You are not real churches, Pope says to Protestants
John Hooper in Rome and Stephen Bates in London
July 12, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/11/1183833598314.html

PROTESTANT churches have reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by the Pope insisting they were mere "ecclesial communities" and their ministers in effect phonies with no right to give communion.

Coming just days after the reinstatement of the Latin Mass, Tuesday's document left no doubt about the Pope's eagerness to back traditional Catholic practices and attitudes, even at the expense of causing offence.

The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican ministry for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused "no little distress".

But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

The Pope's old department, which issued the document, said its aim was to correct "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965. Quoting a text approved by the council, it said Protestant churches, "because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood", had not "preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery".

However, other Christians saw the latest document as another retreat from the spirit of openness generated by the council, which laid the basis for talks on Christian unity. Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Protestant umbrella group Evangelical Church in Germany, said: "The hope for a change in the ecumenical situation has been pushed further away by the document published today."

He said the new pronouncement repeated "offensive statements" in the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to improve relations with Protestants. The president of the Federation of Evangelical Churches in Italy, Pastor Domenico Maselli, called it a "huge step backwards in relations between the Roman Catholic church and other Christian communities".

The Church of England reacted cautiously. A spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said: "This is a serious document, teaching on important ecclesiological matters and of significance to the churches' commitment to the full, visible unity to the one church of Jesus Christ."

The Vatican's statement had fewer misgivings about the Orthodox Church, which had "true sacraments" and a genuine priesthood. But its failure to acknowledge the Pope's authority meant it suffered from a "defectus", politely translated from Latin as "a wound".

Last Saturday the Pope freed Catholics to ask for Masses to be celebrated according to the Latin rite abolished by the Second Vatican Council. This meant the reinstatement of a Good Friday prayer describing Jews as blind to the Christian truth.

Guardian News & Media

But would he pray in one of them?

I think the eucharist is the wine and bread offered at churches.
I think transsubstantiation might be a transformation catholics believe the wine and bread turn into or are when taken as a spiritual thing.  Or it may be that having the bread and wine changes us, hence the transsubstance wording. I am pretty hazy on that .

Some churches do it in rememberance of His blood spilt (wine) and His broken body (bread).

It's one of these theological points that I feel is pretty overrated either way.
Sure, "we" might be "wrong", or "they" might be "wrong".
A theological variation either way is insignificant in the big picture.

I've had some very good services in catholic churches.
Shared eucharist (if I am right on that word) with them.

The Holy Ghost is as present be it Eucharist, wine and crackers or grape juice and crackers.