Bringing you the "Good News" of Jesus Christ and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's magisterium
Home About
AskACatholic.com
What's New? Resources The Church Family Life Mass and
Adoration
Ask A Catholic
Knowledge base
AskACatholic Disclaimer
Search the
AskACatholic Database
Donate and
Support our work
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
New Questions
Cool Catholic Videos
About Saints
Disciplines and Practices for distinct Church seasons
Purgatory and Indulgences
About the Holy Mass
About Mary
Searching and Confused
Contemplating becoming a Catholic or Coming home
Homosexual and Gender Issues
Life, Dating, and Family
No Salvation Outside the Church
Sacred Scripture
non-Catholic Cults
Justification and Salvation
The Pope and Papacy
The Sacraments
Relationships and Marriage situations
Specific people, organizations and events
back
Doctrine and Teachings
Specific Practices
Church Internals
Church History


Antonia wrote:

Hi, guys —

  • Which denominations does the Catholic Church accept as legitimate?

I cannot understand why one or two churches, that rejected the fullness of the Catholic Church, should basically be considered Catholic if they're only 99.9% Catholic.

  • I read the Church accepts the Eastern Orthodox Church but if it has another name and some doctrinal changes, how can this be acceptable?
  • Can you guys please explain this to me in a way that isn't too historical?

Thanks very much for awesome charity in answering everyone's questions on this site. I've learned a lot about the Catholic Church by reading other people's questions on this site and have grown so much in my understanding of it as the Church that Jesus founded and the Church where my soul can finally find rest in peace.

So thanks a lot!

Antonia

  { Why are some Christian churches considered 'Catholic', when they are only 99.9% Catholic? }

John replied:

Antonia,

First of all, legitimate is really not the right term to be using.

This boils down to which churches have valid Sacraments because they have maintained Apostolic Succession versus those that haven't maintained it.

In other words, there are churches that can trace their bishops back to the original Apostles and have done nothing to interrupt their succession.  The Sacrament of Holy Orders has never been improperly administered in any of these churches. In other words, the bishops were all validly ordained.

Nothing was done to the sacrament, like changing the critical parts of the sacrament: the form (or words) and the matter. Their bishops consecrating the new bishops had the proper intention to pass on what they had received at ordination and, of course, they had to believe in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

All the Eastern Churches meet this criteria. There are some other schismatic churches, in the West, that also fall into this category. By schismatic, we mean that they are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope, the 365th successor to St. Peter.

Then there are the Protestant ecclesial communities. These include the:

  • Anglicans
  • Lutherans
  • Presbyterians
  • Methodist
  • Baptists, and
  • Church of Christ

just to name a few of about 35,000 different denominations and sects. We really can't call them churches because they no longer have Apostolic Succession. They deny Holy Orders is a sacrament and they have interrupted Apostolic Succession.  Most, if not, all have completely changed the nature of the ceremony of ordination. Most don't even believe anything actually happens at ordination aside for the help and blessing of God to assist the minister in his preaching of the Word.

Only some of the Anglicans believe that the man becomes a priest, in the sense Catholics or Orthodox do. They believe their own sacraments (and they recognize only two sacraments, not seven) are nothing more than a symbol.

Some Anglicans would like to think they have retained a valid priesthood, but they haven't.
Back when the schism happened, the so-called Reformers in their Episcopate declared that
Holy Orders was not a sacrament instituted by Christ. They changed the form and, now, matter with the supposed ordination of women so these good-hearted Anglican ministers mistakenly think they are priests, when they are not.

So that's the difference between the Churches that have maintained their Apostolic Succession and those other denominations that haven't.

John

Mike replied:

Hi, Antonia —

I just wanted to add to my colleague's answer.

Although, like John said, these separated brethren still have valid Holy Orders, one cannot deny:

  • the doctrinal differences, small as they are, and
  • the reality that they lack that full unity Christ desires for them in being guided by the successor to St. Peter as can be biblically found in Matthew 16:13-19.

So you are correct, they are not 100% Catholic but very close doctrinally.

The Protestant ecclesial communities John referred to are a totally different issue.

Like John stated, they, unlike the Eastern Churches, do not have valid orders and therefore have invalid sacraments. Thomas Cranmer changed the form (or words said) for the sacrament of Holy Orders.

This is true for any Christian church community that was established after 1517 A.D.

Hope this helps,

Mike

Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
© 2012 Panoramic Sites
The Early Church Fathers Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter. The Early Church Fathers on the Catholic Church and the term Catholic. The Early Church Fathers on the importance of the Roman Catholic Church centered in Rome.