George Lucas Appointed Archbishop!

59 thoughts on “George Lucas Appointed Archbishop!”

1. But didn’t His Excellency Bishop George Lucas commit the one unforgivable sin–the creation of Jar Jar Binks?

2. Dear Mr. Akin,
   My beloved hometown, OmaHa, Nebraska, suffers a great many indignities at the hands of many who have never visited. Is it too much to ask that you please make sure that you spell our city’s name correctly?
   Agape,
   David

3. Atheists, he finds your lack of faith… disturbing.

4. David Eckel: Typo fixed. (Hey, “n” looks like “h”–and is right below it on a QWERTY keyboard.)
   JoAnna: ROFLOL!

5. Good one… evil file format 😀 😀 😀

6. Don’t you mean Oma-HAW HAW HAW!?
   Hopefully his later work as bishop won’t be a disappointment to hardcore fans of his time in Springfield.

7. Evil file format [pdf]
   Pdf files wouldn’t be evil if unknowingly clicking on a link to one didn’t make it try and open in your browser window. But now, through the magic of Firefox, it is possible to change how your browser handles different file types. You can set Firefox to always save .pdfs, so clicking on a link to one just brings up the download window. So you can save .pdfs on your harddisk to read at your leisure and don’t have to worry about your browser crashing when trying to open the them, thus reducing the .pdf’s evil by 98%.

8. The Force is strong with this one. 🙂

9. Just curious, how many active US bishops can trace their roots back to St. Louis, MO?

10. That is interesting. Hopefully a new Bishop for the Diocese of Cheyenne Wyoming will not be far behind, given that we presently do not have one.

11. If Cheyenne’s next archbishop is named Ronald Moore, I’m going to start worrying about B16.

12. DELETED.

13. “Archbishop Elden Curtiss”
    That’s a nice name. It’s ironic that it also sounds like a name George “Ewok” Lucas would invent. 🙂

14. “Me-sa Fr. Jar-Jar. Me-sa gonn-a forgiven-day you-sa sins away”

15. It get concerned when a science fiction fanatic does Theology. In my years of counseling I have observed an alarming trend. Those who played D&D, read lots of science fiction and fantasy, tend to gravitate to occultism and the hypermysticism of the Church. These people tend to mix their neuroses, fears, and OCD with their faith.

16. galuboi: I get concerned when someone claiming to be a counselor with years of experience hides behind a fictional name without even an e-mail link for contact purposes and then armchair psychologizes other people with sweeping generalizations from the safety of anonymity.
    Your statement of concern is predicated on false assumptions and leads to false conclusions regarding the author of this blog.
    If this is how you treat your patients, you clearly haven’t learned much from your years of clinical experience. Try listening to your patients more and pontificatng less.
    Unless by “my years of counseling” you meant years that you have spent undergoing counseling. In that case, listen to your doctors more.

17. Oh no he ditn’t! I came here for the theology… I’m staying for the witty banter.

18. Jimmy, thanks for the fix. And ditto ROFLOL to JoAnna!
    M. Swaim, we in the Archdiocese of Omaha wonder the same, but early indications are that he won’t disappoint.
    David B., he always asked that he be referred to as Elden Francis during the liturgical prayers partly because Elden was not the name of a saint. A wonderful attitude.
    galuboi, please provide examples of hypermysticism by Jimmy.
    (whew)

19. “galuboi, please provide examples of hypermysticism by Jimmy.”
    Seconded. Heck, just provide an example of hypermysticism.

20. Hypermysticism? I want proofs of Jimmy plaing D&D! That would totally rock.
    😀

21. Jimmy’s made references to his familiarity with D&D numerous times; see here for just one example. I believe he even has design credit on some old Chaosium Superworld products.
    Hmm…given a sample size of two (Jimmy and myself), can we say that interest in roleplaying, fantasy and sci-fi combined with theology tends to lead to a sympathy with Thomistic thought? 🙂

22. LOL!
    Now you just need to link to that youtube clip with the priest and light saber….

23. Use the force Luke (and Matthew, Mark and John too)

24. hee, hee, hee. Thanks to all for the (much needed) lighter moment. :^)

25. Having lived in the diocese of Springfield-in-Illinois for a few years, I have a cute story to share. Shortly after Bishop Lucas was installed, he was visiting one of the Catholic Schools. After Being introduced to the students, a small child with big eyes on wonder asked: “Are you THE George Lucas?” Bishop Lucas replied, “well, my name is George and my last name is Luchas, so I guess I am THE George Lucas.” Archbishop Lucas is a very kind person and the people of Omaha will love him, I am sure.

