Main Differences Between Catholicism and Protestantism?

[Charlemagne_II]

Jharek

Thanks for the reference.

An interesting article, yet, other than references to Jesus and Paul, it never resolves the question why a celibate priesthood is** required** as opposed to elective. Or did I miss something? One gets the feeling in between the lines that something is left out, that there might be motives for this policy that it might be better not to discuss openly in front of all the world. I don’t know what those issues could be, but one is left free to speculate. Was there a fear of nepotism … bishops elevating their sons to high places in the Church? Was there a fear of bishops and priests exploiting the Church coffers for the sake of their families? Who knows? Even with celibacy, it appears that sooner or late at least some of the popes did precisely these things that mandatory celibacy might have been implemented to avoid. One thinks of Alexander VI as the most obvious example.

 

[WFS5801]

I know. If you want more info on the OT types of the sacraments then you could start here.

Let me put it this way, Jews reject – outright – our Sacraments. Since they reject Christ (a blasphemer in their eyes) they reject all things Christian. Christianity centers on Christ. If by “Judeo” you mean that Christianity is the true continuation of Judaism, you’ll get no argument from me. But that’s Biblical Judaism. The Judaism that developed after the fall of the Temple is “Rabbinic” or “Talmudic” Judaism. This religion developed as a rival to Christianity, not as a partner. The Old Covenant has passed away, the old Judaism that prefigured Christianity is gone. What do you think the significance of the ripping of the Temple Veil at Christ’s death was all about? Whether the Jews will enter into the Church “en masse” at some time is beside the point. Currently they have rejected their Messiah.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let me put it this way, Jews reject – outright – our Sacraments. Since they reject Christ (a blasphemer in their eyes) they reject all things Christian.

Not all Jews hold that opinion of Jesus Christ.

Christianity centers on Christ. If by “Judeo” you mean that Christianity is the true continuation of Judaism, you’ll get no argument from me.

Be more specific though. Catholicism is the continuation of Temple Judaism. Protestantism is not precisely because of the lack of the sacraments. Catholicism is the Temple and Protestantism is the synagogue.

 

[WFS5801]

Not all Jews hold that opinion of Jesus Christ.

I don’t contend that Jews, as individuals, all share this opinion. But Rabbinical Judaism definitely does teach it. And, let’s face it, from the Jewish point of view, Jesus would be a blasphemer. If, hypothetically, Jesus is not God’s Son (God) then he was a blasphemer, since he said “before Abraham was, I AM.” There’s no middle ground here.

Be more specific though. Catholicism is the continuation of Temple Judaism. Protestantism is not precisely because of the lack of the sacraments. Catholicism is the Temple and Protestantism is the synagogue.

Protestantism is beside the point. As a religion (again, not judging the individuals within Protestantism) Protestantism is heresy.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t contend that Jews, as individuals, all share this opinion. But Rabbinical Judaism definitely does teach it. And, let’s face it, from the Jewish point of view, Jesus would be a blasphemer. If, hypothetically, Jesus is not God’s Son (God) then he was a blasphemer, since he said “before Abraham was, I AM.” There’s no middle ground here.

I defer to higher authority

Protestantism is beside the point. As a religion (again, not judging the individuals within Protestantism) Protestantism is heresy.

Actually it’s an incomplete version of the same religion. Most Protestant baptisms are valid and their marriages are sacramental.

 

[WFS5801]

I defer to higher authority

Sorry, but I’ll have to go to an even higher authority. St. Paul made it clear that the Old Covenant was “decaying” and “near its end.” And this was Biblical Judaism St. Paul was writing about, not modern, Rabbinical Judaism.

[6] But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. [7] For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: [9] Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

[11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: [12] Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. [13] Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. (Hebrews 8)

Actually it’s an incomplete version of the same religion. Most Protestant baptisms are valid and their marriages are sacramental.

