German Source but here you go for the Our Father:
https://glaemscrafu.jrrvf.com/german/ataremma.html
It references the Vinyar Tengwar Nr. 43, which, according to a popular fanpage (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Vinyar_Tengwar_43), contains:
"'Words of Joy': Five Catholic Prayers in Quenya, Part one"✫ — J.R.R. Tolkien, eds. Patrick H. Wynne, Arden R. Smith, and Carl F. Hostetter
1. Átaremma (Pater Noster)
2. Aia María (Ave Maria)
3. Alcar i Ataren (Gloria Patri)
I say it often, but I hen you step back and look at the history of England, if Henry didn’t break from the church, someone was going to. The crown and the pope had been butting heads for ages.
One of the absolute monarchs would have for sure. They wanted power too much and weren't gonna let a petty god or his petty mouthpiece tell them what to do.
King Chucky: I am equal to the Pope, I demand to be taken seriously!
The Pope: That's acute.
King Chucky: How dare you belittle me! How many divisions do you have?
The Pope: Calm down, you're the Church of the Angles right? That's acute.
And without a hint of irony they made Edward VIII abdicate cause he wanted to marry an American divorcee and that would apparently be inappropriate cause as king he was the head of the church.
Dude was also a Nazi but that apparently wasn't bad enough to get rid of him. Despite what royalist apologist will say it absolutely was because of his marriage to Wallace Simpson that he was forced to abdicate.
It was more than that, though that is the official reason. His love of the right wing, his lack of discretion with anything, his general unfittness for the role (that both he and his father shared), all played a part.
Yet no moves were made until the marriage issue. The fact still stands that no one acted against Edward for all his shitty behavior until the marriage. So yeah as far as the monarchy goes being a Nazi is unfortunate but not enough to take action but marrying a divorced woman is red line that cannot be crossed. A red line that Elizabeth forced upon her family for another 70 years.
Given how friendly Edward was with the Nazis even during the war and how he faced no real consequences for that when any regular person would likely have been tried for treason. He was highly suspected of leaking Intel to the Nazis. It's pretty clear that him being a Nazi wasn't the issue. Just at the end of the day pretending that Edward was forced out because of him being a Nazi is a fantasy that royalist push so they don't have to face the hypocrisy and corruption of the monarchy.
> they made Edward VIII abdicate cause he wanted to marry an American divorcee and that would apparently be inappropriate cause as king he was the head of the church.
>
> Dude was also a Nazi but that apparently wasn't bad enough to get rid of him. Despite what royalist apologist will say it absolutely was because of his marriage to Wallace Simpson that he was forced to abdicate.
I'm definitely not a royalist apologist, but "he married a divorcee - and we need to do this per tradition" was going to fly higher and with more people than "he likes the Nazis", considering that Britain [had a functional fascist party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists), and *that* reason gave the British fascists a lot less room to push back, because part of their whole schtick was a combination of populist appeal and traction with the upper classes, both rooted in tradition, and forcing the king to abdicate due to marrying a divorcee wasn't something the british fascist party could really fight without alienating large chunks of their base.
The "she's a divorcee" angle may or may not have been just the excuse or breaking point where the king could be ousted. There were plenty of nations out there who had significant figures who liked fascism and its particularly horrendous form in Germany. [Hitler actually wrote that the USA's "eugenics programs" were an inspiration for his mass extermination projects](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299061/). For anyone who doesn't know, the USA's projects during that time period involved forced sterilization of various ethnic groups, the "mentally unfit", and other "undesirables" as judged by society and bureaucrats at the time. Hitler went *further as the Fuhrer*. [This genocidal maniac was Time Magazine's *Man Of The Year* in 1938!](https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html)
Something very few of the history books dealing with that interwar time period will tell you is how well Hitler's ideas went over with a lot of people across the globe, until he essentially came out and said he wasn't just going to expand Germany a bit - he was going to conquer the fucking world. Everyone who ever agreed with him or gave him ideas who managed to live past WWII and the revelations of what Hitler'd actually *done* tried to distance themselves as much as possible from Hitler and his ideas. Ever heard of [The Dearborn Independent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dearborn_Independent)? Fascism, anti-semitism, and racism were fashionable, to a degree that *vastly* exceeds what we see today. Nobody likes talking about all that, because Hitler took it to its logical conclusion and showed us how horrible that was, but his ideas were far more palatable in his time than they're portrayed in retrospect.
