The Doctrine of the Feline Sedentation

How would the Church of England deal with “the cat sat    on the mat” if it appeared in the Bible?

The liberal theologians would point out that such a passage    did not of course mean that the cat literally sat on the mat. Also, cat and mat had    different meanings in those days from today, and anyway, the text should be interpreted    according to the customs and practices of the period.

This would lead to an immediate backlash from the    Evangelicals. They would make it an essential condition of faith that a real physical,    living cat, being a domestic pet of the Felix Domesticus species, and having a whiskered    head and furry body, four legs and a tail, did physically place its whole body on a floor    covering, designed for that purpose, which is on the floor but not of the floor. The    expression “on the floor but not of the floor” would be explained in a leaflet.

Meanwhile, the Catholics would have developed the Festival    of the Sedentation of the Blessed Cat. This would teach that the cat was white and    majestically reclined on a mat of gold thread before its assumption to the Great Cat    Basket of Heaven. This would be commemorated by the singing of the Magnificat, lighting    three candles, and ringing a bell five times. This would cause a schism withthe Orthodox    Church which would believe that tradition would require Holy Cats Day [as it would be    colloquially known] to be marked by lighting six candles and ringing the bell four times.    This would be partly resolved by the Cuckoo Land Declaration recognising the traditional    validity of each.

Eventually, the House of Bishops would issue a statement on    the Doctrine of the Feline Sedentation. It would explain that traditionally the text    describes a domestic feline quadruped superjacent to an unattached covering on a    fundamental surface. For determining its salvific and eschatological significations, it    would follow the heuristic analytical principles adopted in dealing with the Canine    Fenestration Question [How much is that doggie in the window?] and the Affirmative    Musaceous Paradox [Yes, we have no bananas]. And so on, for another 210 pages.

The General Synod would then commend this report as helpful    resource material for clergy to explain to the man in the pew the difficult doctrine of    the cat sat on the mat.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Ramblings of a Reformed Ecclesiastic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s