Are protestants churches,....churches at all?

[Clairvaux]

Many times we heard that we have the Catholic Church and protestants churches.
With both examples we name it churches, but i was wondering if this is correct, because in how far can we call protestant church a church at all?
The Lord Jesus establised only “one” Church, with it’s apostolic sucession, sacraments…etc., so is it not better to talk about protestant fellowships or meetings insted of protestant churches ?
Thoughts ?

 

[Josh316]

I would suggest, as a Catholic, that they are churches insofar as they agree with what the Church teaches. However, and no disrespect to protestants, I do have trouble personally, not that all Catholics or the Church does, calling them churches because if the Eucharist is absent then so to, IMO, is the meaning behind the term.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Many times we heard that we have the Catholic Church and protestants churches.
With both examples we name it churches, but i was wondering if this is correct, because in how far can we call protestant church a church at all?

The Catholic Church is THE Church (established by Jesus Christ). Protestant fellowships are “a” church.

There is no such thing as THE protestant church. There are thousands upon thousands of contradictory protestant churches. Nobody can give me a statement of “protestant beliefs.”

But there is, indeed, a Methodist church, and a Baptist church, and a Presbyterian church, and a Lutheran church (and a Jewish church, and a Hindu church, and many others).

Catholics cannot claim exclusive right to the noun “church,” but we can claim exclusive right to call ourselves the “One TRUE Church established by Jesus Christ.”

 

[rebecca123]

Father says that they are “Protestant sects”.

 

[Church_Militant]

Many times we heard that we have the Catholic Church and protestants churches.
With both examples we name it churches, but i was wondering if this is correct, because in how far can we call protestant church a church at all?
The Lord Jesus established only “one” Church, with it’s apostolic succession, sacraments…etc., so is it not better to talk about protestant fellowships or meetings instead of protestant churches ?
Thoughts ?

This may help a bit.
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING n-C “Churches”

 

[minkymurph]

I suppose it depends on what you think a ‘church’ is.

Anyone want to have a go at defining the word ‘Church.’ I googled it and felt none the wiser after reading the definitions.

 

[FCEGM]

Many times we heard that we have the Catholic Church and protestants churches.
With both examples we name it churches, but i was wondering if this is correct, because in how far can we call protestant church a church at all?
The Lord Jesus establised only “one” Church, with it’s apostolic sucession, sacraments…etc., so is it not better to talk about protestant fellowships or meetings insted of protestant churches ?
Thoughts ?

You’re correct, Clairvaux. This article addresses the issue:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a130.htm

A brief excerpt:

Protestantism is not a valid mode of prolongation of Christ’s Incarnation as His Church or Mystical Body begun on Pentecost.

In the 16th century, there was a break of spiritual continuity in several directions at once from Christ’s true Church, which means that none of the denominations at the time or now can even be called Churches in a true sense. They’re only associations of believers, lacking the essential supernatural elements to be organic supernatural communions in continuity with the Body of Christ as a local Church. They are as a result sort of distorted pre-Churches.

 

[Sir_Knight]

According to Pope Benedict, non-Catholic Christian communities are either defective or not true churches – Source.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Protestants do not have a “Church” in the fullest sense of the ORIGINAL meaning of the word. They have “Faith Communities” or “Ecclesial Communities”. None of these “ecclesial community” has a valid priesthood since they either abandoned the apostolic succession or never had it to start with. Orthodox have a valid “Church” since they retain the apostolic succession.

The biblical sense of “Church” is seen in Paul’s letter to Timothy: 1 Tim 3:15 “… the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth”. In Paul’s day ALL churches were Catholic since ALL had a valid apostolic bishop/priest and ALL had the Eucharistic celebration - e.g. The Living God present in the converted bread and wine. NONE of the “bible only” so called “churches” believe that the church is the pillar & foundation of truth - for them only the bible has the full truth.

These non-Catholic assemblies (some Catholics too) use the term “Church” carlessly or ignorantly. To elementary perceivers “word meaning” is superficial. This same defect applies to interpreting scripture - a book of many words with many deeper meanings than most even imagine. This is how some get to a dogma of “just believe” where “belief” can mean anything but obedience to Christ’s commandments; and even becomes the means to justify sinning since one is “saved”.

Here are some select sections for Dominus Iesus by then Cardinal Ratzinger approved by Pope JPII . This is the proper relationship of “ecclesial communities” to the Catholic Church. Read the whole text to get the proper context.
Summary of "Ecclesial Communities" from Dominus Iesus:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s response to “the theology of religious pluralism,”

Approved by Pope John Paul II, August 6, 2000.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
**IV. Unicity and unity of the Church. **

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “**This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). **This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and **ecclesial communities **which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

1. **Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.**58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

BF

 

[1ke]

With both examples we name it churches, but i was wondering if this is correct, because in how far can we call protestant church a church at all?

No. They are not Churches. They lack Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders.

They are ecclesial communions.

The Orthodox, OTOH, are Churches.