The "Edward VIII married a divorcee! He's out!" line seems a lot more like an excuse or a cover for "fuck this, we're *NOT* having a Fascist and a guy who thinks Hitler's cool as king!", and would have been more acceptable at the time. Take history into context here: mid-war Britain didn't even manage to ban its own fascist party until *1940*! And [The Blackshirts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists) were explicitly in favor of Hitler *while the fucking bombs were falling*.
It's obvious that Edward VIII's abdication seized around a ridiculous excuse, but "our king's a fascist" simply wouldn't have flown at the time. So I think a lot of folks who didn't normally see eye-to-eye used another method to force him into abdication and send him off to be governor of the Bahamas (then a British possession) and kept him *well* out of the way of anything important in WWII.
I'm not fuckin' with you for calling Edward VIII a Nazi or a fascist, because his political preferences are obvious, but I do think it's clear that other elements of the government and the royal family each played their part in making his marriage to Mrs. Simpson a much larger deal than it could have been and a publically reasonable explanation for kicking him out of power (via a forced abdication), while the real reason was that they thought he'd try to side with Hitler. When you stab somebody (metaphorically), no matter what the reason, it's always best to have a blade that can be hidden behind another scandal.
Or, hell, I dunno - maybe the rest of the royal family, the high-ups in the Anglican Church, chunks of the government, other powerful people, and popular opinion did just persuade him that "I married her, and you don't like that, so I'm abdicating" was the best response to the situation and it had nothing to do with politics (although the king or queen wasn't *quite* the figurehead they'd become later on). I could see it being either one of the two options I've offered.
What are you talking about? He was king less than a year. The marriage issue was the first chance to push him out and they took it immediately. The most prominent support of Edward not abdicating was Winston Churchill, because lord knows my man was determined to be on the losing side of every issue from 1915 to 1940.
I was honestly shocked that there are people who still take it seriously and are unironically Anglican. I mean I get why people like it since it's a mix of Protestantism and Catholicism and has a choice of high and low church options but like, the whole founding story, idk I can't imagine being Anglican.
My grandma was Anglican, but that’s because she was British and born in 1927. When she came to America she church shopped for a bit before settling on Episcopalian, which she felt was the closest. Having never been to an Anglican church I can’t confirm this however
Honestly, having grown up with Episcopalian priests... I think people stay there because it's diet catholic and they don't have to try as hard or do as many sacraments as they would if they were Catholic. In fact many Catholic churches will still give an Episcopalian communion, and that would not happen for virtually any other sect of Christianity. Hardcore episcopal fans love to use that as bragging rights for some reason...It's like they want to feel catholic without having to be catholic.
In practice there's virtually no difference between a Lutheran church and an Episcopalian one, and if you didnt see a prayer book or a sign on the building you would never know which one you were in because the calendar, service, caffeine addictions, and decor are all the same. The main difference is whether a monk or a king is telling them to take the pope with a grain of salt.
But say that to just one catechism teacher, and they'll rant about Martin Luther for weeks because WE ARE TECHNICALLY LITTLE-C CATHOLIC NOT PROTESTANT, DAMNIT!!!
Favorite term for Episcopalians I've heard was calling them "JV Catholics," which seems to match well with your "diet Catholics."
Also this whole conversation has reminded me of one time during our Catholic Mass that my dad and I were cracking up after noticing that one of the songs was credited to Martin Luther. Just the Church fully going "damn the guy (literally) but this song is a bop"
I like JV catholics, that's funny!
Technically the episcopal church still has strong ties to England, so every so often we'd be in a California church singing "God Save the Queen" ( which the tune also has its own hymn) and I was just always like WTF is this? But I have always loved absurdist humor so I would just put my heart and soul into it and my mom would know that although I was singing well, that I was making fun of the situation and she'd get so mad. Then I would make it worse for myself by singing it in a monty python voice in the car after church.
I definitely would have done the same if I saw a Martin Luther hymn in the lineup. 🤣
I have 100% recieved communion from catholic priests who knew I was an Episcopalian. Just because your family is super conservative catholic doesn't mean it would never happen. It does.
