Thursday, July 19, 2007

From the Diocese Of Wenchoster


Image from Pharisaios.

Recently, I received the latest update from the Diocese of Wenchoster on a new features included on the diocesan web site. The Frankly Unfriendly Catholic section is one innovation:

Welcome to the web page of the Frankly Unfriendly Catholics, upholding the one true apostolic anglo-catholic faith.

On this site you can learn about the appalling apostasies we oppose and those we affirm:

Frankly Unfriendly Catholics was formed to promote the one true apostolic anglo-catholic faith unpolluted by modern apostate liberals; tone-deaf simpering evangelical blasphemers; or women.

You can join us and become a F[rankly] U[nfriendly] C[atholic] buddy or read about and nominate a heretic.

While you are here why not take the F[rankly] U[nfriendly] C[atholic] quiz and discover if you are a Frankly Unfriendly Catholic Wit?


I debated whether to post this, because, although I left the Roman Catholic Church some 11 or so years ago, I have tried to keep my critical statements to a minimum. I learned much that was good while I was in the fold, and I want to give credit where credit is due. Many members of my family and many of my friends remain members of the Roman Catholic Church.

But the recent statements from the pope regarding other members of the Body of Christ are of a piece with statements which embarrassed me greatly by their arrogance while I claimed membership in his church. I say "his church", because I cannot for one minute imagine Jesus making exclusionary statements like the pope's.

The man in the red hat, pictured above, has been frankly unfriendly to Christians who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church. Whether the views he expresses are old or new, they manifest an unseemly pride, which is hard for me to line up with the teachings of the Gospels.

From the BBC:

Pope Benedict has approved a new text asserting that Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism are not true Churches in the full sense of the word.

....

Other Christian denominations, it argues, cannot be called Churches in the proper sense because they cannot trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.


The rest of us who call ourselves Christians and attend what we call churches, are, alas, not really attending church at all. Those of us who have bishops are deluding ourselves if we think they are truly bishops, and our priests are not "real" priests, because they were ordained by bishops who are not "real" bishops.

It would follow that we do not have the "real" Eucharist, because the Eucharistic services are presided over by one who is not a "real" priest.

Many respond that this is nothing new, and I agree with them. This is what I was taught as a child many years ago, but I had hoped that the pope would have distanced himself from this type of language, which I find frankly unfriendly.

I thought it best to respond with borrowed humor.

UPDATE: Dennis in the comments informs me that the section is about Anglo-Catholics, and I have got this all wrong. He is correct. But it's funny, and it works - sort of, even though it's not about the pope's church. Certain of the Anglo- Catholics think that they are "real" Catholics, but, of course, the pope does not agree.

Judgment sometimes falls upon us in this life on earth. For ridiculing a fellow Christian, I am hoist on my own petard.

29 comments:

  1. hey, Grandmere Mimi. thanks for visiting. I love this... but I need to get back to sermon-writing. I'll come back a little later and laugh and read more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh, I think that the Frankly Unfriendly Catholics is aimed only at Anglo-Catholics in the CofE and in other Anglican Churches (but particularly in the CofE) and not Rome. This is an inside the Anglican church joke.

    Anglo-Catholics are a different creature than Roman Catholics.

    Here in America we sometimes call any Episcopalian with a taste for liturgy an "Anglo-Catholic." But in England being Anglo-Catholic involves lots of visits to the shrine at Walshingham and a rabid opposition to women's ordination.

    Since you are an Episcopalian feel free to post anything about the uber-lace and bells party in the CofE. There is no rule against ridiculing one's current denomination.

    I try to do it all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course, if we're not a real church, and we're not real priests, and it's not a real Eucharist ... why can't RC's join us around our table for what, in Papa's thinking, is nothing more than a friendly meal?

    Watch and pray!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since I think that Benny's view of what a true church ought to be is seriously distorted, I'm quite relieved to hear that he thinks we aren't a true church! To me, that means that there may be hope for us yet!

    But I think Benny and his outfit might want to ask themselves some serious question about how much they took on board from the Roman Empire in the days of Constantine and his successors. I look at what 'church' looks like in Benny's outfit and I think "Is this what Jesus had in mind? When we compare this to the New Testament, do we see legitimate development or serious distortion?'

    Mind you, I see the same thing in my own church too. So perhaps I'd better stop pointing fingers at my brother Benny and get working for the renewal of my own denomination - and thanking God that, despite our imperfections, he hasn't abandoned us yet!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow! The Dean of Wenchoster visits!

    Dean, you make an excellent point. If it's just a meal, why make a fuss about it?

    Now, their meal is a whole other thing. It's the Real Deal, and it's private.

    So perhaps I'd better stop pointing fingers at my brother Benny and get working for the renewal of my own denomination....

    Tim, me too. Look what happened to me here. I got it all wrong. I could delete the post, but I am leaving it as an object lesson to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, well, even when you've got it all wrong, you're alright.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Johnieb, it good to have support even when I've made a bit of a fool of myself.

    I had serious doubts about putting up this post, and I should have paid more attention to my inner voice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mimi, please don't read my comment as a criticism of you. I fact, I began it as a criticism of the Pope, but then, like you, got 'hoist with my own petard'!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim, I didn't. As I said, I had doubts about whether I should post this or not, and I should have paid attention.