Protestantism (as a religion) is heresy. It rejects the authority of Christ’s Church and many of Her teachings. Maybe most baptisms in more traditional Protestantism are sacramental, but not with most Evangelical baptisms. Baptism in most Baptist churches is merely an act to attest to your “already accomplished” salvation, it’s not for the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They do not have the concept of baptism as a Sacrament which produces real spiritual results. Not sure about marriage. I never heard of it being referred to as a Sacrament in my Protestant (sort of Evangelical) church, but I won’t speak for all Protestantism. I do know that most Protestants allow divorce and birth control, which would seem to counter any claims to a Sacramental marriage. As for the others, there is no concept of Confirmation, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction, Penance or the Eucharist – in any Evangelical Protestantism. In no Protestant congregation is the Catholic Church considered the “Ground and Pillar of Truth.”

 

[Alix1912]

Protestantism (as a religion) is heresy. It rejects the authority of Christ’s Church and many of Her teachings. Maybe most baptisms in more traditional Protestantism are sacramental, but not with most Evangelical baptisms. Baptism in most Baptist churches is merely an act to attest to your “already accomplished” salvation, it’s not for the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They do not have the concept of baptism as a Sacrament which produces real spiritual results. Not sure about marriage. I never heard of it being referred to as a Sacrament in my Protestant (sort of Evangelical) church, but I won’t speak for all Protestantism. I do know that most Protestants allow divorce and birth control, which would seem to counter any claims to a Sacramental marriage. As for the others, there is no concept of Confirmation, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction, Penance or the Eucharist – in any Evangelical Protestantism. In no Protestant congregation is the Catholic Church considered the “Ground and Pillar of Truth.”

You might want to check your own Church’s writing on this. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t regard Protestantism as heresy. By definition a heretic cannot go to heaven and the Catholic Church has stated several times that they do not believe that only Catholics go to heaven.

Also Most High Litergical Church’s Baptism’s. Marriages etc. ARE recognized by the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran MS I would not even have to go through the entire RCIA process to convert if I wanted to. Lutheran’s actually do hold confession as a sacrament, per the small catachism. It just doesn’t have to be done one on one with clergy, but it is performed at every service BEFORE recieveing the Body and Blood of our Lord. We also regard Holy Communion as a sacrament, the arguement between the Catholic and other High Litergical Churchs on Communion is really spliting hair in my book. Also the High Litergical Churches also practice confirmation they just regard it as an extension and completion of the Sacrament of Baptism. Also if ABC is all that is needed to break the sacrament of Marriage…well people in glass houses…Many Catholics I know practice ABC right or wrong too. It might interest you to know that more and more protestants are actually turning to NFP as it is way healthier for women than the pill.

If you want to promote Christian Unity, as Pope Benedict has been trying to do…you might want to stop calling other Chritians names and being uninformed and rude about their doctrine. Also the OP asked for a discussion on the differences not a “Catholics are the best and everyone else sucks thread”.

As to your statement about the “Pillar of Truth”…even the Catholic Church has admitted it is not the “Fullness of Truth” as all Turth has not yet been revealed to us men. Also to expect another denomination to say that the Catholic Church is the “Pillar of Truth” is silly. Obviously if we believed that we would be Catholic . That statement is as silly as Muslims getting mad when Pope Benedict said that Christianity was the One True Faith…come on if he thought that Buddism was the one true faith he most certainly is in the wrong job.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I defer to higher authority [the Holy See]

Sorry, but I’ll have to go to an even higher authority.

Putting the Bible over the Magisterium makes you a Protestant. And what did you just say about Protestants being heretics?

A shut mouth gathers no foot… Beware of hasty generalizations.

 

[JonNC]

And so the Church on her own authority decides how to carry out the Divine mission. These decisions comprise an authority distinct from but never contradicting Scripture. These decisions are Sacred Tradition and, since you are reasonable, I think you’re ready to concede that it exists in Lutheranism.

First, Cat, thank you for the nice comment. I will do more than concede the imnportance of Tradition, I celebrate it!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Cat Herder;7693092]That’s Prima Scriptura, not Sola.