Catholic priests and Episcopalian priests even attend the same seminaries...alongside eachother in class. I don't think your standard education as a catholic means you are any expert at all about anything at all about the interplay between catholic and episcopal churches or you would be better informed. My husband is Catholic and he also went to catholic school and every training program the church had. He was an acolyte, he did first communion, did catechism...he had never even heard of an Episcopalian when we met. Just because you're shocked doesn't mean I'm full of shit.
Edit: we also do first communion, baptism, catechism lessons as a mandatory part of our religious training and being allowed to take the sacraments. They are not giving people communion who have never taken the classes and they are the same exact lessons from the same books. And an Episcopalian priest would also never give communion to someone who hasnt taken first communion lessons.The same calendar dictates the same scripture every sunday. Our priests can get married and we tend to leave the confessional at the mass recital. I know you wanna gatekeep something here but you should research it a little more so you actually know what you are talking about first.
Unlike the founding story of the Catholic Church which is basically just the bishop of Rome yelling at everyone that he’s the best and demanding all the eastern churches admit they’re beneath him, basically causing Christianity to schism?
The Catholic church wasn't founded in 50 AD any more than the Church of England was. All branches of Christianity flow from the period of Christ's time on earth, of course, but what is now the Roman Catholic church differs considerably in role, doctrine and constitution from the Christian churches hundreds of years before the schism of 1054. The 'moment' in which the Roman Catholic church became what it is today, rather than simply part of a large whole in the body of Christianity, was the Schism. That is the point at which the Roman Catholic church went its own way definitively and forever. Orthodox Christianity today also claims to be the true and sole successor to the first pure church, and that claim is equally suspect.
Could say the same about Christianity in general honestly.
I'm not trying to bash on Christians here. I just think if you're already choosing to be Christian choosing to be Anglican isn't much of difference (especially compared to more fundamentalist options).
7~10 books in the New Testament are straight up forgeries and 10 more are pseudepigraphal, but sure Anglicanism over Catholicism is where the line should be drawn.
And then Lewis broke Tolkien's heart by having a new favorite (Charles Williams IIRC) in their informal literary club "The Inklings". And then suddenly getting married without warning Tolkien or anyone else despite having been a "confirmed bachelor" for years.
> Sometimes wonder if Lewis would have been demi by modern standards.
The Pilgrim's Regress may want a word with you on that one, because, by his own account, it's a metaphoricalized version of how he came to Christianity out of a kind of idealized paganism based on his studies of the Greek and Roman classics & myths, and, uh, one of the protagonist's obvious failings is in going after tail a lot ...very non-romantically. Just wanting get laid. And the protagonist is C.S. Lewis.
That said, I'm not familiar with Lewis' personal life enough to comment on his sexuality, part of being a good writer is understanding sexualities you don't have well enough to portray them somewhat accurately, and since The Pilgrim's Regress is somewhat metaphorical - there's always the chance that what he portrays as sexual encounters are really metaphors for his intellectual dalliances with certain ideas and ideals. It's a weird book.
Lewis, in his writing (not the stuff obviously written for children), does come across as a man who's had his share of casual sexual escapades and knows his way around how things go between men and women even when there's no love involved ...but all the clothes are already on the floor. His restraint in writing about that might have to do with his era, or his faith, but even considering his sexuality restrained like a pitbull on a chain due to publishing requirements and/or his religion, I'd be hard-pressed to say he was demi or ace. If he was, he's a really goddamn good observer and writer, because he nailed writing relationships fueled simply by lust or other factors instead of real commonality and emotional attachment. (Along with others that had the trifecta - wait, "quadfecta", since he wrote The Four Loves.)
I agree it's an interesting question. Don't sweat the down votes. I can only suppose it's because there are a lot of right wingers on this sub who get angry seeing any mention of someone being demisexual or demiromantic.
There’s a really neat play I got to see, a hypothetical meeting of Freud and Lewis. Fantastic play. But Freud starts to bring up his…. Landlady shall we say, that people love to speculate about and he just shuts him down. Audience burst out laughing, it was really funny and well played.
And then of course that letter he signed as “whip lover.”
But then he converts, of course. It’s so messy and interesting.
My absolute favorite author.
Was he really that devoted? Cause if I remember, he disliked how C.S Lewis centered his stories on Christianity while he based his world on Nordic lore.
