Is A Protostant "church" A Real Church

[Nihil Obstat]

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?

I do not think we consider that as constituting worship in an exact sense.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

Only those who are Orthodox (ortho = right, doxa = glory) in their faith, and who are members of a Church of Apostolic origin (i.e., a Church that possess Apostolic succession), can offer true worship (i.e., the anamnesis of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension) to the Father, through the Son, in the power and energy of the Spirit.
 
Source: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/89846-christians-jews-muslims-and-the-god-of-abraham/page-3#entry1760707

The Church's liturgy is the sole true worship of God, for it is the anamnesis of Christ's saving work. Nothing else can truly glorify and honor God the Father.
 
Source: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/106238-rastafarianism/page-4#entry2134297

[Nihil Obstat]

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.

Only those who are Orthodox (ortho = right, doxa = glory) in their faith, and who are members of a Church of Apostolic origin (i.e., a Church that possess Apostolic succession), can offer true worship (i.e., the anamnesis of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension) to the Father, through the Son, in the power and energy of the Spirit.
 
Source: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/89846-christians-jews-muslims-and-the-god-of-abraham/page-3#entry1760707

The Church's liturgy is the sole true worship of God, for it is the anamnesis of Christ's saving work. Nothing else can truly glorify and honor God the Father.
 
Source: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/106238-rastafarianism/page-4#entry2134297

 

You are good at this whole 'internet' thing.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

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?

By the knowledge that their baptism is valid, and we know that the Grace conferred by the Sacrament comes from God, and Christ rested that authority and power within his Church. So there is a connection they still hold to the Church, albeit a small one. They are not in full communion with the Church hence being seperated brethren. It is also my understanding that if the Protestants were to come back into communion they would naturally be in the Western Church which they broke from in schism. The rejection of truth does not negate that the truth exists so their acceptance of apostolic succession does not change that their connection to the valid sacrament is still through the Church as instituted by Christ.

There may be a better way to express what is in my head. If somebody thinks they understand what I'm trying to get across and has a better way feel free to jump in. If I am just plain wrong help me to see it.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

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?

By the knowledge that their baptism is valid, and we know that the Grace conferred by the Sacrament comes from God, and Christ rested that authority and power within his Church. So there is a connection they still hold to the Church, albeit a small one. They are not in full communion with the Church hence being seperated brethren. It is also my understanding that if the Protestants were to come back into communion they would naturally be in the Western Church which they broke from in schism. The rejection of truth does not negate that the truth exists so their acceptance of apostolic succession does not change that their connection to the valid sacrament is still through the Church as instituted by Christ.

There may be a better way to express what is in my head. If somebody thinks they understand what I'm trying to get across and has a better way feel free to jump in. If I am just plain wrong help me to see it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am more inclined to say simply that as a community, they are completely cut off from the Church. As individuals they share in a common baptism (at least usually), but their 'corporate affiliation' is less than worthless in terms of grace or salvation.

I see what you mean about baptism though. Clearly on the individual level there is a connection to the Church through their baptism. However I do think on the community level we should not say that a Protestant ecclesial community is part of the Church in any sense.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Why do you think it bad/improper (dangerous?) to acknowledge them as having any communal connection with the Church. I think what you are advocating is the same reason why I acknowledge them as heretical and schismatic. Are we expressing the same thought in two different ways?

[Apotheoun]

Although there are significant theological differences between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches on matters related to mysteriology and ecclesiology they do share a common viewpoint as far as the Protestant communities are concerned, because both hold that the communities that arose out of the Protestant Reformation are not churches. Where the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches disagree is in whether or not the holy mysteries (i.e., the sacraments) can exist outside of the true Churches of Christ. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Why do you think it bad/improper (dangerous?) to acknowledge them as having any communal connection with the Church. I think what you are advocating is the same reason why I acknowledge them as heretical and schismatic. Are we expressing the same thought in two different ways?