Perhaps, but the Lutheran confessions teach what we call sola scriptura, and it is what
Alix says.

Consubstantiation is different. “In with and under” is not “is.” Sola Fide is not Fide et Caritas. But I certainly don’t think Lutheranism is scary or that Luther was evil. I think he was misguided and a poor leader seeing as he failed to prevent the Peasants’ War.

And consubstantiation is not what Lutheranism teaches. Sacramental Union is not consubstantiation.

The 99 Theses were a challenge to the mistaken assertion that indulgences forgive sins. Doctrinally speaking Luther was rallying against a straw man as the Catholic Church has never taught that. Some quaestores were misrepresenting induglences but not in Wittenburg, which is where he posted the Theses.

I think that was the point of his 95 Theses. He initally spoke out against the abuses he saw. If leaders of the Church in Germany were teaching the abuses, then as far the common person was concerned, it was the Church teaching them.

Jon

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cat Herder

Putting the Bible over the Magisterium makes you a Protestant.

Yes, I agree with this. But I also think that each Protestant group has an implicit Magisterium.

That is, the sect will expel you or shun you if you don’t conform to the particular sect’s interpretation of Scripture.

And with the doctrine of private interpretation, you might even say each Protestant is his own pope … loosely defined, of course … his own final authority. And if he can get others to agree with him and start their own sect, he becomes even more papal!

 

[JonNC]

=Charlemagne II;7694388]Cat Herder

Putting the Bible over the Magisterium makes you a Protestant.

Yes, I agree with this. But I also think that each Protestant group has an implicit Magisterium.

That is, the sect will expel you or shun you if you don’t conform to the particular sect’s interpretation of Scripture.

As for Lutherans we have the Lutheran Confessions. To reject the doctrines of the Lutheran confessions means one is not Lutheran. We consider ourselves a communion, not a sect.

And with the doctrine of private interpretation, you might even say each Protestant is his own pope … loosely defined, of course … his own final authority. And if he can get others to agree with him and start their own sect, he becomes even more papal!

That may be true with protestants who practice private interpretation.

Jon

 

[WFS5801]

A valid baptism requires more than the formula, it requires the proper intent. While it’s true that even a pagan could perform a valid baptism, he has to intend to do what what the Church intends. Baptists specifically do not intend to do what the Church intends.

As to sacramental marriages the Orthodox allow divorce yet their marriages are considered sacramental as I know because I was married in an Orthodox Church. Although of course the Orthodox are definitely not Protestant it does establish the point that marriages may be sacramental even in Churches or ecclesitcal communities where divorce is allowed.

Protestantism, especially Evangelical Protestantism, don’t really have the concept of Sacraments. They have the priesthood. The main purpose of Evangelical services is for teaching. Kind of like Rabbinical Judaism.

Some of the points about Judaism are distinctly er, dubious and I think Cat herder was quite correct to refer to you to the document she did.

I think some of the points brought out in the his linked document are more than dubious, they are absolutely anti-Catholic. Remember, not everything that comes from the Church is an “ex cathedra” pronouncement. (But more about that in my answer to Cat Hereder.)

 

[WFS5801]

You might want to check your own Church’s writing on this. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t regard Protestantism as heresy. By definition a heretic cannot go to heaven and the Catholic Church has stated several times that they do not believe that only Catholics go to heaven.

That’s why I took care to separate Protestantism from individuals in Protestantism.

Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”… The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material.

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

As for individuals of good will who are Protestants:

With regard to persons born in Protestant countries and validly baptised, who, from want of instruction and opportunity, have never come to the knowledge that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of Christ, if they have never committed a mortal sin, or have atoned for their sins by perfect contrition, united to a sincere desire of doing all that God may require of them, they will be saved in the ordinary way, as members of the Catholic Church. Such persons are in reality Catholics; they have entered the Church by valid baptism, and are only outwardly separated from her communion by inculpable error.