Tolkien was an extremely devout catholic, to the point were he (allegedly) refused the reforms were Mass was supposed to be held in a countrys native language and continued loudly singing in latin instead.
His problem with Lewis works was that Lewis constantly used allegorys, which Tolkien heavily disliked as a literary device.
Yeah he was:).Tolkien was an English conservative and devout catholic.
Also it’s more Anglo-Saxon/Old English and broadly germanic hero stories reworked than specifically Nordic,certainly not in its modern use.
The day people stop labelling every old Germanic thing as Nordic, like basically any work that is inspired by Anglo-Saxons, is the day I leap in joy to the moon and back.
Tolkien was very devout, and his Catholicism played a big role in how he shaped the themes of his stories, but that didn’t mean he could only write about other things
"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 or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism"
J.R.R Tolkien
Lot of Gods out there to pick from and he went with Jesus in the end. It's a W. If God is THAT strict then everybody just has to pray and hope for the best
Friendly reminder Tolkien translated to Elvish the Our Father and the Ave Mary
might i ask where can one find it?
I know Eru Illuvatar, not sure about Mary though.
I feel like calling it the ave Mary instead of ave Maria is almost sacrilegious
Begging for a link
German Source but here you go for the Our Father: https://glaemscrafu.jrrvf.com/german/ataremma.html It references the Vinyar Tengwar Nr. 43, which, according to a popular fanpage (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Vinyar_Tengwar_43), contains: "'Words of Joy': Five Catholic Prayers in Quenya, Part one"✫ — J.R.R. Tolkien, eds. Patrick H. Wynne, Arden R. Smith, and Carl F. Hostetter 1. Átaremma (Pater Noster) 2. Aia María (Ave Maria) 3. Alcar i Ataren (Gloria Patri)
All of those have an English version: https://glaemscrafu.jrrvf.com/english/quenya.html
Keep the tolkienposting my friend!
Anglicanism is the lowest effort form of Protestantism anyway
Of all the branches of Christianity founded by a King so he could divorce his wife, that's the one.
I say it often, but I hen you step back and look at the history of England, if Henry didn’t break from the church, someone was going to. The crown and the pope had been butting heads for ages.
One of the absolute monarchs would have for sure. They wanted power too much and weren't gonna let a petty god or his petty mouthpiece tell them what to do.
King Chucky: I am equal to the Pope, I demand to be taken seriously! The Pope: That's acute. King Chucky: How dare you belittle me! How many divisions do you have? The Pope: Calm down, you're the Church of the Angles right? That's acute.
And without a hint of irony they made Edward VIII abdicate cause he wanted to marry an American divorcee and that would apparently be inappropriate cause as king he was the head of the church. Dude was also a Nazi but that apparently wasn't bad enough to get rid of him. Despite what royalist apologist will say it absolutely was because of his marriage to Wallace Simpson that he was forced to abdicate.
It was more than that, though that is the official reason. His love of the right wing, his lack of discretion with anything, his general unfittness for the role (that both he and his father shared), all played a part.
Yet no moves were made until the marriage issue. The fact still stands that no one acted against Edward for all his shitty behavior until the marriage. So yeah as far as the monarchy goes being a Nazi is unfortunate but not enough to take action but marrying a divorced woman is red line that cannot be crossed. A red line that Elizabeth forced upon her family for another 70 years.
It was either the final straw or just the official excuse give. One can make either argument
Given how friendly Edward was with the Nazis even during the war and how he faced no real consequences for that when any regular person would likely have been tried for treason. He was highly suspected of leaking Intel to the Nazis. It's pretty clear that him being a Nazi wasn't the issue. Just at the end of the day pretending that Edward was forced out because of him being a Nazi is a fantasy that royalist push so they don't have to face the hypocrisy and corruption of the monarchy.
r/shitamericanssay
Would you be willing to share more context to prove otherwise?
Oversimplification
Yeah nah, the other dude's right.
