The Ideal Church


Link to here and then click The Ideal Church on the right hand side.

…There should be a worldwide hierarchy that maintains the theological and personal unity of the church. Admittedly there is such among Catholics. But just as admittedly, Rome has done a poor job of handling this responsibility…

Thoughts anyone?


As I said “over there”–Judas didn’t like how Jesus was handling his kingdom. Jesus was humiliated and crucified, and from that degridation came our Salvation.

The Church is in the hands of the Almighty. I trust He knows how to bring redemption from degridation.


Give him a couple of years: R-C-I-A.

He’s definitely flirting with death when he flirts with the validity of the liturgy and begins to challenge the validity of Protestant views of the Eucharist. He has a few miles to go but he’s on the journey. Let’s hope he makes it all the way Home before dark.


Still too much private judgment. Whenever one doesn’t like what the hierarchy does, more factionalism. The hierarchy would have to have acknowledged divine support for obedience.

It also assumes that man is building the Church instead of Christ.


You can’t fight Truth.


[quote=SPH1]Still too much private judgment. Whenever one doesn’t like what the hierarchy does, more factionalism.

I have read much of what has been written in the Reformer-sphere in the wake of Francis Beckwith’s resignation as President and then as a member from the Evangelical Theological Society and the conversion of both he and his wife to Catholicism. Here is what Beckwith said:

My Return to the Catholic Church

My Resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society

I do not think factionalism is where Mr Wallace and his friend Mr Patton are going. Although if the past 500+ years is anything to go by, that may well be where they end up.

Since it is very difficult to pin either of them down to saying what they mean, it has taken a lot of hunting to put the puzzle pieces together to get at what they want. But sooner or later we CAF folks catch em and quote em.



It seems to me that their main thrust these days is not theological but political. And that political thrust is toward something akin to:
*]replacing the Catholic Church with an All-new Unified Communion of Reformers (Sola Scriptura eliminates the Catholic Church); and
*]obviously, if they are replacing the Catholic Church, then they will need a pope; so we have[/LIST]tuh-duh!
*]The Evangelical Pope of the All-new Unified Communion of Reformers![/LIST]I just wonder who that will end up being. :shrug: Thoughts?



If the thrust of Pen & Parchment brothers were theological, then they would be leaving no stone unturned (sorry, I didn’t mean you, Stone :wink: ) to make their points.

But quite frequently, instead of clarification, you will run into “I do not want to debate this” as a response to questions.

It was the differences in approach depending on which audience is at hand which alerted me to the political nature of the rhetoric. Compare these for example. (If your screen shows up all black, then press CTRL/A):

Walking Away from Protestantism: Francis Beckwith Converts to Catholicism

What Has Become of Evangelicalism? An Evangelical’s Lament

Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battleground Begun to Change?

Now note what Mr Patton asks us to swallow about Softening of Language here in post 1:

…[FONT=Times New Roman]It would seem to me that both sides are changing (progressing), softening in their language[/FONT][FONT=Arial], compromising, and becoming more tolerant of each other… [/FONT]

That is the approach with us at CAF. But look how that approaches changes dramatically here:

Letter to Pope Benedict

Dear Pope Benedict, you are cramping my style… it was not as if I expected us to unify publically or for you to renounce your thro … um seat, but Trent’s claims to exclusivity were arrogant and beyond your authority … Some of us were even calling you a cult until Vatican II …

It is not too late. Here is what you can do to both rectify the situation and save face. First you have to redefine your use of the word ‘Church’ in that document… I know that critical thinking is not encouraged since no one in your church has the right to criticize its head (nice job, BTW, keep them all in line)…

[FONT=Arial]You have come dangerously close to putting us back in the time of the Reformation[/FONT][FONT=Arial] and we will have to act accordingly to preserve the essence of what Christ did for us. [/FONT][FONT=Arial]link[/FONT]



And look where that letter sprang from here in post 60:

…Evangelicals see themselves as part of the catholic Church, but not necessarily the Roman Catholic church (and, yes, I know…you disagree with this distinction). But, I also see the Roman Catholic church as being part of the catholic church. …

And in their blog:

We are all Evangelical, which is a transdenominational term that seeks to unite different Protestant traditions under the same spirit and essential doctrine…
The one true Church, from a historic Protestant perspective, exists first ontologically as the invisible church of all those who are united with Christ by virtue of their trust in him and can be expressed by ANY who come together under a local authority that preaches the word and administers the sacraments. [FONT=Arial]link [/FONT]

[quote=SPH1] It also assumes that man is building the Church instead of Christ.

Oh it does. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Does Mr Wallace’s little blog entry remind you of anything?

A Trojan Horse perhaps? Let’s see if the horse can swim!

(A :yup: 's as good as a :wink: )


The Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail thought he could.


My comment on the blogsite:

I have to agree with Vance. Regardless of the definition of sola scriptura, it has, as admitted in the blog, led to 30,000 denominations. Mr. (Dr?) Wallace admits that there must be some form of accountability in this ideal universal church. However, as long as sola scriptura is the lynch-pin for doctrine, there will always be those who will disagree over the interpretation of scripture and leave the church for something that agrees with their own sensibility and personal interpretation…especially in the West.

What is needed is a true sense of accountability. Let’s say for example that this ideal universal church can make the case of it’s having been built by Christ himself, and derives its authority directly from Him. Furthermore, because the ideal church was instituted by Our Lord, it would be free from error when interpreting Scripture (for our God is not the God of confusion). Now we’re starting to get at true accountability because to leave Christ’s own church, or deny its interpretation is to pridefully turn one’s back on Christ himself.

