If The Catholic Church Views All Reformed Churches As Invalid, What Does That Mean For Their Congregations?

If all reformed churches (i.e. lutheran, anglican, methodist, presbyterian, baptist, pentacostal, cogic, apostolic, ame, etc), are viewed by the one apostolic and original orthodox church (Catholic) as "invalid", then does that mean that the ministers of such are not ordained to teach the word of God? And what does that mean for their congregations? I am baptist


"We believe it would not be right for us to administer either Baptism or the Lord's Supper unless we had a commission so to do from those Bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles.[63]"

– Rev. John Wesley, A.D. 1745

Update 2:

So denominational christianity is not valid?

Update 3:

Judging from scripture, I would assume that Jesus Christ felt it most important for those he commissioned to perform discipleship teaching them directly and for them also to teach those new disciples carefully.

Matthew 28:18-20

"18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ina the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Update 4:

@ImaCatholic2 .. I asked this question because many leaders of different denominational churches give themselves titles such as "Apostle" and "Bishop" and there is never an explanation that these titles are not "authentically" received. If the catholic and orthodox churches positions on the apostolic succession here..

"According to Catholic theologian Richard P. McBrien, debate over the role of "bishop" in apostolic succession is a church-dividing issue. He calls for rejection of what he terms the passing-the-baton theory which he characterizes as "an overly simplistic, mechanistic notion." McBrien says many Catholics accept the commonly-understood definition of the doctrine; specifically, the claim that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles, collectively. He quotes Jesuit Professor Francis Sullivan's two reasons for opposing such a view:

The apostles were not bishops in

Update 5:

"While Eastern Orthodox sources often refer to the bishops as "successors of the apostles" under the influence of Scholastic theology, strict Orthodox ecclesiology and theology hold that all legitimate bishops are properly successors of Peter.[15] This also means that presbyters (or "priests") are successors of the apostles. As a result, Orthodox theology makes a distinction between a geographical or historical succession and proper ontological or ecclesiological succession. Hence, the bishops of Rome and Antioch can be considered successors of Peter in a historical sense on account of Peter's presence in the early community. This does not imply that these bishops are more successors of Peter than all others in an ontological sense.[16]

According to ancient canons still observed with the Orthodox communion, a bishop must be consecrated by at least three other bishops; so-called "single handed ordinations" do not exist. Moreover, bishops are never ordained "at large" but only for a spe

4 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The Catholic Church teaches the following about non-Catholic Christian churches:

    Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

    Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.

    All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him.

    For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 819: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3a...

    With love in Christ.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    I was once raised in quite a lot of protestant evangelical church buildings and grew to become Catholic in my 20's. There are plenty of Catholics -- over a thousand million of them. Not they all are going to be fine men and women. But such a lot church-going Catholics attempt to comply with Christ's teachings, they usually welcome converts. I advocate that you simply speak with a PRACTICING Catholic that you recognize, or name round to special monks and inform them that you've got a few questions approximately Catholicism and is also interested. Sometimes monks are a bit of bizarre, however simply preserve calling until you discover one who turns out like he honestly cares approximately you. I fully grasp your wish to think desired. It is oftentimes tough to be Catholic. I real think the religion, and on the grounds that I accomplish that, I have probably been refrained from by means of different Catholics. What you have got to do is discover different, good, "precise believers" and help each and every different. See my internet web page in this drawback, underneath.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    roman catholicism is pagan and NOT Christianity. they have corrupted history with the help of satan. ignore them and their folly

    denominational Christianity is not wrong. some denominations are false but not wrong. everybody has a few different ideas here and there but as long as we agree on mostly everything then no problem.

    Source(s): Azezi
    • Login to reply the answers
  • molly
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    I believe it means no more bingo on a sunday night.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.