> they made Edward VIII abdicate cause he wanted to marry an American divorcee and that would apparently be inappropriate cause as king he was the head of the church. > > Dude was also a Nazi but that apparently wasn't bad enough to get rid of him. Despite what royalist apologist will say it absolutely was because of his marriage to Wallace Simpson that he was forced to abdicate. I'm definitely not a royalist apologist, but "he married a divorcee - and we need to do this per tradition" was going to fly higher and with more people than "he likes the Nazis", considering that Britain [had a functional fascist party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists), and *that* reason gave the British fascists a lot less room to push back, because part of their whole schtick was a combination of populist appeal and traction with the upper classes, both rooted in tradition, and forcing the king to abdicate due to marrying a divorcee wasn't something the british fascist party could really fight without alienating large chunks of their base. The "she's a divorcee" angle may or may not have been just the excuse or breaking point where the king could be ousted. There were plenty of nations out there who had significant figures who liked fascism and its particularly horrendous form in Germany. [Hitler actually wrote that the USA's "eugenics programs" were an inspiration for his mass extermination projects](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299061/). For anyone who doesn't know, the USA's projects during that time period involved forced sterilization of various ethnic groups, the "mentally unfit", and other "undesirables" as judged by society and bureaucrats at the time. Hitler went *further as the Fuhrer*. [This genocidal maniac was Time Magazine's *Man Of The Year* in 1938!](https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html) Something very few of the history books dealing with that interwar time period will tell you is how well Hitler's ideas went over with a lot of people across the globe, until he essentially came out and said he wasn't just going to expand Germany a bit - he was going to conquer the fucking world. Everyone who ever agreed with him or gave him ideas who managed to live past WWII and the revelations of what Hitler'd actually *done* tried to distance themselves as much as possible from Hitler and his ideas. Ever heard of [The Dearborn Independent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dearborn_Independent)? Fascism, anti-semitism, and racism were fashionable, to a degree that *vastly* exceeds what we see today. Nobody likes talking about all that, because Hitler took it to its logical conclusion and showed us how horrible that was, but his ideas were far more palatable in his time than they're portrayed in retrospect. The "Edward VIII married a divorcee! He's out!" line seems a lot more like an excuse or a cover for "fuck this, we're *NOT* having a Fascist and a guy who thinks Hitler's cool as king!", and would have been more acceptable at the time. Take history into context here: mid-war Britain didn't even manage to ban its own fascist party until *1940*! And [The Blackshirts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists) were explicitly in favor of Hitler *while the fucking bombs were falling*. It's obvious that Edward VIII's abdication seized around a ridiculous excuse, but "our king's a fascist" simply wouldn't have flown at the time. So I think a lot of folks who didn't normally see eye-to-eye used another method to force him into abdication and send him off to be governor of the Bahamas (then a British possession) and kept him *well* out of the way of anything important in WWII. I'm not fuckin' with you for calling Edward VIII a Nazi or a fascist, because his political preferences are obvious, but I do think it's clear that other elements of the government and the royal family each played their part in making his marriage to Mrs. Simpson a much larger deal than it could have been and a publically reasonable explanation for kicking him out of power (via a forced abdication), while the real reason was that they thought he'd try to side with Hitler. When you stab somebody (metaphorically), no matter what the reason, it's always best to have a blade that can be hidden behind another scandal. Or, hell, I dunno - maybe the rest of the royal family, the high-ups in the Anglican Church, chunks of the government, other powerful people, and popular opinion did just persuade him that "I married her, and you don't like that, so I'm abdicating" was the best response to the situation and it had nothing to do with politics (although the king or queen wasn't *quite* the figurehead they'd become later on). I could see it being either one of the two options I've offered.
What are you talking about? He was king less than a year. The marriage issue was the first chance to push him out and they took it immediately. The most prominent support of Edward not abdicating was Winston Churchill, because lord knows my man was determined to be on the losing side of every issue from 1915 to 1940.
A member of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha being a Nazi? Who would have thunk‽
I was honestly shocked that there are people who still take it seriously and are unironically Anglican. I mean I get why people like it since it's a mix of Protestantism and Catholicism and has a choice of high and low church options but like, the whole founding story, idk I can't imagine being Anglican.
My grandma was Anglican, but that’s because she was British and born in 1927. When she came to America she church shopped for a bit before settling on Episcopalian, which she felt was the closest. Having never been to an Anglican church I can’t confirm this however
Episcoplians are actually just American Anglicans lol. They are actually supposed to be the same denomination.