Oh wait, there is an ideal universal church that already makes these claims :wink:

Sadly, it is exactly because of the Protestant reformation and sola scriptura that we here in the West have lost this sense of accountability. As a result, no church which is based on sola scriptura could be universal, much less ideal.


Much of what the Brothers Two have to say these days is about unity. I wonder how realistic it is to expect the spirit of division which has given birth to 30 000 denoms and many more non-denoms to suddenly see the light and unite? Perhaps it would take a great leader; one with huge charisma to heal such rebellion, error, and doubt.

Oh wait! We already have such a leader! Our Pope!

Awwww… too bad he does not believe in Sola Scriptura. But why would he, if Sola Scriptura fosters 30 000 denoms and many more non-denoms and literally millions of souls in isolation, each clamoring for uniqueness, specialness, and stature – like the stars there are so many. And like the stars, all in darkness.



I nominate Truthstalker. In fact, I’m already getting yard signs printed.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Oh gosh! Now we’ll have to start having Prefects. Will it never end?


Well–Apparently because someone on that blog called my post an “invective,” I have lost posting priveledges.–Here’s the response i guess they have to “check out” to be sure I’m not hurting anyone’s “feelings”

My original post:

Second, we would all embrace sola scriptura. ~DW
I don’t understand the draw of Sola Scriptura except that Luther coined it in opposition to the One Church and it is the main issue that separates this universal unity of Christians? I believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura should be held to its own standard. Sola Scriptura is ITSELF a tradition. However, unlike Catholic Sacred Tradition, it is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is clearly a “an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition,” (Colossians 2:8) without support per its own dictates. If I am wrong, please point me to an Early Church Father that professes this doctrine—otherwise it is anti-Biblical and anti-historical and anti-traditional and therefore without merit and a stumbling block to true communion.
….there should be a worldwide hierarchy that maintains the theological and personal integrity of the church. Admittedly, there is such among Catholics. But just as admittedly, Rome has done a poor job in handling this responsibility. ~DW
Many would argue that the man who ended up crucified did a pretty rotten job of handle the responsibility of his disciples. Judas wasn’t pleased—but that Man’s suffering was for a purpose unknown to his followers at the time. Catholics believe the mission of the Church is protected by God as promised by Jesus (Matthew 16:18, 28:20)—we do not have to understand every nuance of the mission of the Church to abide in Him and trust His means of accomplishing His plan for the salvation of mankind. Suffering is a mystery, and as evidenced by the cross, it has a redemptive purpose.


And the post I guess they’ll decide to include or not…:ehh:

Nick N.

***From NN:
Your invective against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads me to believe that you aren’t all that familiar with what the doctrine actually purports. But in reference to your comment: ***

I apologize if my comment came across as “invective”—that certainly wasn’t intentional. I am familiar with the varied and sundry positions on what “sola scriptura” actually means—I believe part of the problem with the “doctrine” is exactly what Wallace describes—no authority that has apostolic credentials is in place to set an objective standard.

***From NN:
What I can provide you with is the very sense of what Sola Scriptura purports (namely the sufficiency and authority of Scripture) from the words of Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius.
I’ll provide the references and if you are genuinely interested you can do the leg work.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechitical Lectures, 4.17 []](]) ***

The only thing in 4.7 that references scripture is, “7. …remember thou what is written in the Gospels, that none knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son.” In what way are you interpreting this to say that Scriptures are sufficient? You tell me to do the “leg work,” but I question whether you even read you own sources.

***From NN:
and 5.12 []](]) ***

5.12 is about the creed—not about scriptures. And in the first line it specifically says, “12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” If anything, that reference says that the Church is sufficient because it has the been fortified by the Scriptures.

***From NN:Athanasius. Against the Heathen, Part 1.3; Part 3.45.2-3 []](]) ***

And Athanasius is talking about the LOGOS—Word of God—AKA: JESUS! Did YOU read your own rebuttal sources? One has to wonder…maybe you thought I wouldn’t read them? This is very confusing. You offer nothing of support for considering Scriptures alone sufficient and yet claim you do.

You know, the scripture is perfectly sufficient in one thing—letting believers know that they need more than the scriptures alone. One merely has to look in the Bible to find evidence that the Scriptures alone are NOT sufficient except in that the scriptures clearly indicate one needs the Church and Sacred Tradition.
1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15 , 2 John 12, 3 John 13, 1 Cor. 11:2, Matthew 18:17-18…many many more.

Hence—If the Bible clearly and repeatedly demonstrates a magisterial hierarchy, and that the followers of Christ are to hold fast to the teachings conveyed both in writing and given orally—AND the Bible demonstrates that the traditions were expounded upon when those in the teaching authority could meet with the Christians face to face, I believe I am justified in saying that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that is anti-Biblical. It is not offering invective, it is offering the truth. You do not have to rely on early Church Fathers to determine Sola Scriptura is false—the Bible tells you so.


Careful you don’t spout anything that may be interpreted as “invective.”:rolleyes: (In other words–don’t disagree too much:cool: )


Ah–someone let it get posted–apparently I “passed muster.”:wink: Yay for me!:cool:


Are you suggesting that I “soften my language?” :stuck_out_tongue:


Begin each post with a rousing chorus of Kumbya–or maybe start with… “I’m probably wrong, but…” and continue with several apologies for Catholic doctrine throughout–and make sure you frequently compliment the other posters for their insightful theological commentary while ignoring all the ignorant assumptions about Catholic theology and the blatent anti-Catholic “invective.”:wink: :barf:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit