October 7th, 2004
|04:07 pm - I have a new favourite crazy man!|
Recently, I've been reading about Theosophy in my New Age and New Religious Movements class. Let me tell you, it's a riot.
Anyway, we came across this guy by the name of James I. Wedgwood. He lived from about 1892-1950. The guy was pretty well a wacko, and his name appears to occasionally be spelled "Wedgewood".
He was consecreated into the Old Catholic Church, and then decided to make his own church, the Liberal Catholic Church. Of course, there's apparently an amusing question about his consecration (done in 1916), which I'm trying to get the official word from the OCC about. Then he joined the Theosophical Society and a number of other little tiny organizations.
The man appears to have been a "jumper", the kind of person who jumps from religious organization to religious organization, collecting titles and (occasionally) being generally destructive within them. Add that to his pedophilia and his cocaine addiction, and he's a model citizen.
And that's why I like James I. Wedgwood.
The following quotes are ones I read last night in the book, "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon", which I highly recommend to anyone:
"Wedgwood [had] the same taste for magic, ceremony and boys, and the same inexplicable influence over middle-aged women [as Leadbeater]."
"Wedgwood, trailed by the [Theosophical] Society's own private detective, had been seen to visit no less than 18 public lavatories in two hours. When question, he told police that he was searching for a friend he had known in a previous life."
"Now disowned by the [Theosophical] Society and on the run from the police because of criminal charges including drug abuse and buggery, Wedgwood had left England on very short notice, briefly taking refuge with Gurdjieff at Fantainebleau before setting up with his minions in Paris, where he indulged in a riot of promiscuity and drugs."
"When money ran low he turned to the long-suffering Annie Besant for help and she put him in touch with Duch Theosophists. But it was not long before their patience or their funds ran out, and Bishop Wedgewood was reduced to paying bills by smuggling cocane in the head of his episcopal crozier."
You'll find Wedgwood in the center-left of that picture. He's in the crazy-freaking-but-cool outfit.
[Leadbeater is another TS member who was crazy, and he's my second favourite Theosophist. I use the term "favourite" in a very loose manner.]
Current Mood: amused
Current Music: "The Great Filling Station Holdup", -JB
God, but I do love the word "buggery"
tsk tsk, but an imitation of the Great Beast. (But what an imitation!)
Wow. "Buggery" is a nice word. Sop is "Sodomy." I don't get to use these words enough!
I think I am inspired to creat a new series of metals projects- reliquaries for crazy religious types. It's that idea of smuggling cocaine in his crozier. Can't you picture it- one of those big hooks with a crystal compartment containing a white powder......
I have a feeling that one book alone could give me subjects for quite a variety of pieces. :)
He seems nice. Why don't we get hats like that? Damnit, I want a pope hat.
in the pope hat, he looks unnervingly like john malkovich. personally, i love the look/gesture of the bishop on the far right. :D
so what was special about his new improved liberal catholic church? dalliances between priests and altar boys were supported and encouraged? oh, wait...
It seems to me that they tend to give suggestions
rather than orders
Find more about 'em here:Liberal Catholic Church
posted in the adf
community about becoming a Bishop in the Gnostic stuff at Elysium (I've been reading much on the Gnostics since reading Pagels' work -- The Origin of Satan
& her Gnostic books-- and am interested in it). So, I checked out his el-jay for more information on the whole Gnostic bit and he gives a link
to the lineage of his title. Wedgwood is right there, seems like an, uhh, interesting character.
You're right. He spells his with an "e", though. But the Ordination dates (if that's what those are) are the same.
Let me do some checking on this one. . .
It is the same guy, I'm about 95% sure. I'm unclear how the lineage becomes a Gnostic one, though. That makes me wonder even more if his own consecration was valid, and what that does to the rest of the line?
I have an email in to the Old Catholic Church for his records to straighten out the things I've read. Figured I'd go for the people who ordained him in 1916. They got back with me real fast, and kind of insinuated that they don't recognize his consecration, though, but promised some more digging.
Freaky. Not a guy I'd want to succeed, personally.
Interestingly, I've found that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession was actually in response to
Gnostics. This is making me even more curious about how it works!
"The Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not a successor to the Apostles or to Christ."
|Date:||October 8th, 2004 08:54 am (UTC)|| |
Check out "The Refutation of All Heresies" by Hippolytus
It's a Early Christian Apologists work. Hippolytus does a good job of examining all of the different gnostic systems of the day and tries to refute their beliefs. Interestingly, its may easily be the most authoritave Gnostic reference book left. Many of the groups he detailed are gone, their works, their ideas etc... they live on in Hippolytus' book.
Well, Apostolic Succession wasn't really in response to Gnostics per se. In fact, I'd say that's downright erroneous information. Some Gnostic sects rejected the need for Apostolic Succession entirely while others (like the Valentinians) saw it as necessary even though they held meetings outside of the orthodox order. Christian Gnosticism is extraordinarily diverse in that regard.
The ancient canons of the Christian Church state that two or three bishops shall consecrate a new bishop. That is what was in response to the Gnostics. It's a safeguard for orthodoxy. In reality, one bishop can ordain another person a bishop; it's considered irregular but still valid.
Wedgewood is an interesting fellow. The stories I've heard about him (from old guard LCC bishops) are um... morosely hillarious.
So, I checked out his el-jay for more information on the whole Gnostic bit and he gives a link to the lineage of his title. Wedgwood is right there, seems like an, uhh, interesting character.
Archbishop John Gilbert, PhD was my primary consecrator. He has lineage through Wedgwood, but also through other lines as seen on the links page you listed.
The two other co-consecrators were Archbishop Albert N. Stubblebine III (Major General - US Army Retired) and Archbishop Rima Liabow, M.D. I will post their bios on my LJ for anyone interested.
A website that lists the various apostolic succession lines:Ind-Movement.org
Mentions several of the lines that I have -- through John Gilbert -- and the Vilatte line is one of them. This website essentially rates the validity of them.
To clarify something that Mike mentioned about the historical Gnostics. The Gnostics of today more Esoteric Christians than historical Gnostics. Similar to ADF style Druidry being Neopagan. The Gnostics of today are similar in some ways, but not identical to the Gnostics of antiquity. Just like Pagan can be interpreted very widely, so can Gnosticism.
Groovy. The whole Gnostic thing is very interesting.
He has lineage through Wedgwood, but also through other lines as seen on the links page you listed.
Isn't that some kind of religious inbreeding? Kinda like "Well, he's my grandfather on my paternal secessor's side & my uncle on my maternal secessor's side".
I now feel like singing "I'm my own Grandpa"
Wow. I'll never look at my mom's china the same way.
You'd better look at it the same way. It'll bugger you if you look at it askew.
|Date:||October 7th, 2004 02:24 pm (UTC)|| |
I promise I'll time it better next time :)
*laughs* Well, I did say "about" :)