Tolkien

[Timmay]

How could Tolkien see the things he saw in Christ, put them into LOTR, be regenerate (assuming he was), and yet be a Catholic? I believe Reformed theology is Biblical theology and the Catholic Church is no true church at all. I've read Warfield's Plan of Salvation and I appreciate how he breaks down all the "churches" but how could someone behold so much but stay Catholic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What things did JRRT "see" in Christ (and how do you know he saw them)? Where are these things to which you refer discovered in LOTR?

You make several claims about JRRT's spiritual perceptions, based on... what? The existence of LOTR? Surely, in those three fat volumes there are a host of literary and cultural influences. Whole books have been written on the breadth of that stock. Christianity is one of those influences.

I'm not (and I don't know who is) in any position to interpret JRRT's faith through the lens of Reformed theology. How garbled was the religious message to which he paid the most attention? Without intimate knowledge of his biography, how can we even know what element of his Christian knowledge was natural, and what was Spiritual?

Suppose that the examples of non-Roman Christianity around him were superficial, or gave no outstanding witness to the truth--would he be better off staying with Rome? In medieval times, there were little or no options besides. And when the Reformation arrived, not everyone had the opportunity, the courage, or the clarity to depart.

He was friendly with the Anglican, CSLewis; so why wasn't that influence decisive with him? But why assume that CSL should have influenced him more than other relations in his life? CSL didn't even embrace Christianity until mid-life; whereas JRRT (to my knowledge) was a life-long confessor. Perhaps he was disappointed not to be able to pull CSL toward Rome.


We tend to judge people externally by the church they belong to; and to some extent that's warranted. Frankly, it is safer to belong to a church that does not so clearly object to constituent elements of the gospel. Then, in a case like JRRT, there are other factors like publications or commentary from and about a man that are added to that public expression of one's faith, namely church affiliation.

So, if there are other data perhaps it can increase our hope for some man--in this case JRRT--that his faith was better than his church's public commitments. But in the end, regardless of the church one is a member of even the best of them, "to his own Master he standeth or falleth." And just because a church confesses the pure gospel on paper and in its vows, doesn't mean that one is sure to find it when worshipping there. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed, lest he fall."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I heard or read that Tolkien denied Christian themes in LOTR.

 

[Elizabeth]

If I could like Rev Buchanan's reply twice, I would. Just excellent.

 

[Timmay]

I'm guess I'm referring to the Christ motifs and the deplorableness of sin that he illustrated so well in LOTR. I grant that these could be blessings of common grace, but when you read his letters, his writings on literature as they relate to God, he just seems to "get it" especially with regard to Christ's majesty. I do not know too much on how he felt about Protestants, but he was disappointed that Lewis became an Anglican.

Tolkien did not deny there were Christian themes, he denied that LOTR was an allegory, like Narnia was.

I guess the question behind my question is, how can someone remain in a church that is either apostate or in grave error and yet be regenerate, especially if they know and have heard and willingly reject the doctrines of grace as espoused by Reformed Theology?To me, even though you are not saved by right doctrine , to reject those doctrines means you are rejecting the Gospel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Toasty]

I'm guess I'm referring to the Christ motifs and the deplorableness of sin that he illustrated so well in LOTR. I grant that these could be blessings of common grace, but when you read his letters, his writings on literature as they relate to God, he just seems to "get it" especially with regard to Christ's majesty. I do not know too much on how he felt about Protestants, but he was disappointed that Lewis became an Anglican.

Tolkien did not deny there were Christian themes, he denied that LOTR was an allegory, like Narnia was.

I guess the question behind my question is, how can someone remain in a church that is either apostate or in grave error and yet be regenerate, especially if they know and have heard and willingly reject the doctrines of grace as espoused by Reformed Theology?To me, even though you are not saved by right doctrine , to reject those doctrines means you are rejecting the Gospel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What did he believe concerning on what basis God declares His people righteous? What did he think that the Roman Catholic Church taught?