    I do not want to be a bitter ex-RC who is always bad-mouthing my former church. It's not that I think the pope is right in this instance, but I do try to exercise moderation in my criticism.

    So then, Tim, it's not you; it's me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sorry, but whenever I see pictures of Ratzi, particularly pictures of him in silly garb (which, let's face it, covers just about every photograph) all I can think of is Christopher Lloyd in the role of Uncle Fester.

    For the few who missed first time around, the winner of the Ship of Fools "Benny the Kid" caption competition:

    http://ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/captionwinners.pl?c=16&i=0

    Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This one, also courtesy of Ship of Fools, is excellent as well. Ask MP to explain if you don't get it right off. Roger

    http://ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/captionwinners.pl?c=25&i=0

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think I had one of those hats when I was 6 or 7. Part of the Mickey Mouse Club Cowboy outfit, if I'm not mistaken.

    Of course, it wasn't the One True Mickey Mouse Club...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lapin, you're twice terrible. I probably don't get the full implications of this one, but I found it hilarious anyway. I am not going to ask MadPriest about it, either.

    Tobias, drag out the Mickey Mouse Club hat and wear it. It seems to have become quite the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It relates to a scene in the 1998 movie "There's Something About Mary" in which Cameron Diaz, in the title role, mistakes a substance recently deposited on the side of Ben Stiller's head for hair gel, and appropriates it, using it to style her hair in a quiff.

    http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/106046.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  15. You may be interested in seeing this webpage explaing the reason for Frankly Unfriendly Catholics.

    It is a parody that, if you follow it in deeply enough, will send you to the tolerant and open minded Anglican-Catholic group Affirming Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dennis, that is neat. Thank you for the link. The Affriming Catholics site is quite good. I love the Wenchoster site, but it is pretty complicated, and I sometimes find it difficult to navigate there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is one fecked-up post, and I won't soon forget it. You, my commenters, saved it from total disaster. Lesson learned. Listen to the inner voice of caution.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Something from Mr. Chesterton:

    "Paganism had been like a pillar of marble, upright because proportioned with symmetry. Christianity was like a huge and ragged and romantic rock, which, though it sways on its pedestal at a touch, yet, because its exaggerated excrescences exactly balance each other, is enthroned there for a thousand years. In a Gothic cathedral the columns were all different, but they were all necessary. Every support seemed an accidental and fantastic support; every buttress was a flying buttress. So in Christendom apparent accidents balanced. Becket wore a hair shirt under his gold and crimson, and there is much to be said for the combination; for Becket got the benefit of the hair shirt while the people in the street got the benefit of the crimson and gold. It is at least better than the manner of the modern millionaire, who has the black and the drab outwardly for others, and the gold next his heart."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rick, rocks, Gothic cathedrals, flying buttresses?

    "So in Christendom apparent accidents balanced."

    Yes. Thanks for that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "... enthroned there for a thousand years."

    Check around the Mediterranean and you'll find many "pagan" columns that have been standing, frequently unmaintained, more than double that time.

    If I were you, I'd stick to Chesterton for style (not that good, actually, since he couldn't resist the urge to over-egg the pudding - loved the sound of his own voice), not substance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not that anyone's looking by now, but the URLs at Ship of Fools have changed and should now be:

    http://ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/captionwinners.pl?c=17&i=0

    http://ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/captionwinners.pl?c=26&i=0

    ReplyDelete
  22. I constantly have a sense of embarrassment when ever this man speaks.

    Or gets his picture taken.

    I suspect the Holy Spirit's purpose in annointing him was to beef up outrage for a proper backlash.

    There is a huge gulf between the official teaching of the church and the attitudes of the laity. It seems to me when a teaching is not being "recieved" the onerous is on the magesterium to make better efforts to explain, theologically, just how this can be. And if it's still not being recieved perhaps the teaching is flawed.

    The versiion of Catholicism that B16 is promoting is dangerously incomplete and sidesteps the major themes and key insights of Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rick, I love ya, but just because you are a member of Pope Benedict's flock, do you really feel a need to defend everything he says, even the indefensible? I didn't think that way, even when I considered myself a Roman Catholic in good standing.

    There's no zealot like a convert. Or is it your Calvinist background? I'm not being snarky. I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Another "Uncle Fester's New Hat" moment. Initially I thought that it was photoshopped, but I don't believe that it is. The skull & crossbones on front of the hat seem to indicate that it is a cheap-ish copy of the headgear worn by the Imperial German "Death's Head Hussars". Thank God for His Holyness's nostalgia for the Good Old Days.

    http://www.kirchenlehre.com/ratzhapp.jpg

    Let's pass in charitable silence on the"butch" pose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "do you really feel a need to defend everything he says?"

    And I thought this thread was about what he wears....

    If I were truly still a Calvinist I think I would necessarily find all those red hats indefensible. Still very dear to my heart, I grew up in churches with plain white walls and men in basic black. As it is, I find these raids on the papal attic agreeably eccentic. And since the pope, after all, can hardly be called a handsome man, he might as well recycle some of the old regalia.

    I understand of course that some would like to bring him up to date, put him in grey pinstripes from the Suit Club for Men. But that is something my zealatry won't tolerate.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rick, I think I was responding to something you said on another blog. We were talking about clothes and other things, and the post and some of the comments are a little(?) crazy. Let's start over somewhere else. I think this post and the comment thread are possessed.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.