Is A Protostant "church" A Real Church

[dells_of_bittersweet]

So a friend of mine has suggested to me that protostant churches are not real churches. By her argument, only a Catholic Church is a real church because only in a Catholic Church is God worshipped in the way that He intended.

 

Here is a quote from the Code of Cannon law that could lend credence to her position if read in the correct light:

 

Can.  1214 By the term church is understood a sacred building designated for divine worship to which the faithful have the right of entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship.

 

She argues that "divine worship" exists only within the sacramental life of the Church and therefore only a Catholic Church contains true divine worship, ergo, only a Catholic Church is a "real" church.

 

So I am not convinced by all this. I argue that Divine worship can and does occur outside the sacraments. I think any public prayer service would count as Divine worship, although it would be very much less efficacious than a Mass. Second of all, most Protostant churches have some valid Sacraments, particurally Baptism and Marriage. These valid sacraments would constitute Divine worship in my mind. Finally, even if the Code of Cannon law defines "church" in a particular way, it is a legal document rather than a theological definition of what a Church is.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Since Protestant communities lack valid sacraments (except baptism), it is more appropriate to call them ecclesial communities, not churches. They cannot, properly speaking, offer true worship to God because they lack priests, bishops, the Eucharist, etc..
 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
 
FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[reyb]

Since Protestant communities lack valid sacraments (except baptism), it is more appropriate to call them ecclesial communities, not churches. They cannot, properly speaking, offer true worship to God because they lack priests, bishops, the Eucharist, etc..
 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
 
FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

That's it (period). Catholic Church is the only Church of God and all other 'churches' are not 'house of God' but 'Christian communities'.With this kind of attitude, all priests and bishops are already dead forever because - Is Moses a Catholic? It is written, (Heb 3:4-5)  5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, Can you please explain this to us.

[Nihil Obstat]

That's it (period). Catholic Church is the only Church of God and all other 'churches' are not 'house of God' but 'Christian communities'.With this kind of attitude, all priests and bishops are already dead forever because - Is Moses a Catholic? It is written, (Heb 3:4-5)  5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, Can you please explain this to us.

Go away please.

[Papist]

That's it (period). Catholic Church is the only Church of God and all other 'churches' are not 'house of God' but 'Christian communities'.With this kind of attitude, all priests and bishops are already dead forever because - Is Moses a Catholic? It is written, (Heb 3:4-5)  5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, Can you please explain this to us.

Moses did not exist, yes?

[Nihil Obstat]

Moses did not exist, yes?

He must be talking about historical Moses.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

They are part of the Church in a heretical, schismatic kind of way...

[LouisvilleFan]

She argues that "divine worship" exists only within the sacramental life of the Church and therefore only a Catholic Church contains true divine worship, ergo, only a Catholic Church is a "real" church.

 

So I am not convinced by all this. I argue that Divine worship can and does occur outside the sacraments. I think any public prayer service would count as Divine worship, although it would be very much less efficacious than a Mass. Second of all, most Protostant churches have some valid Sacraments, particurally Baptism and Marriage. These valid sacraments would constitute Divine worship in my mind. Finally, even if the Code of Cannon law defines "church" in a particular way, it is a legal document rather than a theological definition of what a Church is.

 

What do you guys think?

 

You're both right. The difference is in how you define your terms, "divine worship" in particular. As I think you noted, she's referring to the theological definition of a church. However, "divine worship" is specific in canon law that how you are defining it. In canon law it refers to the celebration of all seven sacraments and the fullness of Christian worship handed down to us from the apostles. That's not to say there is no divine worship (in the looser sense, i.e. any worship of God) outside of the sacraments, but other terms are used to reference Christian worship in those cases, such as "Christian communities" for congregations that do not celebrate all the sacraments.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

He must be talking about historical Moses.

Props.

[Nihil Obstat]

They are part of the Church in a heretical, schismatic kind of way...

Not exactly, I think. We consider the Orthodox to be in schism, yet still true Churches. The Protestants are in a position that is still farther removed because of their lack of valid orders and succession.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

The Orthodox were Churches in their own right, with Patriarchs and Apostilic succession, yes schism is there too. The prots broke from a patriarchy in a heretical and schismatic way. Our seperated brethern are still in possesion of some of the Graces, hence valid baptism as an example, but they themselves are not their own Church in the same way that they do not have a patriarchal see. That is why I say they are part of the Church in a heretical schismatic way. I still love them, but they are wrong.

[Nihil Obstat]

The Orthodox were Churches in their own right, with Patriarchs and Apostilic succession, yes schism is there too. The prots broke from a patriarchy in a heretical and schismatic way. Our seperated brethern are still in possesion of some of the Graces, hence valid baptism as an example, but they themselves are not their own Church in the same way that they do not have a patriarchal see. That is why I say they are part of the Church in a heretical schismatic way. I still love them, but they are wrong.

I agree with you right up to here:

 

That is why I say they are part of the Church in a heretical schismatic way.

 

I do not think it follows from the rest of the post. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean, but it sounds like a leap to me to go from "they themselves are not their own Church" to "they are part of the Church in a heretical schismatic way". How can they be part of the Church when they reject apostolic succession?

[Apotheoun]

:popcorn:

[Nihil Obstat]

:popcorn:

I was hoping you would jump in on this actually. :smile3: I remember you made some really good points about the precise meaning of "worship", and specifically why Protestant communities by definition cannot offer true worship, but I would not be able to make that argument on my own.

[HisChildForever]

If you are at home reading Scripture, singing a hymn, or just in prayer, this is worship, isn't it? In other words, a Protestant church doesn't have the Mass but outside of their service, as Christians when they pray, isn't their prayer worship?