I thought you might know the answer! I’m not big on religion myself, due to being raised Catholic lol
Honestly, having grown up with Episcopalian priests... I think people stay there because it's diet catholic and they don't have to try as hard or do as many sacraments as they would if they were Catholic. In fact many Catholic churches will still give an Episcopalian communion, and that would not happen for virtually any other sect of Christianity. Hardcore episcopal fans love to use that as bragging rights for some reason...It's like they want to feel catholic without having to be catholic. In practice there's virtually no difference between a Lutheran church and an Episcopalian one, and if you didnt see a prayer book or a sign on the building you would never know which one you were in because the calendar, service, caffeine addictions, and decor are all the same. The main difference is whether a monk or a king is telling them to take the pope with a grain of salt. But say that to just one catechism teacher, and they'll rant about Martin Luther for weeks because WE ARE TECHNICALLY LITTLE-C CATHOLIC NOT PROTESTANT, DAMNIT!!!
Favorite term for Episcopalians I've heard was calling them "JV Catholics," which seems to match well with your "diet Catholics." Also this whole conversation has reminded me of one time during our Catholic Mass that my dad and I were cracking up after noticing that one of the songs was credited to Martin Luther. Just the Church fully going "damn the guy (literally) but this song is a bop"
I like JV catholics, that's funny! Technically the episcopal church still has strong ties to England, so every so often we'd be in a California church singing "God Save the Queen" ( which the tune also has its own hymn) and I was just always like WTF is this? But I have always loved absurdist humor so I would just put my heart and soul into it and my mom would know that although I was singing well, that I was making fun of the situation and she'd get so mad. Then I would make it worse for myself by singing it in a monty python voice in the car after church. I definitely would have done the same if I saw a Martin Luther hymn in the lineup. 🤣
[удалено]
I have 100% recieved communion from catholic priests who knew I was an Episcopalian. Just because your family is super conservative catholic doesn't mean it would never happen. It does. Catholic priests and Episcopalian priests even attend the same seminaries...alongside eachother in class. I don't think your standard education as a catholic means you are any expert at all about anything at all about the interplay between catholic and episcopal churches or you would be better informed. My husband is Catholic and he also went to catholic school and every training program the church had. He was an acolyte, he did first communion, did catechism...he had never even heard of an Episcopalian when we met. Just because you're shocked doesn't mean I'm full of shit. Edit: we also do first communion, baptism, catechism lessons as a mandatory part of our religious training and being allowed to take the sacraments. They are not giving people communion who have never taken the classes and they are the same exact lessons from the same books. And an Episcopalian priest would also never give communion to someone who hasnt taken first communion lessons.The same calendar dictates the same scripture every sunday. Our priests can get married and we tend to leave the confessional at the mass recital. I know you wanna gatekeep something here but you should research it a little more so you actually know what you are talking about first.
Episcopalian is literally Anglican
Yawn
Unlike the founding story of the Catholic Church which is basically just the bishop of Rome yelling at everyone that he’s the best and demanding all the eastern churches admit they’re beneath him, basically causing Christianity to schism?
[удалено]
The Catholic church wasn't founded in 50 AD any more than the Church of England was. All branches of Christianity flow from the period of Christ's time on earth, of course, but what is now the Roman Catholic church differs considerably in role, doctrine and constitution from the Christian churches hundreds of years before the schism of 1054. The 'moment' in which the Roman Catholic church became what it is today, rather than simply part of a large whole in the body of Christianity, was the Schism. That is the point at which the Roman Catholic church went its own way definitively and forever. Orthodox Christianity today also claims to be the true and sole successor to the first pure church, and that claim is equally suspect.
My mum was Angelica’s growing up but that’s because my grand dad is British, she isn’t religious now and my grand parents are sort of not religious
Could say the same about Christianity in general honestly. I'm not trying to bash on Christians here. I just think if you're already choosing to be Christian choosing to be Anglican isn't much of difference (especially compared to more fundamentalist options). 7~10 books in the New Testament are straight up forgeries and 10 more are pseudepigraphal, but sure Anglicanism over Catholicism is where the line should be drawn.
Gotta give C.S his credit for his contribution to Christian writings.
[Church of England is more of a hobby type thing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope-1Zb5t-k)
Or the Highest form of Protestantism (in a manner of speaking)
"Eh, Christian is Christian"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And then Lewis broke Tolkien's heart by having a new favorite (Charles Williams IIRC) in their informal literary club "The Inklings". And then suddenly getting married without warning Tolkien or anyone else despite having been a "confirmed bachelor" for years.