26. Great story, V Double. 🙂

27. Hard to predict what the Catholics in Omaha’s reaction to this bishop will be, Nebraska catholics are rather “conservative” in comparison to other areas of the country.

28. So… what’s your point? 😉

29. Hypermysticism:
    When you just can’t stop bilocating, levitating, and going into ecstasy unless somebody gives you a cup of coffee. 🙂

30. Let me assist goluboi in understanding what he means by ‘hypermysticism’. Many of the Church fathers were heavily involved in Mystagogic, which basically means the practicing and spreading of mystery doctrines. Read more on Wikipedia. Basically this is equivalent to dabbling in the occult. Many of the Middle Age ‘saints'[sic] dabbled in this.

31. Francisco:
    AFAIK, “mystagogic” would be an adjective; the noun you want would be “mystagogy” or “mystagogia.” In Christian usage, it does not mean what you think it means.
    There appears to be no Wikipedia article on that exact term; the closest term I can find is “mystagogue,” one who initiates others into mystagogy.
    You say, “Let me assist goluboi in understanding what he means [sic] by ‘hypermysticism,'” but you fail to provide a single example of a teaching that you identify with “mystery doctrines” or “the occult.” What “occult” teachings or “mystery doctrine” specifically do you mean to accuse the early Christian mystagogues and the medieval saints of perpetrating?
    According to the Wiki article, the most famous works of patristic mystagogia were Cyril of Jerusalem’s “Mystagogical Homilies” and Ambrose of Milan’s “On the Mysteries.” Can you document your claims from these or comparable sources?
    Once again: You need to be specific and back up your inflammatory charges. You cannot just throw undefined terms around in an inflammatory manner and expect to be taken seriously.
    While we’re asking questions, here’s one for you: Are there any early Fathers that you consider positive examples of Bible-believing Christians? Or are they all basically hyper-mysticist occultists? Where was the Holy Spirit at work in the church in the third century, the fifth, the seventh, the tenth? Please let us know.

32. I have lived in Springfield for four years. In my experience, Bp. Lucas seems to be a rather low-key sort who does what needs to be done without calling a lot of attention to himself.
    When he came here 10 years ago, the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois (the “original” Diocese of Springfield is in Massachusetts) was, quite frankly, a mess. The previous bishop ignored, and perhaps even condoned, numerous instances of sexual and financial abuse by priests. Vocations were just about nonexistent, and the diocese had a reputation in orthodox Catholic circles almost as bad as the current political reputation of the state whose capital it is!
    Bp. Lucas did a pretty good job of cleaning that mess up — not perfect, perhaps not as much as some would have liked, but definitely made an improvement. Past sex abuse cases have been settled without bankrupting the diocese, and safe environment programs have been instituted for all Catholic schools and parishes. I strongly suspect that part of the reason he got the Omaha appointment, which promotes him to archbishop, is in recognition of what he did to turn things around in Springfield. He also started up a permanent diaconate program — this was one of the last dioceses in the U.S. to get around to doing so.
    All parish programs and evangelization efforts going on now seem to be pretty orthodox. He insituted the Moto Proprio (hope I’m spelling that right) promptly, without any foot-dragging, and Latin Masses are currently being offered weekly in Springfield and Quincy.
    A couple of years ago, some outside experts were called in to examine the state of Catholic schools in the city of Springfield. They recommended closing several, including the Cathedral parish school itself, although it was financially stable and has a very good reputation in the community. Bp. Lucas said he’d listen to what the local parishioners had to say before making a final decision. They spoke out loud and clear, and in the end, he let all the schools stay open.
    I have heard — though only secondhand — that he banned notoriously pro-abort Catholic Sen. Dick Durbin, who lives in Springfield, from receiving Communion. If that is true, he’s never come out and said so publicly that I am aware of. Perhaps he has communicated his objections to Durbin in private. A conservative blogger in Chicago claims Durbin goes to Mass in Chicago or D.C. as much as possible because he is not allowed to receive Communion at home.