 

[Timmay]

Yes, that I'm not sure of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Warren]

I heard or read that Tolkien denied Christian themes in LOTR.

He insisted not. He hated allegory.

The real mystery is why Dune never got the movies it deserved.

 

[Philip]

He insisted not. He hated allegory.

He hated allegory, but that's not the same as him saying there weren't themes. He is quoted as saying that, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Tolkien didn't write a "Christian" story in LOTR; true, he didn't particularly like allegory, or even the form of fantasy that CSLewis used in the CoN and to a more muted degree in his space trilogy.

However, JRRT did write a story with numerous deep-level Christian themes, but also included lots and lots of pre-Christian mythological themes. Part of the reason the story holds up as well as it does is because it has almost unimaginably deep roots in literature that people with only average acquaintance growing up in our West-Euro culture--or even just children's stories!--have absorbed without being aware of it. And it makes LOTR strangely resonant. His achievement in this one thing is remarkable.

It's part of the nature of things that he found this ability, and providence of things that he succeeded. He didn't have to be a Christian of any kind in order to achieve it, however. Though, doubtless being Christian helped, since he was thoroughly a child of the culture from which he mined his materials so deeply. Besides Christian themes, and mythological themes, there is resonance from the early-to-mid 20th century history, especially its WorldWars, that is also palpable.

LOTR isn't spiritual, in the sense that it aims at any inculcation of righteousness or faith in the Living God of Christianity. It is a fairy-tale and an epic with some subtle (and other not-so-subtle) gleaming threads of Christian influence. It is pointless to deny their presence, though there is no apologetic purpose that I know of in or by them.

 

[Warren]

I concede there are Christian themes. I think I responded too quickly.

They were great stories, though I liked The Hobbit more... and, well, Dune.

 

[lynnie]

Your broader question becomes if anybody can be saved and well read and educated, with great wisdom in many areas, outside Reformed theology. I occasionally read articles by RCCs on First Things that show enormous thought and wisdom and beauty and truth. I don't know all the answers, but Tolkien is far from unique.

 

[earl40]

Also I have learned to give more charity to those in the RC "church" than those who are teachers and pastors in the RC "church". Of course after 500 or so years of history since the reformation my charity is a tad less than back then.

 

[TylerRay]

I'm far from anti-Tolkien or anti-LOTR, but it should be pointed out that Tolkien was Roman Catholic to the bone. The whole idea of power being in impersonal things is a theme in LOTR that he took from RC understanding of things like holy water, relics, etc. Also, when the RCC changed from using the Latin language in its liturgy, Tolkien showed his old-school Romanism by chanting his responses in the Latin that he had used his entire life, rather than the English that they changed to.

We have to be careful about trying to make our heroes out to be like-minded with us. We may still have a lot of respect for someone and acknowledge that there are some very important differences. That's not an accusation or exhortation to anyone in particular; it's just an observation. I know I've had a tendency to gloss over differences between myself and my heroes, and even to ignore some deplorable sins that they may have committed without repentance.

For my own part, I have a hard time believing that someone of Tolkien's intellectual acumen could have embraced the true gospel while being so faithful to Rome. He knew what he was doing.

 

[ZackF]

How could Tolkien see the things he saw in Christ, put them into LOTR, be regenerate (assuming he was), and yet be a Catholic? I believe Reformed theology is Biblical theology and the Catholic Church is no true church at all. I've read Warfield's Plan of Salvation and I appreciate how he breaks down all the "churches" but how could someone behold so much but stay Catholic.

Tyler and Bruce have covered this well. My remarks have broader implications that I hope will help. Sometimes the answer lies at 10,000 ft. above the issue and not inside someone's head speculating about the state of his soul. You'll get nowhere trying to figure out a best case scenario of how or how long a person can embrace the Gospel and still be caught up in the trappings of error. A similar fruitless endeavor is to speculate how right a pagan can be and still be a pagan. All a waste of time.

