately reflect the truth about God’s power than any of Tolkien’s primal beings. The ancient gods and goddesses are both powerful and ferocious, reflecting, perhaps, the barbaric societies over which they reigned more than the true nature of God and the lower deities they worshipped. For example, the female Tiamat of the Babylonian Genesis is frightful both in her power and her passion, and the Greek Gaia, or Earth, is cosmically fertile. 


There is neither this kind of power nor anything approaching its expression in Tolkien’s gods and goddesses. Elbereth or Varda is but the queen Consort of the sky God, Manwe. Lovely, but that’s about all. Melkor seems the only god in Tolkien who exerts real power and he is really more of an evil brooding presence than a god of terrible action. I believe all this reflects the humanitarian aspect of Tolkien’s mythology - a very striking difference from the primitive myths of old.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:15:56 PM
This next part is complex but crucial, for it shows how Tolkien’s epic implies many long ages of death and destruction before the creation of and Fall of man. There is no place in Token’s story for an original Adam and Eve and their personal sin as the unique cause of sickness, death and all the other consequences of Original Sin in us, as Catholic doctrine teaches.

Purtill says:

"The “Ainulindale” ends with the embodiment of the Valar and the beginning of conflicts between Melkor and the Valar over the control of Arda, the world; as the Valar form the work, he tries to destroy or distort these forms. Because of Melkor’s interference, the Valar are notableto completely carry out either Iluvatar’s original design for the world or their own permitted variations of that design. This is the third major departure from traditional ʝʊdɛօ-Christian theology: The idea that the actual physical form of the universe has been interfered with and spoiled by the Enemy of God, before the Fall of Man." (p. 127) (Emphasis added)

That much is clear, as Purtill puts it. But then he adds a long quotation from a 1958 letter of Tolkien in which Tolkien tries to explain his “theology” and succeeds mainly, in my opinion, in making matters worse. But here is the text of the letter and Purtill’s attempt at clarification:

"I suppose a difference between the myth and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequent (though not a necessary) consequence of the “Fall of the Angels”: a rebellion of created free-will at a higher level than Man; but it is not clearly held (and in many versions is not held at all) that this affected the “World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from the outside by Satan."

Thus far it is reasonably clear in presenting the traditional view. But from here on it becomes confused:

"In this Myth [meaning his own] the rebellion of created free-will [???]  creation of the world Ea and Ea has in it, subcreatively introduced evil, rebellions, discordant elements in its own nature already when the Let it be was spoken."
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:21:14 PM
Now this is serious error because it is saying that the world, as God created it, has evil in it or is evil “in its own nature” whereas Divine Revelation assures us, in Genesis One, that God saw all that He had created and pronounced it good and even very good. He continues:

"The fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it was a possibility if not inevitable."

This is where Tolkien deliberately, in order to justify his own view, simply skips over the entire Event of the Temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve by Satan in the form of the Serpent. Apparently, to him, this is but another Mythology - the “Christian Mythology” and up for grabs when it comes to improvement by “sub-creation’ of angels or humans. He continues:

"Trees may “go bad’ in the Old Forest: Elves may turn to Orcs, and if this required the special pervasive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the “good” Valar as inhabiting this world could at least err, as the Great Valar did in their dealings with the elves; or as the lesser of their kind (as the Istari or wizards) could in various ways become self-seeking."

This is the end of Tolkien’s letter of 1958, and it is clear to me that even while writing the books in the 1930’s, he was seriously influenced by the Modernist views then in circulation concerning the authenticity of the Pentateuch. Before that time, it was established doctrine that the Angels fell before the creation of man, that both the good and the bad angels were confirmed forever in their choice, the good in Grace and the bad in evil; and that Satan entered into the Garden of Eden in order to cause the downfall of the human race in Adam. And it was most certainly established doctrine that it was only the Fall of Adam that brought “sickness and death” into the world, a world which God had created good and certainly in its very nature good. But Purtill tries to justify Tolkien’s view in this way:

"Now of course, what theological status you believe the fall of the angels has depends a good deal on the religious denomination you belong to and whether you are a traditionalist or a “liberal” in theology. As a traditional Catholic, Tolkien would have accepted the traditional Catholic view."

This demands interruption for it has just been shown, both by Tolkien’s own words and this writer’s statements of the traditional view, that Tolkien was most certainly of the “liberal” persuasion when it came to Scripture. He may have been “traditional” in matters liturgical – as are so many Catholics today who haven’t a clue about the theology of creation and still call themselves traditionalist. Purtill continues:

"But much of this view is theological speculation on the basis of hints in Scripture; very little of it is defined as part of Catholic doctrine or required to be believed by Catholics as part of their faith."
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:24:14 PM
This is the usual ploy of the Modernist – to separate defined, ex cathedra pronouncements from the constancy and consistency of dogmatic Tradition based mainly on the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors. But now comes a crucial aspect of this whole question, even aside from the dogmatic points of angelic nature. It is the question of time:

"The Fourth Council of the Lateran, for example, declared that “the Devil and the other demons were created good in nature by God, but by their own act they became evil.” However, nothing is defined about the time of this occurrence: theological speculation has tended to assume that all the angels fell at the same time, but there is no strong reason to suppose that this is correct."