33. The Orthodox went off the rail in the 4th century with Hesychastic practices. This bears much resemblance to mystical prayer or meditation in Eastern religions. The practice may involve specific body postures and be accompanied by very deliberate breathing patterns. The emphasis being on the harnessing of the uncreated Energies of God.
    The Catholic Church has never fully accepted Hesychasm, especially the distinction between the energies or operations of God and the essence of God .
    The Catholic church went off the rails when it mixed Aristotle, via Muslim Scholars, with Thomistic Scholastic philosphy.
    To summarize all state churches( Catholic, Orthodox) beginning with Constantine to the present are fundamentally tools of occult teaching. The true church was always underground and is exemplified during various ages via the Donatists, Montanists, Waldensisans, Celtic Christian Missions, and in modern times underground churches in China, Russia, and other dictatorial regimes. Catholics and Orthodox falsely accused these churches of being heretics, because they refused to submit to the corrupt state church.
    The Puritans and others understood the necessity of separation of church and state. Christ only created one model of church and that it is run in a presbyterian form via elders. Man and Rome created the Episcopal form of government – not Christ.

34. francisco has made many inflammatory accusations on this and another thread. He has yet to offer one iota of evidence to back up any of his charges. The logical conclusion is that he cannot back them up. Making inflammatory charges one cannot back up with evidence is a rather serious sin called “calumny”. If francisco cannot back up his inflammatory charges, those who read them will conclude that he is either a nut or a liar.

35. Jesus examined three different models for His Church, as related in Matthew 16.
    First, the Democratic model: “Who do men say that I am?” Take a vote! What do the people say?
    “Some say ‘John the Baptist’, others ‘Elijah, others ‘one of the prophets’.
    As we can see, the Democratic model failed to provide the truth. So, our Lord moved on to the Presbyterian model, a council of elders: “Who do you (plural) say that I am?” He got no answer.
    So, the Presbyterian model also failed to provide the truth. So Jesus moved on to the Monarchic model. One man spoke up: “Peter said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ Jesus said, ‘Blessed art thou (singular), Simon bar-Jona, for it was not mortal man who revealed this to thee, but My Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art the rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell will never prevail against it. I give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'”
    (BTW, for the one who seems to have trouble understanding what “backing up your inflammatory charges with evidence” means, I just provided an example)

36. francisco,
    Others are critiquing you for failing to back up your various claims with evidence. Now while I don’t know nearly enough about you to make an assumption about what you do or do not know, it would at least seem as though the reason you cannot back these claims up is because you are doing nothing more than copying and pasting quotes from various websites, at times changing the occasional word, presumably to attempt to hide your copying.
    Several of your statements from this combox came from wikipedia articles, such as this one on Hesychasm, and the questions you asked in the “Vatican Says…” combox I recognized almost immediately as coming from the “questions Catholics and Orthodox cannot answer” page on a certain Protestant apologetics website which I am extremely familiar with.
    I am so familiar with this site because it was the very first Christian website I came across years ago when I came to faith in Christ. After spending quite a bit of time on the site, I became extremely anti-Catholic, setting out to convert my then girlfriend, and anyone else who would listen, from the clutches of the Catholic Church. I thought I knew every argument against the Catholic Church there was – and after visiting countless other websites, I probably came pretty close.
    In any case, through the grace of God and a great deal of study, I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago, and when I look at that website I now consider it to be the worst anti-Catholic site on the internet. The arguments are just not very good at all, and the main reason for that is because the author doesn’t seem to have any actual understanding of Catholicism at all. There are plenty of sincere and studious persons out there who argue against Catholicism, and there are also plenty of seemingly insincere folks who argue against the Church, but with far better arguments.
    The point is, if you’re basing any opposition to the Catholic Church even in part on this website, please do yourself a favor and stop reading it and try to learn about the Church elsewhere. The arguments that that website has are just… honestly sad and pathetic. There’s just no other way to put it. Again, if you’re basing anything about the Church on that site, you’re missing the mark by a wide margin – even from the viewpoint of many other anti-Catholics. I believe fully and completely in the Catholic Church, and I can come up with better arguments against the Catholic Church than that website has.
    Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through Me.” No man goes to God except through the truth, and even if you’re not willing right now to consider the Catholic Church, my friend, that website contains virtually no truth.

