At what point do we not consider certain Protestant churches as legitimate?

[MillTownCath]

It is said there are over 30,000 Protestant religions in the world. Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians? If we don’t, where is the line we draw to determine what is a real Christian Church and what is not? Thanks!

 

[puzzleannie]

who is “we?” The Catholic Church decides who is in communion with her.

 

[Contarini]

It is said there are over 30,000 Protestant religions in the world. Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians? If we don’t, where is the line we draw to determine what is a real Christian Church and what is not? Thanks!

Insofar as the distinction matters for Catholics, it surely has to do with valid baptism.

Churches that baptize in the name of the Trinity (which involves believing in the Trinity–Mormons use a Trinitarian formula but understand something different by it) are considered to have valid baptism, I believe.

Other than that, I’m not sure how the distinction is meaningful for Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Vincent1984]

It is said there are over 30,000 Protestant religions in the world. Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians? If we don’t, where is the line we draw to determine what is a real Christian Church and what is not? Thanks!

A real Christian church must have apostolic succession; this rules out (almost?) all groups derived from the Reformation. Dominus Iesus is helpfully clear:

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, 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. 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.

But people validly baptized remain Christians, individually, even if they are not part of a church “in the proper sense of the word”. Most Protestant groups that we have heard of have valid baptism, though a few have been experimenting recently with formulae like “Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer” which would mean someone is not baptized.

 

[Contarini]

A real Christian church must have apostolic succession; this rules out (almost?) all groups derived from the Reformation

Fair enough–I was focusing on the “real Christian” part and not making the church/ecclesial community distinction.

But people validly baptized remain Christians, individually

Vatican II seems to go beyond this by recognizing our “ecclesial communities,” even though (in your Communion’s view) we are not strictly speaking “churches.”

Edwin

 

[meltzerboy]

It is said there are over 30,000 Protestant religions in the world. Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians? If we don’t, where is the line we draw to determine what is a real Christian Church and what is not? Thanks!

I think it matters less what each of us might think and more what the Catholic Church says about the issue, on the one hand, and what the churches consider themselves, on the other, despite the fact these views may be opposed.

 

[rinnie]

It is said there are over 30,000 Protestant religions in the world. Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians? If we don’t, where is the line we draw to determine what is a real Christian Church and what is not? Thanks!

I would say if they are Baptised in the Trinity we they are all part of the Christ.

 

[Contarini]

I think it matters less what each of us might think and more what the Catholic Church says about the issue, on the one hand, and what the churches consider themselves, on the other, despite the fact these views may be opposed.

Speaking for myself, I care a lot more about what the See of Rome thinks of Episcopalianism than about what Presiding Bishop +Jefferts-Schori thinks, or even what +Rowan Williams thinks.

Edwin

 

[Scoobyshme]

We consider all validly baptized Christians as part of the one Church, although Protestants are not in full communion with the one Church. There is but one Church, which is the Body of Christ, because Christ only has one body. And that Church is the Catholic Church.

They separate themselves from the Body of Christ; it is not us who separates them.

 

[Izdaari]

We consider all validly baptized Christians as part of the one Church, although Protestants are not in full communion with the one Church. There is but one Church, which is the Body of Christ, because Christ only has one body. And that Church is the Catholic Church.

They separate themselves from the Body of Christ; it is not us who separates them.

From the Protestant PoV, there is also but one universal Church, the Body of Christ… but while the Catholic Church may be part of that Body (I think it is), it isn’t the main part of it or the definition of it.

Since I’m a member of an AG church, which doesn’t have or claim apostolic succession, but I have had a trinitarian baptism, I guess according to Catholic understanding I’m a Christian but my church not so much. I disagree of course, else I’d become Catholic.

I don’t consider a Protestant (or other) church to be legit if they preach “a different gospel”, i.e. if their doctrine is cultish rather than orthodox. That would include all Protestant churches that claim exclusivity. (The Catholic claim to exclusivity is perhaps not correct, but deserves to be taken seriously.)

 

[StevenFrancis]

Do you mean, at what point to we consider them “Catholic”? They are all legitimate to the extent that they are in communion with Rome, but are not (blg C) Catholic, and apostolic, unless they’re, well…Catholic and apostolic.

I guess you’d need to define what you mean by legitimate. Legitimate in teaching authority on faith and morals? No.

Legitimate in apostolic succession? No.

Legitimate in the episcopacy? No.