It is easier, and incidentally more biblical, to be discerning. LOTR is beautiful and sweeping. For many LOTR is a life changing read. Over the years I've came across committed, devout and secure Protestants who are heartbroken to find out that "Tolkien was a Romanist!" Yes he was. The answer is not to cast aside LOTR, Tolkien but give gratitude to God for works of beauty. Appreciate that all the more. Let me provide an illustration.

Ian Charleson, the actor who played Eric Liddell in "Chariots of Fire", was a practicing homosexual who died of AIDs less than a decade after the film's release. In spite of Charleson's private life, Liddell is beautifully portrayed. Do we need to be surprised? Charleson was a talented actor. We don't need to figure out how he could portray a faithful Christian superbly without being one himself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Your broader question becomes if anybody can be saved and well read and educated, with great wisdom in many areas, outside Reformed theology. I occasionally read articles by RCCs on First Things that show enormous thought and wisdom and beauty and truth. I don't know all the answers, but Tolkien is far from unique.

I don't understand the conjuction after saved to imply that anybody would be so foolish to think that men cannot be well read and educated outside of Reformed Theology. Furthermore, nobody is saved, per se, by a system of doctrine. A person is not saved by a set of propositional truths that he agrees with or participates in.

There are many brilliant men and women that I interact with across the religious and political spectrum. I appreciate the theological insights many bring to bear upon historical or doctrinal matters as well.

If I could simplify, I've always found that there is a core that the Reformed confessions point to that is unique to its expresison and that is Christ as the sole sufficient Mediator between God and man. A Mediator who brings the dead to life and sustains His own through His mediating work to the uttermost.

I ran into a young man raised in the PCA the other day who married a woman raised in the PCA. They had been attending a Baptist Church and it came as a relative shock to them that the Reformed Baptist congregation required them to be baptized.

Are they saved?

One of the points I was making to the young man was that the Reformed Church doesn't deal in such judgments. Word and Sacrament are ministered as we believe they have been instituted by Christ to placard His saving and sustaining work.

I've never understood those who claim to understand and embrace what the Scriptures teach about the converting work of the Gospel and the sanctifying work of Christ in sanctification who claim to know "...many Catholics who are saved."

I grew up Roman Catholic and I know the Christ they proclaim and the doctrine they preach with respect to sanctification. Do I place it outside the bound of possibility that a Roman Catholic who never hears aright or is encouraged aright to cling to Christ alone for his salvation and justification that, in spite of all the feces parading as holiness, they can still embrace and be sustained by a Christ different from the One they hear?

No. It's possible.

But why would I ever assume this to be the case when I know how feeble I am?

Am I unique in my need for a clear expression of Christ's work? Did the sin that enslaved me only enslave me and others don't really need to be brought from death to life? Does the sin that continues to rage within me have remedy in Christ but others can find a remedy in the merits of other saints?

I don't presume upon the salvation of anyone even in my own congregation where we strive to call men and women and children to close with Christ. Why would I have confidence in the salvation of my own family who are encouraged to works of piety such as the Rosary and other works?

Theological and intellectual acumen impress me and I'm thankful to God for the glory of the image that is in other men. The heart of man, however, is deceitful and I know of no other way than a clear Gospel. I know of no other pattern set forth in Scripture than placarding Christ and Him crucified. The rest is dross. I am Reformed because I see Scripture being laid out clearly. It is Biblical to its core. I respect the Roman Catholic who sees me as lost. I consider my friends and family in the faith to be in imminent danger.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I would be very sceptical that Tolkien was converted and I would even have doubts over Lewis. According to Lewis' own narrative of his conversion- in which Tolkien plays a key part- what he describes as conversion is not what I recognise as the Biblical model of conversion. Lewis talks about the "myth" of Christianity, which is similar to many other myths but this "myth" just so happens to be true. What does that actually mean? It really seems Lewis' "conversion" was intellectual and rational rather than spiritual.