37. Thanks for your research, Shane. Francisco, no more plagiarism. I will be deleting any posts I find plagiarized from other sites as time permits.

    The true church was always underground and is exemplified during various ages via the Donatists, Montanists, Waldensisans, Celtic Christian Missions, and in modern times underground churches in China, Russia, and other dictatorial regimes. Catholics and Orthodox falsely accused these churches of being heretics, because they refused to submit to the corrupt state church.

    I know, from humbling past experience, how easy it is to believe something like this because it is congenial to one’s worldview. The steps from “That would make a lot of sense given everything else I believe” to “It ought to be true” to “It must be true” can be perilously short.
    Alas, I learned the hard way that just because something supports what you believe is true, doesn’t make it true. I beg you to meditate on the hard but wise words of St. Augustine: “God does not need my lie.”
    You have appealed, e.g., to the Montanists. Do you have evidence that the Montanists did not believe in ongoing divine revelation, or that they did not believe that Christians who fell from grace could not repent again and be restored?
    If you cannot cite evidence, then you aren’t saying it because you have reason to believe it’s true. You’re only saying it because it’s convenient, because it supports your worldview.
    We have shown a lot of patience in letting you make charge after charge with no evidence at all, ignoring nearly every correction, rebuttal and challenge that has been made in return. Your grace period here on this site is at an end.
    Either provide specific support for your claim that the Montanists were not heretics, or take your baseless claims somewhere else. If you post again ignoring this challenge with more unsubstantiated claims, your posts will be deleted and you will be disinvited to participate.

38. Several of my friends at the University of Michigan are scholars of ancient manuscripts and several are also Catholics. They have repeatedly told me that the available ancient data is sparse. Furthermore many of the Church fathers had a variety of opinions on many doctrines. Many different conclusions can be drawn from the available data. Evangelicals have taken the same data and come to a different conclusion. There conclusion is that the Universal Church consists of local churches that have remained faithful to the teachings of the Apostles, which has been collected in our Bible. The Universal Church defined the Bible in 397 AD and did not include the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
    This Evangelical model states that the Old Testament was sufficient to guide the Jews and the NT is sufficient to guide Christians. Since the Jews used a historical-grammatical hermeneutic in defining doctrine only those Evangelicals who use the same heremeneutic are part of the Universal Church( this filters out all liberal Protestants). Clearly if the church is the bulwark of truth then one can not have major conflicting doctrine. Catholics believe in Marian dogma, Transubstantiation, Papacy, Infused Righteousness, Moslems worshipping same God as Catholics, and other doctrine soundly rejected by Evangelicals. Therefore it is not possible for Evangelicals and Catholics to both be bulwarks of truth. Typically Catholics will state there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations and I will agree. The doctrinal difference among 30,000 Protestants can for the most part be distilled down to Calvinisim or Arminianism. Arminians still consider Calvinists their brothers and visa versa. However most Seminary Calvinists or Arminians would not consider Catholics as brothers. So to summarize the TRUE Church has been around since the first century and now has obtained critical mass and is seen as the Modern Evangelical movement. Proto-Protestants existed way before the Reformation see for example John Hus, Wycliffe, Waldensians, Montanists, Donastists, Celtic Missions to Russia, and others. The Reformation finally allowed the underground church to surface and become a major movement over the next 500 years.

39. Shane: I was a Catholic for many years and understand fully what she teaches. I own a catechism and have read it in great detail. So be careful when accusing me of not understanding. I became an Evangelical when I could not resolve the difference between Orthodox and Catholics. Rejecting the Papacy by the Orthodox is a huge issue. Either the Pope is the Vicar of Christ or he is not! This opened the door to me searching the church fathers, history, and doctrine. After my journey it became clear the church fathers were quite ambigous and not systematic theologians. This is why both Catholics and Protestants claim Augustine as one of their own. I also read the Hidden Manna by James O’Connor and saw that the historical argument for Transubstantiation was weak. So now I am an Evangelical and see that Tradition is not a good arbitrator of doctrine. Why? Evangelicals, Orthodox, and Catholics all appeal to tradition, so who do you follow. Evangelicals claim that universal church traditionally used the Bible to define doctrine and this was ratified in 397AD. Catholics and Orthodox were also invited to the party and they did not include the Apocrypha so subsequent inclusion is not justified because the Universal church has not accepted it.
    Anyway thanks for your time.