For Purtill, then, the consensus of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church with a strong Tradition behind it does not provide any kind of “strong reason” to suppose that the correct view is the traditional one – which view, incidentally, is based on the angelic nature itself and the fact that they do not exist in time as we know it but in a state called aevitemity; that the nature of the angelic creature made it impossible for the angel to reason discursively over a decision to be made. Rather, the angelic intellect arrives immediately and irreformably at its decision – for all eternity. Therefore, that the Lateran Council did not define anything about the time of the angels’ fall is irrelevant, given the angelic nature and state. But Purtill ends with this attempt to gloss over and blur these essential distinctions:

"The key point in Tolkien’s “myth’, however, is that the fall of the angels had an actual physical effect on the world, that some of the harsher and uglier aspects of the material universe may not have been in God’s original design. ... " (p. 128-12).

Again, this “explanation” only highlights the fact that Tolkien’s mythology knows nothing of an original personal sin against a good God on the part of our First Parents; knows nothing of the promised Redemption in the Incarnation of the Second Person of the blessed Trinity; and knows nothing of the great Proto-Evangel of Genesis 3:15 which set the eternal enmities between the Seed of the Woman, Mary, and the Seed of the Serpent, Lucifer. And lacking all this, I continually fail to see how Tolkien’s work can be praised as Catholic!
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:26:38 PM
Another aspect of Tolkien’s long ages before the creation and fall of man is that it allows for the long geological ages of the evolutionary world view. And his division of all time into three ages, at least those alone are named, also allows for an indeterminate amount of time for any evolutionary processes one may wish to accommodate. This is why Joseph Pearce, in his book on Tolkien: Man and Myth (Ignatius Press, 1998) can say that the epic “accommodates the theory of evolution” and not only that but “he manages to accommodate paganism as well as evolution within his mythology, making both subsist within Christian orthodoxy.” (pp. 90-91)

That, one must admit, is the achievement of today’s liberal Catholic or what is better termed today’s Neo-Catholic, ready and willing to accommodate any and all error in order that it may “subsist” within a brand new “Christian orthodoxy.”

Purtill goes on to defend Tolkien’s myth:

"A private mythology may seem an eccentric kind of literary creation, but I can see no reason to rule it out as illegitimate. There seems no reason why those who enjoy myth as Tolkien did cannot create their own myths for enjoyment. That this was Tolkien’s own view of what he was doing we have evidence in some of his letters..." (p. 133)

This cannot be disputed as the history of literature proves. Many kinds of fiction have been produced “for enjoyment” with little or no regard for the truth of a higher and total verisimilitude. Put Tolkien in this category and praise his literary talent as much as you please. But don’t call any of his stories Catholic, for plainly, they are not.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:29:03 PM
The best aspect of Purtill’s study, in my opinion, is his analysis of the characters revealing their essentially humanistic nature with emphasis upon their vulnerability. They have no need of Divine Grace; they exist in a pre-Christian or sub­Christian world that seems to anticipate, unaccountably, those virtues that Neo­Catholics most value: human love and self-sacrifice for human motives. Even Purtill admits this when he says:

"... we do find a gap in the logic of Tolken’s story. He comes close to implying that a good society (the Shire, Numenor before its fall) can exist without reference to God ..."

He goes on to protest that Tolkien never meant such a world. However, one seeks in vain for evidence of a personal God, especially for the Incarnate God Jesus Christ, in all the adventures and perils of the Hobbits and their fellows. Devoted critics claim He is there but they cannot quote a passage. They find Him there because they want to find Him there so they can claim Tolkien as a Catholic writer - the greatest of the 20th century, according to many. But these are false pretenses.

Just as in the ancient myths, the emphasis is upon the choices the heroes make. One thinks of Oedipus trying to evade the oracle by his deliberate choices and of the fateful choice of Paris for Aphrodite and Helen of Troy. Here the emphasis is upon a fate dominating human choices. In contrast, Tolkien seems almost obsessed with the free-will of his heroes. But also, with showing how their free-will is constrained and circuмscribed by the situations in which they find themselves. Is this Tolkien’s analogue of the pagan goddess of Necessity or Fate? In a letter Tolkien explains:

"Frodo indeed "failed" as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end: he gave in, ratted. I do not say “simple minds” with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it. is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity o f any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget ... Pity or Mercy, which is an absolute requirement in moral judgment... we must estimate the limits of another’s strength and weigh this against the force of particular circuмstances. I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. at the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach a maximum -- impossible ... for anyone to resist ... Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely." (p. 81)

This sounds a lot like the excuses for mortal sin that the situational ethic moralists or ethicists give in explanation for moral failures.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:31:04 PM
Tolkien says he does not think Frodo’s was a moral failure. Because he gave in on account of an unconquerable weakness, his failure somehow escapes the order of morality? Well, I leave it to the moral theologians. In any case, Frodo’s failure is “beyond heroism” and this is somehow in his favor.