Legitimate in a shared understanding on trinity, and the sacrament of baptism? Most all of the protestants have that.

A sincere love of Jesus Christ? Most share a legitimate love of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Scoobyshme]

From the Protestant PoV, there is also but one universal Church, the Body of Christ… but while the Catholic Church may be part of that Body (I think it is), it isn’t the main part of it or the definition of it.

Since I’m a member of an AG church, which doesn’t have or claim apostolic succession, but I have had a trinitarian baptism, I guess according to Catholic understanding I’m a Christian but my church not so much. I disagree of course, else I’d become Catholic.

I don’t consider a Protestant (or other) church to be legit if they preach “a different gospel”, i.e. if their doctrine is cultish rather than orthodox. That would include all Protestant churches that claim exclusivity. (The Catholic claim to exclusivity is perhaps not correct, but deserves to be taken seriously.)

Unfortunately, every Protestant church teaches a different Gospel, i.e., at least one false doctrine. That’s not to say they are culpable, since they may be invincibly ignorant (clinical term, not polemical, please) and not really know that they’re wrong.

 

[StevenFrancis]

From the Protestant PoV, there is also but one universal Church, the Body of Christ… but while the Catholic Church may be part of that Body (I think it is), it isn’t the main part of it or the definition of it.

Since I’m a member of an AG church, which doesn’t have or claim apostolic succession, but I have had a trinitarian baptism, I guess according to Catholic understanding I’m a Christian but my church not so much. I disagree of course, else I’d become Catholic.

I don’t consider a Protestant (or other) church to be legit if they preach “a different gospel”, i.e. if their doctrine is cultish rather than orthodox. That would include all Protestant churches that claim exclusivity. (The Catholic claim to exclusivity is perhaps not correct, but deserves to be taken seriously.)

This is a serious question. Please don’t laugh me out of this place. How do protestants of any type come to a conclusion that the Catholic Church could be a sect or denomination of Christianity. Couldn’t only protestants be sects of denominations of Christianity? Until the protestant revolt/reform/reformation, (and putting aside for the moment, Eastern Orthodoxy, which to my understanding is NOT protestant), who were the Christians? Isn’t history alone sufficient to grant THE Church, its status as THE Church? Wouldn’t someone who called the Catholics a “branch” of Christianity be re-writing the history of Christianity, and the incarnation altogether?

I REALLY have a problem grasping where protestants draw authority, and certainly where they would come up with the data to refer to anything other than protestants as being branches, sects, or denominations of Christianity. I actually, simply, and plainly don’t get it. I don’t understand it.

I’ve never doubted the love and sincerity of the Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists who were so influential in my coming to Christ. I give thanks to God always for their time, care, and evangelization. But once on the road, it really was crystal clear. I mean completely clear, that only the Catholic Church was THE Church set up by Christ. It’s the only one with a historical thread going back to Jesus Himself, and be virtue of that, back to Abraham. Denominations come FROM something. Protests are AGAINST something. The thing denominations are a denomination OF, is the Church which is the mystical body, and bride of Jesus Christ. This is not a jab at protestant integrity, or heart. There are protestants, and even heretical faiths which make many modern day Catholics look quite pale and luke warm. This is a sad situation that I have noted which I attribute to a lack of catechesis, and prompting through evangelism to ongoing conversion of the heart.

Anyway, I’m starting to ramble. I just would like to hear the full logical rationale for the Catholic Church being a sect. Also, from where protestant denominations draw authority. What protects the interpretation of scripture? Who provides teachings for faith and morals? How can those fundamentals vary from denomination to denomination? Under whose authority?

I guess if Catholics were a branch or denomination of anything, it would be Judaism?

Anyway,

God bless us all,

and of course, the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ to my brothers and sisters who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(And even those who don’t right now, but are here to learn about him).

Don’t let our inner-conflicts keep you from giving your heart and soul to Jesus Christ. These are bickerings among brothers and sisters. Siblings who love each other very much, and share the same parents. We view each other at times as being in degrees of disobedience, but we all agree that we love Mom and Dad with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds.

 

[Izdaari]

Unfortunately, every Protestant church teaches a different Gospel, i.e., at least one false doctrine. That’s not to say they are culpable, since they may be invincibly ignorant (clinical term, not polemical, please) and not really know that they’re wrong.

Yeah, I understand that’s the Catholic PoV. I don’t agree with it. Which, of course, is obvious. If I did agree with it, I’d be Catholic.