40. “I was a Catholic for many years and understand fully what she teaches.” His posts show the falsity of that statement.
    “I own a catechism and have read it in great detail.” He posts show that his reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
    “So be careful when accusing me of not understanding.” His own posts are his accusers.
    “After my journey it became clear the church fathers were quite ambiguous…” Must be that reading comprehension problem again. In reading Jurgens’ three volume collection of the writings of the Church Fathers, I highlighted all the specifically Catholic doctrines in their writings. I used up 3 highlighters.

41. Again, BTW, he offers no evidence to support his claims.

42. francisco,
    Thank you for your reply. There are a few things I’d like to mention. First, bill912 suggests that your reading comprehension may be lacking, and I tend to agree – at least insofar as the evidence we have to go on is concerned. For example, you said in response to me, “So be careful when accusing me of not understanding.” However, in my previous post I went out of my way to specifically point out that I don’t know how much you understand, but that it would seem that you may not because you were only copying and pasting material.
    I did assert that the author of the website from which you copied and pasted does not understand Catholicism, because I have read much of what he has to say and it’s just a series of terrible arguments. As I said, there are many others who oppose the Catholic Church, such as Norman Geisler, James White, and others, who would reject the anti-Catholic arguments of that website as harmful to the “true” opposition to the Catholic Church because of how bad they are. What I said was that if your understanding of the Church is based on that site, then it is severely lacking. I did not, however, accuse you of not understanding.
    That said, some of your arguments against the Catholic Church do show a lack of understanding, insofar as they can be refuted by showing that the points of fact which underly them are false. For example, you say that in 397 the universal Church settled on a Biblical canon but that the apocrypha were not included. Now quite apart from the issue of just how the Church decided on a canon in 397 without some God-given authority to do so – such as the Catholic Church is said to possess – the problem here is that the apocrypha were in the list compiled in 397. The list put together in 397 is as follows, with the apocrypha bolded:
    Item placuit ut praeter Scripturas canonicas nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae hae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Naue, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quator, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, libri duodecim prophetarum, Jesaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti, evangeliorum libri quator, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Epistolae Pauli Apostoli xiii., ejusdem ad Hebraeos una, Petri apostoli duae, Johannes tres, Jacobi i., Judae i., Apocalipsis Johannis liber unus. Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifatio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda. Liceat autem legi passiones martyrum cum anniversarii eorum dies celebrantur.
    That is, Tobit, Judith, 5 books of Solomon – which includes Wisdom and Sirach, for there are only 3 books of Solomon in Protestant Bibles, and first and second Maccabees. That leaves out only Baruch being explicitly mentioned, but this was included as it was considered at the time to be a part of Jeremiah. Therefore, your facts are simply untrue.
    Another issue I want to mention is the list of groups which you say carried on the underground Church throughout the centuries. I could not comment on this until now, because before I was uncertain as to precisely what you believe. However, you have now identified the evangelical movement as the current incarnation of the true Church and said, “This Evangelical model states that the Old Testament was sufficient to guide the Jews and the NT is sufficient to guide Christians.”
    The problem here is that you listed the Montanists as one of the groups which carried the true Church from the earliest times. The Montanists did not believe that the writings of the Apostles (that is, the New Testament) were sufficient to guide Christians. They believed that the prophecies of Montanists were more important than the teachings of the Apostles. Therefore, if the Montanists were indeed a bearer of the true Church, then there is a contradiction in the teachings of the true Church. Of course, you rightly said that “Clearly if the church is the bulwark of truth then one can not have major conflicting doctrine.” Here is one.
    So I put forth two things.
    First, there are two major problems here in your arguments. Your argument against the Deuterocanon of Catholic Bibles is demonstrably false, and your citation of the Montanists as an example of the underground true Church presents some serious problems.
    Second, there are now two areas which we can be certain you do not understand something about Catholicism: you do not understand the formation of canon throughout the early Church, and you do not understand what a Montanist is.
    Jesus Christ calls you to know Him, and so to know truth. We all make mistakes, and we all have erroneous ideas. I invite you now, seeing where some very important things you believe can be demonstrated – and in fact demonstrated extremely easily – to be false, to take up a new study of Church history and of the Catholic Church. Now that you know you have some false beliefs, make it your mission, for Love of Christ, to study more and to come to a better understanding of Him and the Church He has left.
    God bless,
    Shane

43. I fear the Galactic Senate is going to have hard time passing meaningful trade legislation if this filabusteting continues.