 

[rick43235]

The Lord Jesus establised only “one” Church, with it’s apostolic sucession, sacraments…etc., so is it not better to talk about protestant fellowships or meetings insted of protestant churches ?
Thoughts ?

While this is undoubtedly a Catholic teaching, members of protestant communities probably see things a bit differently. To tell a Lutheran or a Baptist that he/she is not a member of a “Church” would be extremely rude and arrogant, and would probably be taken as an invitation to tell you what their beliefs are about the Catholic Church.

 

[rick43235]

Father says that they are “Protestant sects”.

I was at a protestant church once where the minister referred to the Catholic Church as “the Catholic cult.” I think the use of either term would mark the end of any useful dialogue.

 

[clmowry]

I was at a protestant church once where the minister referred to the Catholic Church as “the Catholic cult.” I think the use of either term would mark the end of any useful dialogue.

I’ll stick with “Catholic” and “non-Catholic”, I’m sure someone can find anything offensive but this seems the most charitable “labeling” I can come up with.

What folks choose to call themselves is there own business.

I’m not going to get into debating with non-Trinitarians whether or not they are “christian” for example. I’m not going to argue with someone about whether or not their community is a church, in the strict theological sense.

If someone wants to discuss what Tradition and Scripture define as the Christian Church then that we can do.

What this definition implies about the “churchiness” of their particular community is for them to decide.

Chuck

 

[rick43235]

I’ll stick with “Catholic” and “non-Catholic”, I’m sure someone can find anything offensive but this seems the most charitable “labeling” I can come up with.

What folks choose to call themselves is there own business.

I’m not going to get into debating with non-Trinitarians whether or not they are “christian” for example. I’m not going to argue with someone about whether or not their community is a church, in the strict theological sense.

If someone wants to discuss what Tradition and Scripture define as the Christian Church then that we can do.

What this definition implies about the “churchiness” of their particular community is for them to decide.

Chuck

Chuck, you impress me as being a reasonable kind of guy.

 

[seanflynn]

To tell a Lutheran or a Baptist that he/she is not a member of a “Church” would be extremely rude and arrogant, and would probably be taken as an invitation to tell you what their beliefs are about the Catholic Church.

Arrogance, that is, lack of humility, docility, and obedience to just authority, is the defining trait of protestantism. Therefore, I don’t know what I’m getting at. I guess this just struck me a little funny.

I would consider it just as rude as telling an atheist that God is real. It is simply a truth they don’t want to hear. Are we humans not called to conform our beliefs to the Truth? Whether we currently see that it is true?

 

[NHInsider]

I would consider it just as rude as telling an atheist that God is real. It is simply a truth they don’t want to hear. Are we humans not called to conform our beliefs to the Truth? Whether we currently see that it is true?

I guess it depends on whether you want to help others come to know the Truth, or just to make sure they know that you believe you know it and they don’t. If your desire is for all to know Truth, then finding ways to avoid giving offense is a good thing. If your intent is to emphasize the division, then you’re not worried about giving offense and may even believe that trying to avoid it is being false to the truth.

 

[bona_fides_1]

I guess it depends on whether you want to help others come to know the Truth, or just to make sure they know that you believe you know it and they don’t. If your desire is for all to know Truth, then finding ways to avoid giving offense is a good thing. If your intent is to emphasize the division, then you’re not worried about giving offense and may even believe that trying to avoid it is being false to the truth.

Sometimes the truth identifies the harsh realities that there are factions. I don’t think pandering solves anything - at some point one has to speak the plain truth and defend their faith and beliefs. Do you know of a realistic way to answer the OP truthfully without some non-Catholics taking exception? The nature of the OP is offensive to some and arises because of the factions and divisions created by pluralistic thinking and protest - concepts alien to and in opposition to “Catholicism”.

So the OP is inviting a discussion on a topic that is at its root already offensive to Catholics due to the implication that non-Catholics can redefine our own cherished lexicons and terms (e.g. “church”) by superimposing new popular meanings/semantics that contradict the very nature of our beliefs and try to hijack them. The notion that a singular semantic can be expanded to a plural is offensive to Catholics. The phrase Christ used was “Upon this Rock I build My Church” it was not “Churches” (plural). In Christianity “Church” was always monolithic and unitive. Protestants came after Catholics. By creating their own communiteis and calling them “churches” they are overloading orthogonal semantics that become an affront to the entire theological concept of "Universal ’ or “Catholic” as well as to reason. This constitutes a “pretense” and a falsehood that Catholics MUST speak out against since it is morally wrong to let our non-Catholic brethren continue on in their wrong headed belief that there is an invisible “universal church” akin to something like the Borg Collective. The underlying nature of this problem arises from the “protest” and factions created by the reformers.

The truth will always be offensive to those who have invested in its opposite no matter how it is stated.