But Tolkien's allegiance to the Romanist cause is even more worrying. I believe people may be converted in the church of Rome, but it is then incumbent upon them to flee that false church. Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

 

[earl40]

Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

You may be assuming too much in that a man who spends his life writing fairy tale stories, which is not bad in of itself, may not be well versed in a religion such as ours. Sort of a vincible ignorance.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

You may be assuming too much in that a man who spends his life writing fairy tale stories, which is not bad in of itself, may not be well versed in a religion such as ours. Sort of a vincible ignorance.

No you misunderstand my post in two ways. I think writing fairy stories is wrong, in and of itself, for a Christian and I have no doubt that Tolkien understood Christianity (doctrinally) and that he would have been well-versed in it. But that is something completely different from whether he was regenerate. I can grant that he had head-knowledge, to be sure, but did he have heart-religion? I'm doubtful.

 

[earl40]

Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

You may be assuming too much in that a man who spends his life writing fairy tale stories, which is not bad in of itself, may not be well versed in a religion such as ours. Sort of a vincible ignorance.

No you misunderstand my post in two ways. I think writing fairy stories is wrong, in and of itself, for a Christian and I have no doubt that Tolkien understood Christianity (doctrinally) and that he would have been well-versed in it. But that is something completely different from whether he was regenerate. I can grant that he had head-knowledge, to be sure, but did he have heart-religion? I'm doubtful.

I did understand you in that in of itself writing fictional stories is not wrong in my opinion. Also the point that we are to judge in charity those who profess Jesus even if they belong to a corrupt church. I understand they should leave but sometimes, if not many, Our Lord chooses not to bring up circumstances that would preclude changing to a good church. I wonder what would have happened to me if I did not marry my protestant wife? I was saved (Justified) while a RC ,and I know if I stayed there I would have been viewed as a nominal RC by the RC "church" because I simply did not practice or believe many of what they taught.

 

[Timmay]

I would be very sceptical that Tolkien was converted and I would even have doubts over Lewis. According to Lewis' own narrative of his conversion- in which Tolkien plays a key part- what he describes as conversion is not what I recognise as the Biblical model of conversion. Lewis talks about the "myth" of Christianity, which is similar to many other myths but this "myth" just so happens to be true. What does that actually mean? It really seems Lewis' "conversion" was intellectual and rational rather than spiritual.

But Tolkien's allegiance to the Romanist cause is even more worrying. I believe people may be converted in the church of Rome, but it is then incumbent upon them to flee that false church. Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

The conversion you are talking about was really to mere theism. Myth for these guys meant something more than a story. When Tolkien told Lewis that Christianity was the "true myth" he's basically contextualizing Christianity in a pagan language that Lewis could understand. McGrath explains that Lewis was able to see Christianity not as “a set of doctrines or moral principles, but a controlling grand narrative – a myth in the true sense of the term”. In other words, “the story of Christ is thus to be understood as “God’s myth” where the great pagan narratives are “men’s myths.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alexandermsmith]

I would be very sceptical that Tolkien was converted and I would even have doubts over Lewis. According to Lewis' own narrative of his conversion- in which Tolkien plays a key part- what he describes as conversion is not what I recognise as the Biblical model of conversion. Lewis talks about the "myth" of Christianity, which is similar to many other myths but this "myth" just so happens to be true. What does that actually mean? It really seems Lewis' "conversion" was intellectual and rational rather than spiritual.

But Tolkien's allegiance to the Romanist cause is even more worrying. I believe people may be converted in the church of Rome, but it is then incumbent upon them to flee that false church. Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

The conversion you are talking about was really to mere theism. Myth for these guys meant something more than a story. When Tolkien told Lewis that Christianity was the "true myth" he's basically contextualizing Christianity in a pagan language that Lewis could understand. McGrath explains that Lewis was able to see Christianity not as “a set of doctrines or moral principles, but a controlling grand narrative – a myth in the true sense of the term”. In other words, “the story of Christ is thus to be understood as “God’s myth” where the great pagan narratives are “men’s myths.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm afraid nothing you say here in any way gives me confidence in Lewis' profession. The use of the terminology of myth is alien to how Scripture speaks about the faith and in the context of Lewis' and Tolkien's immersion in mediaeval and classical literature, is very worrying.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

You may be assuming too much in that a man who spends his life writing fairy tale stories, which is not bad in of itself, may not be well versed in a religion such as ours. Sort of a vincible ignorance.