Purtill explains it this way:

"Frodo, of course, does not die. More surprisingly, he does not persevere to the end: at the last moment his will fails, and he is saved only by a seeming accident from undoing all the good of his mission. This is so important a point that we will have to discuss it at length in the next chapter. But to sum up the discussion of “Hobbits and Heroism”: both Bilbo and Frodo are examples of ordinary persons rising to heroism when it is demanded of them. The original motives of their heroism are loyalty and love of friends. Their realization of their own limitations, their common sense and humility, keep them from the rashness that is the excess of the virtue of courage, the megalomania that is the downfall of some more conventionally heroic figures such as Boromir. Their courage is moral as well as physical: Bilbo is willing to bear the reproaches of his friends to try for a just peace. Frodo rejects the seemingly good advice of Sam and others and forgives and trusts Gollum. And in the last analysis, their self-sacrificing love rises to such heights as to be comparable to the greatest love the world has known." (p. 77)
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:34:27 PM
Tolkien has created a world without Jesus Christ, without His Most Holy Mother Mary, without the Martyrs and Saints who found the sole source of their courage and self-sacrifice in the Grace and example of Jesus and Mary; a world without the Church Christ founded and instituted as the necessary dispenser of His grace through Her Sacraments and other disciplinary practices. And yet – wondrous to relate – Tolkien’s Hobbit heroes manifest all the failings and heroisms of the Church’s saints -- and most especially those with the ideals of the Neo-Catholic human love and human sacrifice for human ends. The entire Order of the Supernatural, so necessary not only for sanctification but for salvation – is obliterated. I am reminded of a novel by Morris West entitled The Devil’s Advocate in which a man is canonized mainly because he failed to conquer the vice of lust. He was weak, like Frodo, and it is this very weakness that the Neo-Catholic loves to focus on and praise. Strange perversity! I am also reminded of those novels of the passionate Bronte’s, especially Wuthering Heights, wherein the very human passion of Heathcliff and Catherine is presented as somehow heroic, even “beyond heroism” in its intensity whereas in reality, it is a most abominable and defiant violation of the First Commandment. But then, it is worth noting in contrast that Tolkien’s characters know nothing of the Ten Commandments; Bronte’s characters did! And then again, Iluvatar never became a Hobbit or a Man or even an Elf to dwell amongst them. Therefore, the humanity or Hobbitness is all these characters know. Whence, then, comes their moral sense?

Well, at least one critic has found the answer. Philip Norman writing in The New York Times Magazine back in 1967, had this:

"“Hobbits,” Tolkien says, “have what you might call universal morals. I should say they are examples of natural philosophy and natural religion.” They are certainly capable of extraordinary bravery and humaneness: living in burrows, their creator declares, doesn’t amount to anything like an animal link."
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:36:02 PM
So there we have it from Tolkien himself, quoted in A Reader’s Companion to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (Quality Paperback Book Club, 1995, p. 91). This little book, by the way, is a good antidote to most of the Tolkien-mania spewing forth from Catholics of all stripes.

And so, let us be honest about the virtues of the Hobbits and the Elves and the Men of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth. This world is pre-Christian or asub-Christian and the state of its characters is one of a kind of parasitic naturalism, parasitic because it does draw, surreptitiously, upon the world of Christianity. This is to s ay, also, that because the Hobbits and their world are presented to a Christian and/or post-Christian world and audience, therefore heretical ideas are part and parcel of the story. There is the heresy of pre­Adamite men or rational creatures, the heresy of death and sickness and war and all other evils before the Fall of our First Parents, and there are the heresies mentioned earlier about the nature of the created world and that of the angelic beings.

Having said all that, it must be admitted that Tolkien was a literary and linguistic genius of the highest kind. It is admitted, also, that he was a practicing and apparently very devout Catholic of the mid-20th century. It is natural, therefore, I suppose, for Catholics today, so deprived of popular heroes, to bend over backwards in order to claim him as their own. [Simeon's emphasis]
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Simeon on December 08, 2023, 05:38:36 PM

CONCLUSION
We have shown the relation of the original ancient myths to the Primordial Revelation given to Adam. These ancient myths were degradations and corruptions, some brought about naturally and others deliberately, of the Original but still preserving vestiges of that Original. Catholic scholars have identified these vestiges as proofs of their true nature and that of their Source.