 

[Phyllo]

. (The Catholic claim to exclusivity is perhaps not correct, but deserves to be taken seriously.)

The Catholic church does not claim to be exclusive it is exclusive. Christ founded one church and that one church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It is only the Catholic Church that has the fullness of the truth as taught by Jesus. So why would any one NOT want to be Catholic? Why would any one want partial truth taught in their “churches”?

 

[Erich]

Yeah, I understand that’s the Catholic PoV. I don’t agree with it. Which, of course, is obvious. If I did agree with it, I’d be Catholic.

This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes some good points. In summary:

Consider 1 Cor 11:18-19: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

*So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.

Believers in an “invisible church of true believers” tend to also be believers in the notion that there are “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines and as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”

The notion that that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth… is a false notion. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church… they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. Again, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity?

 

[Izdaari]

This is a serious question. Please don’t laugh me out of this place. How do protestants of any type come to a conclusion that the Catholic Church could be a sect or denomination of Christianity. Couldn’t only protestants be sects of denominations of Christianity? Until the protestant revolt/reform/reformation, (and putting aside for the moment, Eastern Orthodoxy, which to my understanding is NOT protestant), who were the Christians? Isn’t history alone sufficient to grant THE Church, its status as THE Church? Wouldn’t someone who called the Catholics a “branch” of Christianity be re-writing the history of Christianity, and the incarnation altogether?

I REALLY have a problem grasping where protestants draw authority, and certainly where they would come up with the data to refer to anything other than protestants as being branches, sects, or denominations of Christianity. I actually, simply, and plainly don’t get it. I don’t understand it.

I’ve never doubted the love and sincerity of the Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists who were so influential in my coming to Christ. I give thanks to God always for their time, care, and evangelization. But once on the road, it really was crystal clear. I mean completely clear, that only the Catholic Church was THE Church set up by Christ. It’s the only one with a historical thread going back to Jesus Himself, and be virtue of that, back to Abraham. Denominations come FROM something. Protests are AGAINST something. The thing denominations are a denomination OF, is the Church which is the mystical body, and bride of Jesus Christ. This is not a jab at protestant integrity, or heart. There are protestants, and even heretical faiths which make many modern day Catholics look quite pale and luke warm. This is a sad situation that I have noted which I attribute to a lack of catechesis, and prompting through evangelism to ongoing conversion of the heart.

Anyway, I’m starting to ramble. I just would like to hear the full logical rationale for the Catholic Church being a sect. Also, from where protestant denominations draw authority. What protects the interpretation of scripture? Who provides teachings for faith and morals? How can those fundamentals vary from denomination to denomination? Under whose authority?

I guess if Catholics were a branch or denomination of anything, it would be Judaism?

Anyway,

God bless us all,

and of course, the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ to my brothers and sisters who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(And even those who don’t right now, but are here to learn about him).

Don’t let our inner-conflicts keep you from giving your heart and soul to Jesus Christ. These are bickerings among brothers and sisters. Siblings who love each other very much, and share the same parents. We view each other at times as being in degrees of disobedience, but we all agree that we love Mom and Dad with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds.

Oh my! That’s rather long, but it does seem to be from the heart.

I did not use the words “denomination” or “sect” in reference to Catholicism since I know how my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ hate that.

But if I believed, as you apparently do, that is it the One True Church, I would become Catholic. Actually, I’d probably become Orthodox, since that’s much more palatable to me: It has what I love about Catholicism, but less that I just can’t swallow.

No worries on that last count. Nothing will separate me from the love of Christ.

:flowers:

 

[ltwin]

This is a serious question. Please don’t laugh me out of this place. How do protestants of any type come to a conclusion that the Catholic Church could be a sect or denomination of Christianity. Couldn’t only protestants be sects of denominations of Christianity? Until the protestant revolt/reform/reformation, (and putting aside for the moment, Eastern Orthodoxy, which to my understanding is NOT protestant), who were the Christians? Isn’t history alone sufficient to grant THE Church, its status as THE Church? Wouldn’t someone who called the Catholics a “branch” of Christianity be re-writing the history of Christianity, and the incarnation altogether?

I REALLY have a problem grasping where protestants draw authority, and certainly where they would come up with the data to refer to anything other than protestants as being branches, sects, or denominations of Christianity. I actually, simply, and plainly don’t get it. I don’t understand it.