No you misunderstand my post in two ways. I think writing fairy stories is wrong, in and of itself, for a Christian and I have no doubt that Tolkien understood Christianity (doctrinally) and that he would have been well-versed in it. But that is something completely different from whether he was regenerate. I can grant that he had head-knowledge, to be sure, but did he have heart-religion? I'm doubtful.

I did understand you in that in of itself writing fictional stories is not wrong in my opinion. Also the point that we are to judge in charity those who profess Jesus even if they belong to a corrupt church. I understand they should leave but sometimes, if not many, Our Lord chooses not to bring up circumstances that would preclude changing to a good church. I wonder what would have happened to me if I did not marry my protestant wife? I was saved (Justified) while a RC ,and I know if I stayed there I would have been viewed as a nominal RC by the RC "church" because I simply did not practice or believe many of what they taught.

Judging in charity does not mean giving credence to all and sundry professions of faith. We do not give the benefit of doubt to Romanists, in general, that they are Christians. Their so-called church is a false church and their ruler is the Antichrist. Only by their leaving and repudiating the church of Rome can we legitimately judge them to be Christians. This isn't the time of the Reformation: we live in Protestant countries where there is no fear of persecution for leaving the church of Rome and even if one has to worship on one's own or with one's family rather than joining another church, that is better than remaining in the grip of Rome. There is a difference between a corrupted church- like the PCUSA- and Rome. But even someone who remains in a church like the PCUSA is suspicious.

The Lord can do whatever He pleases and can convert whomever He pleases, wherever they are situated. But that is the secret will of God, which we are not to enquire into; we are to follow the revealed will of God, which clearly tells us to flee idolatry. There is no blessing promised for remaining in a false church once one has been given the light to see its corruption; there is no blessing promised to a Christian marrying a Roman Catholic, even if the Lord has ordained in His secret will for that to be a means for the conversion of the said RC. We are to obey God's commandments; we are to operate on the basis of the rule, not the exception.

 

[earl40]

there is no blessing promised to a Christian marrying a Roman Catholic, even if the Lord has ordained in His secret will for that to be a means for the conversion of the said RC. We are to obey God's commandments; we are to operate on the basis of the rule, not the exception.

The Lord used my wife and her Protestantism (albeit arminianism), to overcome my vincible ignorance on how justification is different than sanctification, though they are connected. God promised and blessed us in spite of her sin in marrying a RC. I recognize this in hindsight BECAUSE I was His and believed in The Son before I became a rabid Protestant.

 

[Toasty]

I would be very sceptical that Tolkien was converted and I would even have doubts over Lewis. According to Lewis' own narrative of his conversion- in which Tolkien plays a key part- what he describes as conversion is not what I recognise as the Biblical model of conversion. Lewis talks about the "myth" of Christianity, which is similar to many other myths but this "myth" just so happens to be true. What does that actually mean? It really seems Lewis' "conversion" was intellectual and rational rather than spiritual.

But Tolkien's allegiance to the Romanist cause is even more worrying. I believe people may be converted in the church of Rome, but it is then incumbent upon them to flee that false church. Tolkien was a clever man: he would have been very well versed in the theological differences and claims of Rome and Protestantism. I can't think but that his remaining a papist was a deliberate choice. And that's not even the very curious situation of a supposed Christian spending their life writing fairy stories.