BF

 

[NHInsider]

There are lots of words that have different meanings depending on the context. In common usage “depressed” means “feeling down,” in medicine it’s a psychological condition. So in the context of the OP’s question, theologically speaking, we refer to our non-Catholic Christian brethren’s communities as “ecclesiastical communions,” which is completely accurate. But as Rick and Chuck both pointed out, that doesn’t mean we say to a Lutheran or Baptist “your church isn’t a church,” because in non-theological ordinary conversation the word “church” is used to mean an organization of Christians with a shared set of doctrines (and, of course, as a building dedicated to Christian worship, and most importantly, as the people who worship together). And in that sense of the word, they certainly are churches, and to tell them they are not implies (to them) that they are not Christians. (And no, there is not a Hindu church or a Jewish church because in common English those congregations and their houses of worship are not called “churches,” they’re called mandirs and synagogues - or, in both faiths, temples).

I don’t think pandering solves anything - at some point one has to speak the plain truth and defend their faith and beliefs.

I don’t think it is pandering to allow people to name themselves. It might be pandering if the context were in an interfaith apologetics discussion and the subject of ecclesiology came up and I didn’t explain the Catholic position. But if I start a conversation by insisting that my companion is wrong and I am right, there isn’t going to be any discussion at all. And if my desire is to see the unity Jesus prayed for restored, shouldn’t I be trying to encourage open discussion, not squelch it?

An example of this kind of thing in the opposite direction is the frequently-made statement by some Protestants that Catholic churches shouldn’t be called “St. Patrick Church” or “Our Lady of Mercy,” they should be “Christ Church” or “Church of Our Savior.” They then go on to explain that Catholics are pagan statue-worshippers. Am I offended? Of course. Is a fruitful discussion likely to evolve if I express my outrage? No, I’ll have just confirmed their preconceived notion. Is a fruitful discussion likely to evolve if I attempt to explain the idea of a patron saint? Probably not, but it’s at least possible.

 

[bona_fides_1]

There are lots of words that have different meanings depending on the context. In common usage “depressed” means “feeling down,” in medicine it’s a psychological condition. So in the context of the OP’s question, theologically speaking, we refer to our non-Catholic Christian brethren communities as “ecclesiastical communions,” which is completely accurate. But as Rick and Chuck both pointed out, that doesn’t mean we say to a Lutheran or Baptist “your church isn’t a church,” because in non-theological ordinary conversation the word “church” is used to mean an organization of Christians with a shared set of doctrines (and, of course, as a building dedicated to Christian worship, and most importantly, as the people who worship together). And in that sense of the word, they certainly are churches, and to tell them they are not implies (to them) that they are not Christians. (And no, there is not a Hindu church or a Jewish church because in common English those congregations and their houses of worship are not called “churches,” they’re called mandirs and synagogues - or, in both faiths, temples).

I don’t think it is pandering to allow people to name themselves. It might be pandering if the context were in an interfaith apologetics discussion and the subject of ecclesiology came up and I didn’t explain the Catholic position. But if I start a conversation by insisting that my companion is wrong and I am right, there isn’t going to be any discussion at all. And if my desire is to see the unity Jesus prayed for restored, shouldn’t I be trying to encourage open discussion, not squelch it?

An example of this kind of thing in the opposite direction is the frequently-made statement by some Protestants that Catholic churches shouldn’t be called “St. Patrick Church” or “Our Lady of Mercy,” they should be “Christ Church” or “Church of Our Savior.” They then go on to explain that Catholics are pagan statue-worshippers. Am I offended? Of course. Is a fruitful discussion likely to evolve if I express my outrage? No, I’ll have just confirmed their preconceived notion. Is a fruitful discussion likely to evolve if I attempt to explain the idea of a patron saint? Probably not, but it’s at least possible.

You are introducing yet another new term when you say “ecclesial communions”. Protestants don’t use this term nor does the official Vatican position of Dominus Iesus use this term (See my post #9). We Catholics call these “ecclesial communities”. I recommend we use the same terms that the Vatican uses. A communion implies unity of faith and worship two and from God. The Catholic Church does not believe that Protestants are in anything close to a “communion”. They are in ecclesial communities that have often members with widely different beliefs sitting side by side in the same pew (ask Anglicans about this or see the various sub-factions within a mega “bible-only” churches often arranged around their original denominations). Protestant Ecclesial Communities while having some physically observable elements of sanctification remain in a highly defective and imperfect communion with themselves and with the true Church and with God. The unity principal is wounded in liturgical “gatherings” where there is no common Eucharistic sacrament nor common faith to bring spiritual unity. That is not to say that the graces extended through the Catholic Church to Protestant ecclesial communities can not be efficacious though. But Protestants simply lack the means to offer the highest level worship due God (latria) without having valid Eucharistic offerings - therefor they really can’t be called a ‘communion’ without again overloading the original terms and washing out the meaning that Catholics give to the term.

The cost of protest and factions is a new dialect that borrows its vocabulary from the principals of Babel.

BF

 

[NHInsider]

You are introducing yet another new term when you say “ecclesial communions”. Protestants don’t use this term nor does the official Vatican position of Dominus Iesus use this term (See my post #9).
BF

You are correct and I mistyped. Thought it sounded funny at the time but didn’t take the time to check it.