I’ve never doubted the love and sincerity of the Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists who were so influential in my coming to Christ. I give thanks to God always for their time, care, and evangelization. But once on the road, it really was crystal clear. I mean completely clear, that only the Catholic Church was THE Church set up by Christ. It’s the only one with a historical thread going back to Jesus Himself, and be virtue of that, back to Abraham. Denominations come FROM something. Protests are AGAINST something. The thing denominations are a denomination OF, is the Church which is the mystical body, and bride of Jesus Christ. This is not a jab at protestant integrity, or heart. There are protestants, and even heretical faiths which make many modern day Catholics look quite pale and luke warm. This is a sad situation that I have noted which I attribute to a lack of catechesis, and prompting through evangelism to ongoing conversion of the heart.

Anyway, I’m starting to ramble. I just would like to hear the full logical rationale for the Catholic Church being a sect. Also, from where protestant denominations draw authority. What protects the interpretation of scripture? Who provides teachings for faith and morals? How can those fundamentals vary from denomination to denomination? Under whose authority?

I guess if Catholics were a branch or denomination of anything, it would be Judaism?

Anyway,

God bless us all,

and of course, the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ to my brothers and sisters who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(And even those who don’t right now, but are here to learn about him).

Don’t let our inner-conflicts keep you from giving your heart and soul to Jesus Christ. These are bickerings among brothers and sisters. Siblings who love each other very much, and share the same parents. We view each other at times as being in degrees of disobedience, but we all agree that we love Mom and Dad with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds.

Just from the perspective of categorization, it would be necessary to term the CC a denomination. I know that Catholics see themselves as the one true church, but Protestants don’t. Why wouldn’t Protestants term the CC like they do every other Christian body?

I believe that God is answering the prayer of Jesus that we all may be one; however, this is happening slowly. It seems that Catholics find it hard to even believe that Protestants can believe in one church when there are so many organizations and doctrinal points of view. This is not a problem for Protestants because we don’t define the church as an institution. It is more like a living organism, the body of Christ. There are many branches and all these branches think that their particular doctrines and ways of doing things are correct, but what is really happening is that each one, I believe, are championing aspects of the gospel and the Christian faith that are neglected by all the rest. The problem is that we become so zealous to emphasize what makes us distinct that we place barriers between ourselves and other Christians. This is horrible, and the splits and divisions are horrible. I believe, however, that God will work through all of us despite our squabbles to perfect and unify His church.

 

[exnihilo]

This is a serious question. Please don’t laugh me out of this place. How do protestants of any type come to a conclusion that the Catholic Church could be a sect or denomination of Christianity. Couldn’t only protestants be sects of denominations of Christianity? Until the protestant revolt/reform/reformation, (and putting aside for the moment, Eastern Orthodoxy, which to my understanding is NOT protestant), who were the Christians? Isn’t history alone sufficient to grant THE Church, its status as THE Church? Wouldn’t someone who called the Catholics a “branch” of Christianity be re-writing the history of Christianity, and the incarnation altogether?

That is a good question. I actually was in a church history class recently in my church and we were given a graphic of the denominations of the church. It looked very much like a vine with ‘The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ as the root. Off this root came a split into the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and Eastern Orthodoxy. And then from the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ came Anglican Church with Episcopalian, Methodism etc. coming off it. The Lutheran Church had its branches main ‘root’ and then sub branches.

It would seem that this graphic suggests there was one church that split into two branches and then from one branch, the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, split many other branches. There were no such branches off of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I guess one could look at it as the church was one until it split and so in that way the Roman Catholic Church is a branch as much as Eastern Orthodoxy. In an organizational sense this would seem to be fairly accurate.

From a theological sense all branches are claiming to be the true church so the branching graphic would not make sense there as they consider themselves to be true and their heritage to be corrupted. The branch idea does not really make sense as the assumption is your root is diseased. Each church would consider itself a new shoot off of the original church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, sounds correct. However there is only One Holy Apostolic Church which is the CC/EO. Of the two the CC claims the Chair of Peter which currently still resides in Rome.

However this doesn’t negate the validity of the EO. And there is much to be learned from their stability. No-one anywhere else has claim to Apostolic Succession. There lies the falacy.

The Protestant churchs which follow the first Seven Ecumenical Councils are of great interest to us in that they are close. However many Protestant Churchs only follow the first Four Ecumenical councils. This requires much more effort to correct.

Peace

Peace