44. Shane,
    I am aware of both of your points. There is a big difference between calling something canonical and Apocryphal. The word Apocrypha means of inferior quality or questionable authorship or authenticity. I only mentioned that everyone agreed on what was canonical literature in 397AD.
    Secondly, the Montanists had many enemies and the only remaining documents available are from their accusers. These accusers have probably exaggerated their position regarding prophecy.

45. “I only mentioned that everyone agreed on what was canonical literature in 397AD. ”
    That is manifestly false. There was a great deal of controversy over which books were canonical, hence the need for a council to settle the issue.
    “…the only remaining documents available are from their accusers. These accusers have probably exaggerated their position regarding prophecy.”
    Do you have any *evidence* that this is true? Any at all? Do you realize this view of church history amounts to a giant conspiracy theory?

46. Dear Francisco,
    I hesitate to get involved in this discission, but you wrote:
    “Secondly, the Montanists had many enemies and the only remaining documents available are from their accusers.”
    This is not, strictly speaking, true. There are some fragments, extant. More than that, Tertullian became a Montanist somewhere areound 207 A. D. and we have some of his Montanist-based writings. For a complete summary of the state of information on the Montanist fragments, I recommend the classic (but now, outdated):
    Montanism and the primitive church : a study in the ecclesiastical history of the second century (1878)
    by John De Soyres (which can be downloaded, online)
    and
    Montanist inscriptions and testimonia : epigraphic sources illustrating the history of Montanism / William Tabbernee (1944)
    and the more modern:
    Reaching beyond : chapters in the history of perfectionism / Stanley M. Burgess, editor
    and
    The Montanist oracles and testimonia
    By Ronald E. Heine, 1989 (Mercer Press), which can be read online via Google Books.
    As well as the classic by Monsr. Ronald Knox (now, out of print):
    Enthusiasm : a chapter in the history of religion; with special reference to the XVII and XVIII centuries
    I would ignore the book by Trevett, as it seems to have a feminist slant, although, if I recall, correctly, it does contain quotations from the fragments.
    First of all, who were the Montanists? For those who are unfamiliar with them, an introduction may be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article.
    For reasons I will not get into, I have a fair knowledge of ecstatic/Pentecostal groups throughout Church history and at least two groups cited by you, above, the Montanists and (if I recall, correctly) the Waldensians (to a lesser extent) fall into this category and were known for their ‘spirit-driven” activities. Both began as somewhat ascetic groups that became moreso as they progressed, reaching a type of “perfectionism” which can be seen as precursor to some later Calvinist groups, such as the Anabaptists and Shakers.
    Basically, the Montanists existed before the canon of Scripture was codified (their heyday was from about 155 A. D. to about 300 A. D., although they there were certainly known by both Augustine and Jerome (Augustine reconciled a group of Montanists to the Church). They started out following Scripture to a fair extent, but went off the rails in going beyond the teachings of Scripture in such things as forbidding second marriages and their views on virginity (see Tertullians work for his take). Their reported style of prophetic utterances is similar to the Third Wave Pentecostals of modern times.
    I don’t want to spend a lot of time getting into the details of Montanism because you are correct in that there is little first-hand material by either Montanus, Maxillimus, or Pricilla (the founders). Still, they can, in no way, be seen as a secret underground Church that preserved the original intentions of Christ, in that Montanistic utterances are spoken in the first person, as if the person were “channeling” either God, the Father, or Christ. If this had been the case, then Christ would have been adding new things to the Scripture, but the canon of Scripture was closed when St. John died. Such revelatory novelties would be rejected by Evangelicals, today. As I say, I do not want to get into a long discussion because focusing on the Montanists would side-track the discussion into other areas,
    You say that, “To summarize all state churches( Catholic, Orthodox) beginning with Constantine to the present are fundamentally tools of occult teaching.” The Montanists, as best we understand their writings, would be rejected on this very basis by modern Evangelicals. I don’t want to roll up my sleeves and write a dissertation on the topic of mysticism and occult utterances (occult being used in the sense of “hidden”).
    Neither the Montanists nor the Waldensians can really be used to make a claim of an early TRUE underground Church that survived a supposed distortion of teachings by the Church, since they, themselves, deviate from each other in how they read and apply Scripture.
    Oh, and by the way, strictly speaking, Christ’s Great Commission does not require the existence of the Bible, but it does require the existence of the Church. You have it backwards: Churches ought not be based on the Bible; the Bible ought to be revealed in the life of the Church. Had the bible never been written, if all of its pages had been lost, the Church would survive. The Bible is a great gift, but it is a gift given after the Church was formed, not before. The Church takes primacy.
    The Chicken

