MOVIE: Prince Caspian

  • Thread starter Thread starter child_of_God85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The movie was so good! The battle scenes were amazing, and just overall it was so well done. There’s so much more to say, but I’ll leave it at that so as not to risk revealing spoilers.
 
Other_Eric said:
I think Lewis, through some of his earlier defenses of his books has made an appearance on this forum, if only by proxy.
Click to expand...
Actually, reading the books as a child drew my attention more towards Christ. I had enough commen sense to know that Jesus didn’t look like a Lion, that this was only a metaphor. But it made my faith stronger.
So would I be sinning by liking the movies and books?
 
child_of_God85 said:
Actually, reading the books as a child drew my attention more towards Christ. I had enough commen sense to know that Jesus didn’t look like a Lion, that this was only a metaphor. But it made my faith stronger.
So would I be sinning by liking the movies and books?
Click to expand...
The question is what sort of Christ it is that the books drew your attention towards? What did the metaphor of the books consist in? It’s not so much about the sin one might commit in reading the books. It’s about the grave missteps in theology that the books might encourage an impressionable child to make and the supreme responsibility of a parent to safeguard his child from those threats.
 
Other_Eric said:
I don’t think it’s overreach to be concerned about the various heresies regarding the Incarnation that the Narnia series implicitly endorses.
Click to expand...
  1. no heresies
  2. no incarnations
  3. ALLEGORY
You, obviously, have no grasp of allegories.
If you don’t want you kid to read it, whatever. Don’t go trashing other people and telling them about non-existent heresies on an allegorical work.
How about this, why don’t you as AAA if the Narnia series is damaging to kids. If they say yes, you’re right. If they say no… well… sorry.
 
Other_Eric said:
The question is what sort of Christ it is that the books drew your attention towards? What did the metaphor of the books consist in? It’s not so much about the sin one might commit in reading the books. It’s about the grave missteps in theology that the books might encourage an impressionable child to make and the supreme responsibility of a parent to safeguard his child from those threats.
Click to expand...
It led me to the one true Christ thank you very much. There is no other Christ the books could lead you to. It’s a good deceant book, and no one reading them is sinning.
 
PatienceAndLove said:
  1. no heresies
  2. no incarnations
  3. ALLEGORY
You, obviously, have no grasp of allegories.
If you don’t want you kid to read it, whatever. Don’t go trashing other people and telling them about non-existent heresies on an allegorical work.
How about this, why don’t you as AAA if the Narnia series is damaging to kids. If they say yes, you’re right. If they say no… well… sorry.
Click to expand...
Allegory is supposed to be the symbolic representation of one figure or action for another. It exists in literature when an author sets up a sort of one-to-one parity between both the symbol and the thing it points towards.

In the Narnia series, it is obvious to me that if Lewis is using allegory at all, he uses it only in select circumstances and to ill effect. To begin with, the children in the books are meant to be taken as real children and less symbols of anything else. In fact, they are represented as inhabiting our own world. These children refer back to actual historical events.

The Aslan character is generally thought to be a symbol of Christ, but what a poor symbol. In presenting the character as a beast, Lewis explicitly mocks the Incarnation of Christ. He implies a sort of Nestorian quality to the Incarnation that posits that Christ’s humanity is a fraud, a costume that can be taken off and exchanged for the costume of a beast should it suit Him, not an inherent component of who He is. He further implies that Christ’s passion here on Earth was insufficient and that certain sins require a second passion in order to be ransomed.

Dress this up in whatever allegorical language you wish; produce a mountain of florid prose in its defense or appeal to whatever authority most suits you and you will not have changed a thing. The Narnia stories will remain exemplars of some of the most unfortunate heresies that have attacked the Incarnation of Christ, our Lord and Savior, and tales that are ultimately contemptuous of the teaching of the Magisterium.
 
Other_Eric said:
Allegory is supposed to be the symbolic representation of one figure or action for another. It exists in literature when an author sets up a sort of one-to-one parity between both the symbol and the thing it points towards.