The conversion you are talking about was really to mere theism. Myth for these guys meant something more than a story. When Tolkien told Lewis that Christianity was the "true myth" he's basically contextualizing Christianity in a pagan language that Lewis could understand. McGrath explains that Lewis was able to see Christianity not as “a set of doctrines or moral principles, but a controlling grand narrative – a myth in the true sense of the term”. In other words, “the story of Christ is thus to be understood as “God’s myth” where the great pagan narratives are “men’s myths.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many college professors who teach the humanities say that the term "myth" means a story or a worldview that explains reality whether it is true or not. According to these professors, a myth is something that can either be true or false. Did Lewis think that "myth" is something that is true or false?

 

[Timmay]

He thought that myth was true and that pagan myths had truth in them, because they pointed to Christ the true myth, even though in small ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I don't think we will come any closer to understanding Tolkien and LOTR by delving into the etymology of his use of the word and concept, myth (from ancient Greek μῦθος, muthos, “report”, “tale”, “story”), as JRRT was a philologist, poetic genius, and die-hard Roman Catholic, and would be far from conclusive. He became embittered to Protestantism (particularly the CoE) as when his mother, Mabel, converted to Catholicism in 1900, she was shunned, persecuted, and financially cut off from her family as a result, leaving her and her two sons impoverished, and her likely consequent illness which led to an early death (his father had died four years earlier).

So he intensely disliked the Protestant faith, both viscerally and intellectually. Bradley J. Birzer writes of him,

Like all Catholics, Tolkien believed that the Church stood upon scripture, tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magisterium. The Protestant fascination with the early, primitive Christian church, Tolkien wrote, simply resulted in a morbid fascination with ignorance; the Church had needed time to grow. To trap the Church in one era, as Tolkien believed the Protestants had attempted to do, meant the retardation of the Church's doctrinal development. In essence, by denying tradition, Protestants paradoxically forced the Church into a state of stasis or regress. (J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle Earth; pp 48, 49).​

JRRT was an old-school traditional Roman Catholic to the bone. The book quoted above makes a very strong case that he quite consciously built his story upon RC doctrines, reflecting in his "true myth" the Roman Catholic worldview and teachings.

At the same time, in both my and many other literary types' view, Tolkien was among the 20th century's finest writers—in the eyes of some, the greatest. What makes LOTR great is it's overarching Biblical worldview., as well as his sense of profound drama reflecting spiritual realities. The RC teachings, somewhat hidden save to those looking for them, are not so prominent. To give a LOTR image as an example, the encroaching shadow of Mordor over all Middle Earth reflects the steady encroachment of Satan and his nefarious agenda over all our present world as its end draws near.

Even so, I can find nothing to warrant any positive assertion that he was a regenerated soul. All I can do is hope against hope that he was. The LORD will judge rightly—in this we may well trust.

 

[Philip]

There is a difference between a corrupted church- like the PCUSA- and Rome. But even someone who remains in a church like the PCUSA is suspicious.

On the other hand, from no less a defender of orthodoxy than J. Gresham Machen:

Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today!

We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all.

 

[alexandermsmith]

there is no blessing promised to a Christian marrying a Roman Catholic, even if the Lord has ordained in His secret will for that to be a means for the conversion of the said RC. We are to obey God's commandments; we are to operate on the basis of the rule, not the exception.

The Lord used my wife and her Protestantism (albeit arminianism), to overcome my vincible ignorance on how justification is different than sanctification, though they are connected. God promised and blessed us in spite of her sin in marrying a RC. I recognize this in hindsight BECAUSE I was His and believed in The Son before I became a rabid Protestant.

Exactly, in hindsight you can say that. But my point is that we should not take from this that it's therefore ok to marry a Roman Catholic. If we were to give counsel on who a Christian should marry, we would counsel them not to marry an RC. But sometimes people do things they shouldn't, and the Lord can bless that and bring good out of it. Elimelech disobeyed God by taking his family into Moab, but the Lord brought good out of that situation by using it as a means for the conversion of Ruth and that Ruth would be a blessing to Naomi in her widowhood. But Elimelech should still not have taken his family into Moab.