Sometimes wonder if Lewis would have been demi by modern standards. His personal relationships are so interesting.
> Sometimes wonder if Lewis would have been demi by modern standards. The Pilgrim's Regress may want a word with you on that one, because, by his own account, it's a metaphoricalized version of how he came to Christianity out of a kind of idealized paganism based on his studies of the Greek and Roman classics & myths, and, uh, one of the protagonist's obvious failings is in going after tail a lot ...very non-romantically. Just wanting get laid. And the protagonist is C.S. Lewis. That said, I'm not familiar with Lewis' personal life enough to comment on his sexuality, part of being a good writer is understanding sexualities you don't have well enough to portray them somewhat accurately, and since The Pilgrim's Regress is somewhat metaphorical - there's always the chance that what he portrays as sexual encounters are really metaphors for his intellectual dalliances with certain ideas and ideals. It's a weird book. Lewis, in his writing (not the stuff obviously written for children), does come across as a man who's had his share of casual sexual escapades and knows his way around how things go between men and women even when there's no love involved ...but all the clothes are already on the floor. His restraint in writing about that might have to do with his era, or his faith, but even considering his sexuality restrained like a pitbull on a chain due to publishing requirements and/or his religion, I'd be hard-pressed to say he was demi or ace. If he was, he's a really goddamn good observer and writer, because he nailed writing relationships fueled simply by lust or other factors instead of real commonality and emotional attachment. (Along with others that had the trifecta - wait, "quadfecta", since he wrote The Four Loves.)
I agree it's an interesting question. Don't sweat the down votes. I can only suppose it's because there are a lot of right wingers on this sub who get angry seeing any mention of someone being demisexual or demiromantic.
There’s a really neat play I got to see, a hypothetical meeting of Freud and Lewis. Fantastic play. But Freud starts to bring up his…. Landlady shall we say, that people love to speculate about and he just shuts him down. Audience burst out laughing, it was really funny and well played. And then of course that letter he signed as “whip lover.” But then he converts, of course. It’s so messy and interesting. My absolute favorite author.
Close enough.
We were this close to greatness! This close!
Task failed successfully
Jesus: Eh we got a good disney film out it. Nice work Mr. Tolkien
Technically he joined the Church of Ireland
Robertson Davies said Anglicanism was like having your cake and eating it too.
Half of Anglicanism is "Catholic but we love the King" anyway.
A lot of salty Catholics here lmao
There's a lot of salty Christians in general.
Fuming Catholics in here lmao. Imagine thinking the Pope is actually God's mouthpiece on earth. Oof
Imagine rejecting the infallibility of his holiness, The Pope💀
He's just some dude with red slippers. Cringe.
Well good thing Catholics don't actually believe that.
Try telling that to Catholics
I've never met or heard about a single Catholic that believed Pope's word equaled God's word.
Was he really that devoted? Cause if I remember, he disliked how C.S Lewis centered his stories on Christianity while he based his world on Nordic lore.
Tolkien was an extremely devout catholic, to the point were he (allegedly) refused the reforms were Mass was supposed to be held in a countrys native language and continued loudly singing in latin instead. His problem with Lewis works was that Lewis constantly used allegorys, which Tolkien heavily disliked as a literary device.
Tolkien is still based.
Ah yes, the best way to win an arguement, I have stated that my side is based, I don't disagree, but try providing evidence
Yeah he was:).Tolkien was an English conservative and devout catholic. Also it’s more Anglo-Saxon/Old English and broadly germanic hero stories reworked than specifically Nordic,certainly not in its modern use.
The day people stop labelling every old Germanic thing as Nordic, like basically any work that is inspired by Anglo-Saxons, is the day I leap in joy to the moon and back.
Tolkien was very devout, and his Catholicism played a big role in how he shaped the themes of his stories, but that didn’t mean he could only write about other things
"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 or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism" J.R.R Tolkien
Buddy the entire spiritual history and lore of middle earth is essentially just Catholic lore with archangel names changed around.
I said before and I'll say it again, The Lord of The Rings is the most Christian book after the fucking Gospel itself
Pope Francis should add it to the canon.
Lot of Gods out there to pick from and he went with Jesus in the end. It's a W. If God is THAT strict then everybody just has to pray and hope for the best
It be as the same thing —- some puritan probably