Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien
- Yes, perhaps the best thing that can be said about the show is that it has stimulated this interesting discourse.This colloquy is both entertaining and enlightening. Well-made points by both David and Carl in this discourse.On a peripheral note, I must say that Joseph Pearce’s travellers’ staff looked as if it was freshly and neatly chain-sawn from the nearest hapless Enting.Mike
On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:26 PM, David Bratman wrote:
> It's not a Holy Day of Obligation.
It used to be (until the end of the 19th / beginning of the 20th century, depending on the area). Also, it turns out that the Annunciation has historically been celebrated with an Octave in some localities. Oh, and March 25 also used to be New Year's Day in the Church.
> And it'd be perfectly possible for Pearce to make any points he wants about
> the importance of March 25th as a date without throwing in this stuff about
> the Annunciation being more important than Christmas.
Again, that depends on what is meant by "important". (I didn't enter into the matter of allegorization, about which I mostly agree with you anyways, and I won't do so now, since it has nothing to do with the importance of March 25 vis a vis Dec. 25.)
> There is indeed no need to do so, given as you
> point out that the date of ensoulment has been a matter of question.
But is no longer so.
> It is Pearce's pushing of the Annunciation that is his rewriting of theology,
Again, how so? Liturgical importance is not a matter of theology, but of liturgy. And the Incarnation is indeed vastly more important theologically than is the Nativity (I don't think that's _ever_ been questioned.) Moreover, whatever debate there might have been about ensoulment, to my knowledge there has _never_ been any question about when _Christ_ became man: that has to my knowledge _always_ been regarded as occurring at the Annunciation.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3561 - Release Date: 04/09/11
I think your objection to Pearce, in that he did not mention Tolkien's
disavowal of something he (Pearce) stated as a fact, is on target. My
own focus -- which is why I early on changed the Subject line to remove
Pearce -- was on whether or not Tolkien's disavowal was definitive.