Since Tolkien himself describes and defends all of his stories as subcreative myths, we are not only permitted but even required to ask: what is the relation of these epic narratives of Middle-Earth to the one and only Divine Revelation guarded and taught by the Catholic Church?

I see Tolkien’s stories as an alternate, even a competition and an attempt at an improvement upon what he himself refers to as “Christian mythology”.

In the view of the Fathers of the Church, Lucifer-Satan played a large part in the elaboration of the ancient myths, aiding in their distortion of the Original Revelation. These distortions in ancient times took the forms mainly of horrific physical violence and the grossest sɛҳuąƖ passion. One has only to think of Marduk who splits open the female god Tiamat’ “like a mussel”, to form the Sky above and the Earth beneath – after previous similarly violent wars between lesser gods. Or one recalls the pervasive carnality of the Greek gods, the ever-jealous wives of the ever-lusting male gods for female goddesses and human women.

Now we recognize that there is nothing like this in Tolkien’s epic or in any of his stories. Iluvatar creates “the offspring of his thought”, the Ainur, and he speaks to them, causing them to sing. As for the creation of Elves and Men and Dwarves, this seems almost to be beneath him, and he leaves much of the material creation to his Ainur. There is no manifestly sɛҳuąƖ passion amongst these angel-gods. Each male god simply “dwells” with his female Queen. And so it is throughout the entire epic. There are battles and constant treks and adventurous journeys, but these are all almost identical with similar battles and treks in Beowulf, other Celtic and Norse saga and the Arthurian cycle. There is nothing like the dis-membering of gods and goddesses in the Babylonian Genesis and other ancient myths. Tolkien’s myth is really quite conventional epic and romance when it comes to love and battles. The creation myth, and the elaborate geography of another world called Middle-Earth replete with Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and other fantastic creatures as well as Hobbits - these are the elements added to the epic and romance genres of conventional literature.

But Lucifer is adept at all methods of contaminating, corrupting and counterfeiting the Truth, both as the Person of Our Lord and as His doctrine. In ancient times Lucifer used open and violent brutality and lust. Today he must be more subtle because, for all its real violence and lust, our society proclaims itself as opposed to these evils and holds itself up as a model of the humane and humanitarian rather than as Christian or religious.

The Grandest myth of them all, that of Evolution from cosmic Big-Bang evolution to molecules-to-Man evolution, focuses on our human rights and dignity as both discoverers and inventors of this Grand Story of Everything. This is Lucifer’s Masterpiece, his cosmic Counterfeit.

As Joseph Pearce insisted, Tolkien’s mythology fits right into this larger Mythology of evolutionary paganism. It subsists comfortably in this modern world view. If it did not, you may be sure it would have been rejected by such culture-makers as The Science Fiction Book Club, the Franklin Mint, and others; nor would it ever have made it to the Movies. Tolkien’s mythology is, by popular democratic consensus, part and parcel of the Modernist evolutionary world view.
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Persto on December 08, 2023, 06:26:30 PM
Thank you, Good essay! 
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Persto on December 08, 2023, 06:29:47 PM
Tolkien has created a world without Jesus Christ, without His Most Holy Mother Mary, without the Martyrs and Saints who found the sole source of their courage and self-sacrifice in the Grace and example of Jesus and Mary; a world without the Church Christ founded and instituted as the necessary dispenser of His grace through Her Sacraments and other disciplinary practices. And yet – wondrous to relate – Tolkien’s Hobbit heroes manifest all the failings and heroisms of the Church’s saints -- and most especially those with the ideals of the Neo-Catholic human love and human sacrifice for human ends. The entire Order of the Supernatural, so necessary not only for sanctification but for salvation – is obliterated. 
Very true
Title: Re: Origin of Myth: Memo To Mithrandylan
Post by: Persto on December 08, 2023, 06:33:54 PM
So there we have it from Tolkien himself, quoted in A Reader’s Companion to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (Quality Paperback This is to s ay, also, that because the Hobbits and their world are presented to a Christian and/or post-Christian world and audience, therefore heretical ideas are part and parcel of the story. There is the heresy of pre­Adamite men or rational creatures, the heresy of death and sickness and war and all other evils before the Fall of our First Parents, and there are the heresies mentioned earlier about the nature of the created world and that of the angelic beings.

Having said all that, it must be admitted that Tolkien was a literary and linguistic genius of the highest kind. It is admitted, also, that he was a practicing and apparently very devout Catholic of the mid-20th century. It is natural, therefore, I suppose, for Catholics today, so deprived of popular heroes, to bend over backwards in order to claim him as their own. [Simeon's emphasis]
So true, that we search for good content, and sometimes don't detect the errors within.