From Protestantism & Infidelity by Father Wininger (available on Google Books)

So, yes, Protestantism is heresy, but Protestants (those validly baptized) who are of good will are, in reality, Catholics.

Also Most High Litergical Church’s Baptism’s. Marriages etc. ARE recognized by the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran MS I would not even have to go through the entire RCIA process to convert if I wanted to. Lutheran’s actually do hold confession as a sacrament, per the small catachism. It just doesn’t have to be done one on one with clergy, but it is performed at every service BEFORE recieveing the Body and Blood of our Lord. We also regard Holy Communion as a sacrament, the arguement between the Catholic and other High Litergical Churchs on Communion is really spliting hair in my book. Also the High Litergical Churches also practice confirmation they just regard it as an extension and completion of the Sacrament of Baptism. Also if ABC is all that is needed to break the sacrament of Marriage…well people in glass houses…Many Catholics I know practice ABC right or wrong too. It might interest you to know that more and more protestants are actually turning to NFP as it is way healthier for women than the pill.

My personal knowledge of Protestantism comes from Evangelical Protestantism. I try to differentiate, but sometimes I get careless.

If you want to promote Christian Unity, as Pope Benedict has been trying to do…you might want to stop calling other Chritians names and being uninformed and rude about their doctrine. Also the OP asked for a discussion on the differences not a “Catholics are the best and everyone else sucks thread”.

I’m not trying to be rude, I’m simply using Catholic terms in their proper sense. I do admit that my experience with Protestantism comes from “Evangelical” Protestantism, but all Protestantism is heresy – at least objectively. It chooses what part of the True Church’s teaching to accept and what part to reject.

What is your definition of “heresy?”

As to your statement about the “Pillar of Truth”…even the Catholic Church has admitted it is not the “Fullness of Truth” as all Turth has not yet been revealed to us men. Also to expect another denomination to say that the Catholic Church is the “Pillar of Truth” is silly. Obviously if we believed that we would be Catholic . That statement is as silly as Muslims getting mad when Pope Benedict said that Christianity was the One True Faith…come on if he thought that Buddism was the one true faith he most certainly is in the wrong job.

I’m sorry, but I happen to disagree with Modernists, as described by St. Pius X. I’m afraid many Catholic writers, including those with high positions in the Church, are now Modernists, and in error. Since their writings oppose “ex cathedra” pronouncements I can choose to believe the earlier authoritative documents.

 

[WFS5801]

Putting the Bible over the Magisterium makes you a Protestant. And what did you just say about Protestants being heretics?

That would be true, if the document you refer to was “ex cathedra” and if it didn’t oppose past authoritative Catholic teaching. So a few quotes from the Magisterium on the subject:

It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. --From the Council of Florence

The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. --Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. --Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself. --From the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate

A shut mouth gathers no foot… Beware of hasty generalizations.

Exactly.

 

[WFS5801]

Protestantism, especially Evangelical Protestantism, don’t really have the concept of Sacraments. They have the priesthood. The main purpose of Evangelical services is for teaching. Kind of like Rabbinical Judaism.

Should have been "They don’t have the priesthood.

 

[Cat_Herder]

That would be true, if the document you refer to was “ex cathedra” and if it didn’t oppose past authoritative Catholic teaching. So a few quotes from the Magisterium on the subject:

Where is the conflict? There isn’t one.

 

[Alix1912]

I think that was the point of his 95 Theses. He initally spoke out against the abuses he saw. If leaders of the Church in Germany were teaching the abuses, then as far the common person was concerned, it was the Church teaching them.

This is so true. While the Greater Catholic Church was not corrupt, the policies, people and practices in many places in Europe was very corrupt. Unfortunaly rather than address the corruption the Church for many years prior to the Reformation attacked the person who pointed out the corruption instead. I agree with Jon that while the Greater Church was not corrupt, at the time the only face of it the people in Germany saw was the corrupt one.