I think we are going from the same premises, but you are trying to be rather more generous with the nature of ecclesiology. :smile3: Personally I think it is a bit of a slippery slope to try to work Protestant communities into a formal understanding of the Church - I think it tends to move towards a sort of indifference or spiritual laziness.

 

Of course, one time I was accused of being a Feeneyist. That is false, by the way. The accuser was quite emotionally unstable. But there you go. :|

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Although there are significant theological differences between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches on matters related to mysteriology and ecclesiology they do share a common viewpoint as far as the Protestant communities are concerned, because both hold that the communities that arose out of the Protestant Reformation are not churches. Where the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches disagree is in whether or not the holy mysteries (i.e., the sacraments) can exist outside of the true Churches of Christ. 

Should I take that to mean that the Eastern Church would say that a Protestant community cannot validly administer baptism, even using the proper Trinitarian formula?

[Apotheoun]

Should I take that to mean that the Eastern Church would say that a Protestant community cannot validly administer baptism, even using the proper Trinitarian formula?

That is correct, for Eastern Orthodox the "sacraments" of Protestants are empty vessels. That said, a bishop does have the power - through the keys he has received in ordination - to economically (oeconomia) fill with grace the empty rite performed by Protestants upon the conversion of an individual to the Orthodox faith.

[Nihil Obstat]

That is correct, for Eastern Orthodox the "sacraments" of Protestants are empty vessels. That said, a bishop does have the power - through the keys he has received in ordination - to economically (oeconomia) fill with grace the empty rite performed by Protestants upon the conversion of an individual to the Orthodox faith.

That is interesting. I am not sure I have heard that before - or at least, I have not understood it before if I did hear it. It is as if the Protestant rite sets up a frame that is, as you said, empty. That makes me wonder, what is the exact nature of this empty vessel? What is the objective metaphysical event that occurs which establishes the vessel?

What sources might I want to read in order to come to a deeper understanding of the subject?

[Apotheoun]

I posted this article some years ago here at Phatmass, but it seems to me that it would be helpful in this thread. The article was written by a friend of mine (Irish Melkite) at the Byzantine Forum and it explains the two primary ways of approaching the sacraments and their validity or efficaciousness, and how these two different approaches influence Catholic and Orthodox thought on matters related to ecumenism and mutual recognition of orders:

 

 

 

The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum. 

 

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church). 

 

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

 

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

 

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

 

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although the latter have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

 

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most pejorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory. 

 

Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.

 

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

 

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments. As an example, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

 

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

 

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity or oekonomia on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy. We, as Catholics, can dislike the fact that all do not choose to do so, but it is not our place to impose upon others our theological precepts and require that they adopt them.

 

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church in some instances could likely find itself in the position of accepting the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of the so-called "independent movement") whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations. 

[Nihil Obstat]

That is really interesting. Thanks.

 

I am still confused about the nature of baptism though, from the perspective of the Cyprianic position. I am looking at this quote:

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

So does this mean that a 'normal' baptism administered by a Protestant is objectively invalid, while a baptism in danger of death is not? Because that seems like a rather odd consequence to me, somewhat counter-intuitive.

[Apotheoun]

That is interesting. I am not sure I have heard that before - or at least, I have not understood it before if I did hear it. It is as if the Protestant rite sets up a frame that is, as you said, empty. That makes me wonder, what is the exact nature of this empty vessel? What is the objective metaphysical event that occurs which establishes the vessel?

What sources might I want to read in order to come to a deeper understanding of the subject?

The empty vessel is an attempt by unauthorized men to mimic the activity of the Church, but without the divine power to do so. In Orthodoxy the grace of God is attached to the Church, and not to the mysteriological rites per se. That said, as long as the rite authorized by Christ is celebrated within His body the Church it follows that it is filled with grace, but if that same exact rite is performed outside of the Church it is a mere shell, an empty vessel, confected by human authority alone. To put it another way, for the Orthodox the holy mysteries cannot exist outside of the Church.