47. I will give a simple analogy. Which came first America or the US Constitution? Even though America came first, the Constitution is the basis for all rule in the land.
    The true church must be guided by the Churches Constitution, ie Bible. So the true church has always interpreted the Bible correctly( historical grammatical hermeneutic) and she was always primarily underground until 1500. Several Church Fathers refered to doctrine that can be viewed as ‘sola scriptura’.
    Nowhere does the Bible command that we need historical continuity. Even Catholics can not demonstrate historical continuity without quoting forged decretals or documents of questionable authenticity.
    The Apostles realized that the Early Church would go astray if it did not have canonical teaching, hence everything including the Book of Revelation was written by 70AD. The Pastoral Epistles clearly mention a presbyterian form of government thus negating any form of Episcopal government. The Latin Vulgate confuses the word priest and presbyter, while the Greek does not.
    Unfortunately Catholics believe the myth that they were the only church until the Reformation. If this were true why did not the Pope convene the council of Nicea? Why was Constantine the first person to call himself the Vicar of Christ?
    I also want to avoid a lengthy dissertation, but it is clear that any further discussions require a lengthy tome.

48. The dead, beaten horse has officially been set on fire.

49. Dear Francisco,
    You wrote:
    Nowhere does the Bible command that we need historical continuity.
    This is sort of like, “Nowhere does the Bible use the word, Trinity”.
    It is very hard to preach the Gospel to every creature if there is no historical continuity. Preaching is a companion of history.
    The Chicken

50. I wonder why, after being called on it several times, francisco continues to make accusations without offering a shred of evidence to back up his claims? That would seem to be a tacit admission on his part that he has none.

51. Jimminy Crickets, how did this thread get hijacked like this? I was interested in seeing how my present and soon to be former bishop was being received out there in the Catholic blogosphere… and all I can find are cheesy Star Wars jokes and a completely irrelevant debate about Montanism!

52. Burn, Dobbin, burn.

53. the Bible is a religious document and not a comprehensive church governmental document. Place your faith in God, not just the word of God.

54. Why does francisco never provide any evidence for any of his claims? Why should anyone respond to any of his claims unless he does so? What is the penalty in his state for making electronic communications after being told to cease doing so?

55. Why did Bill waste his time responding to francisco when he knew francisco’s posts would be deleted?
    (Well, maybe the last line of my previous post will get his attention should he decide to try to post again…)

56. Good grief.
    I just discovered that “Francisco” = “Rashid,” a supposed Muslim anti-Catholic who was banned a long time ago.
    Even back then, he had more than one identity — he was also “Frankie,” a Protestant anti-Catholic — which he claimed was because multiple people in an apartment building shared a computer. That building must be a sewer of anti-Catholicism.
    Francisco/Rashid/Frankie: You have been officially disinvited, more than once, to participate in the blog. Shake the dust off your shoes if you want, but get lost. At this point you are stealing (for one thing, you’re robbing me of admin time unpublishing your posts) as well as wasting your own time, and also incidentally offending the Spirit of Christ.
    Don’t make further action necessary.

57. I’m shocked–shocked!–to learn that francisco/rashid/frankie is a liar!

58. I am amazed as well, but don’t forget fred123!

59. Note: tmc (last post, above) and The Masked Chicken are not the same person/chicken
    The Chicken

Comments are closed.