In the Narnia series, it is obvious to me that if Lewis is using allegory at all, he uses it only in select circumstances and to ill effect. To begin with, the children in the books are meant to be taken as real children and less symbols of anything else. In fact, they are represented as inhabiting our own world. These children refer back to actual historical events.

The Aslan character is generally thought to be a symbol of Christ, but what a poor symbol. In presenting the character as a beast, Lewis explicitly mocks the Incarnation of Christ. He implies a sort of Nestorian quality to the Incarnation that posits that Christ’s humanity is a fraud, a costume that can be taken off and exchanged for the costume of a beast should it suit Him, not an inherent component of who He is. He further implies that Christ’s passion here on Earth was insufficient and that certain sins require a second passion in order to be ransomed.

Dress this up in whatever allegorical language you wish; produce a mountain of florid prose in its defense or appeal to whatever authority most suits you and you will not have changed a thing. The Narnia stories will remain exemplars of some of the most unfortunate heresies that have attacked the Incarnation of Christ, our Lord and Savior, and tales that are ultimately contemptuous of the teaching of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Allegories do not have to all encompassing.
Authors have free reign to do as they wish. AND Aslan is obviously the Lion of Judah title for Christ.

As for the rest of what you said :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and :rolleyes:
 
PatienceAndLove said:
Allegories do not have to all encompassing.
Authors have free reign to do as they wish. AND Aslan is obviously the Lion of Judah title for Christ.

As for the rest of what you said :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The character of Aslan is not represented as a symbol of a lion, he is represented as an actual lion. To try and cover this up by saying that it is Christ’s manifestation of the Lion of Judah is nothing more than a crude descent into Biblical literalism more appropriate for a Protestant than a Catholic who is well reared in the faith. Christ was incarnated as a man and to portray Him as anything else is a sacrilege and a Nestorian conception of His nature.
 
Other_Eric said:
The character of Aslan is not represented as a symbol of a lion, he is represented as an actual lion. To try and cover this up by saying that it is Christ’s manifestation of the Lion of Judah is nothing more than a crude descent into Biblical literalism more appropriate for a Protestant than a Catholic who is well reared in the faith. Christ was incarnated as a man and to portray Him as anything else is a sacrilege and a Nestorian conception of His nature.
Click to expand...
I am no longer dignifying your posts with comments.
 
child_of_God85 said:
Besides, Other Eric has gone way off my original topic.
Click to expand...
The topic was originally about the movie Prince Caspian and whether people ought to be excited about it. My position as a Catholic is not one of excitement but concern which I have defended against multiple misrepresentations and arguments from some consisting of not much more than emoticons. It’s not off-topic, it’s very much relevant to the original subject.
 
Other_Eric said:
The topic was originally about the movie Prince Caspian and whether people ought to be excited about it. My position as a Catholic is not one of excitement but concern which I have defended against multiple misrepresentations and arguments from some consisting of not much more than emoticons. It’s not off-topic, it’s very much relevant to the original subject.
Click to expand...
Here is the OP.
No where does it ask “whether people ought to be excited about it”:
The trailer for the new Narnia movie, Prince Caspian, is now on the internet. You can view it at www.narniafans.com
It looks awsome
Click to expand...
So, actually, you are quite off-topic and have been for some time.
 
Other_Eric said:
The topic was originally about the movie Prince Caspian and whether people ought to be excited about it. My position as a Catholic is not one of excitement but concern which I have defended against multiple misrepresentations and arguments from some consisting of not much more than emoticons. It’s not off-topic, it’s very much relevant to the original subject.
Click to expand...
This is the only Prince Caspian topic as far as I know. So, can we just use it to talk about the movie, please?
 
Other_Eric said:
The topic was originally about the movie Prince Caspian and whether people ought to be excited about it. My position as a Catholic is not one of excitement but concern which I have defended against multiple misrepresentations and arguments from some consisting of not much more than emoticons. It’s not off-topic, it’s very much relevant to the original subject.
Click to expand...
If you haven’t seen the film or don’t intend to, then you are very much off topic. Please, go play in someone else’s sandbox. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top