The two major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;5673603]The differences between Catholicism and Protestantism begins with their founders;

Hi Gabriel,
I would contend that the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is, ironically, a similarity. That being that during the time of the Reformation, human beings on both sides reacted to the questions about abuses within the Church in ways that did not lead to reconciliation and unity, but instead to division and schism.

The Catholic Church has historical secular and Jewish religious confirming Jesus founded the Catholic Church not to mention the biblical text from Matthew 16:17-19 when Jesus built his church upon Peter who’s office remains in his successors since the first century to today in the Pope and Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

If you could get the Orthodox to agree with this, it would be easier for me to buy it. I would say that, surely, Christ founded His Church, the undivided Church, upon all of the apostles. I believe it is the call of Christ for Lutherans at least to seek that reconciliation with the Bishop of Rome. Christ also calls the Bishop of Rome to seek that reconciliation as well.

The Protestant church or separated (brethern) faith denomination does not come on the scene until 1500 years later who seperated from the One Church, One faith, One baptism, One Lord body of Christ his Catholic Church. This separation began by men, not by God. Man cannot separate what God has joined together.

Agreed. By men of both sides.

Fixing this separation from the beginning solves all the other differences that have compounded throught out the years.

Agreed again. How do we do that? How does east and west do that?

Maybe one aspect of unity maybe to ordain those truth’s protestants have gained that are not of heresey, but of revelation to begin new branches of Holy Orders.

I’d like to hear more of your idea here. For example, could Rome accept the Augsburg Confession as essentially a Catholic document? Could this be a start?

Peace be with you

And also with you, my friend,
Jon

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I’d like to hear more of your idea here. For example, could Rome accept the Augsburg Confession as essentially a Catholic document? Could this be a start?

Jon you need to get Rome on the phone and get some reconciliation working party set up

Im continually impressed with your charity and desire for unity, and christian harmony.

I got to talking with a methodist minister and I was asking about their celebration of the Eucharist. It amazes me how close in some areas Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox and Methodists are. He even thanked catholics for their great charity in wanting to protect methodists and others from eating and drinking judgement on themselves by having a ‘‘closed table’’ as he called it. Like you, he desires greater unity with Rome, and in fact among all the churchs. If only there were more guys like you and he on the block.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The differences between Catholicism and Protestantism begins with their founders;

The Catholic Church has historical secular and Jewish religious confirming Jesus founded the Catholic Church not to mention the biblical text from Matthew 16:17-19 when Jesus built his church upon Peter who’s office remains in his successors since the first century to today in the Pope and Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant church or separated (brethern) faith denomination does not come on the scene until 1500 years later who seperated from the One Church, One faith, One baptism, One Lord body of Christ his Catholic Church. This separation began by men, not by God. Man cannot separate what God has joined together.

So the difference begins the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, and the Protestant faith’s began by men who came from the Catholic Church.

Fixing this separation from the beginning solves all the other differences that have compounded throught out the years.

Maybe one aspect of unity maybe to ordain those truth’s protestants have gained that are not of heresey, but of revelation to begin new branches of Holy Orders. But to separate oneself from the Body Of Jesus Christ is a downward spiral of unending separations which is a proven fact of what has transpired of Protestantism.

Peace be with you

I am a Protestant, but believe my roots started before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). I believe my roots of redemptive history began in Genesis 3, right after the fall. The OT church and NT church are really one as revealed in redemptive history, as Christ crucified applies to both NT and OT Saints. Therefore, from the Protestant perspective, my church is much much older than the Catholic Church which claims to be 2,000 years old.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Therefore, from the Protestant perspective, my church is much much older than the Catholic Church which claims to be 2,000 years old.

Interesting - could you go into the details of this a bit more.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The chorus of Paul Simon’s song, “The Boxer” comes to mind.

Forgive me I missed your point? Is Paul Simon that short entertainer from the 60’s? Never heard of the “The Boxer”? How does your proposed theme relate to the comment be it negative or positive would like to understand your take on this?

 

[JonNC]

Jon you need to get Rome on the phone and get some reconciliation working party set up

Im continually impressed with your charity and desire for unity, and christian harmony.

I got to talking with a methodist minister and I was asking about their celebration of the Eucharist. It amazes me how close in some areas Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox and Methodists are. He even thanked catholics for their great charity in wanting to protect methodists and others from eating and drinking judgement on themselves by having a ‘‘closed table’’ as he called it. Like you, he desires greater unity with Rome, and in fact among all the churchs. If only there were more guys like you and he on the block.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel,
I would contend that the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is, ironically, a similarity. That being that during the time of the Reformation, human beings on both sides reacted to the questions about abuses within the Church in ways that did not lead to reconciliation and unity, but instead to division and schism.

Gabriel of 12;
Greetings JonNC, good to hear from you;

I agree with you Jon here, because you call the attention to men here, not necessarily the Church Jesus built into question. I believe a correct understanding of the Church Jesus built is what I drew a concern for here. What I like about your comment, is that you bring the humanity aspect of what God has built his Church upon, Men (humanity); in his body the Church.

Jon;
If you could get the Orthodox to agree with this, it would be easier for me to buy it. I would say that, surely, Christ founded His Church, the undivided Church, upon all of the apostles. I believe it is the call of Christ for Lutherans at least to seek that reconciliation with the Bishop of Rome. Christ also calls the Bishop of Rome to seek that reconciliation as well.

Gabriel of 12;
You respond very well here; because those (few) Orthodox that are in schism are considered under the name Protestant. My comment neglected to state those Eastern Protestants who remain in schism makes a more complicated situation to generalize here. That said, whether the Orthodox in schism with Peter not the body of Jesus Christ does not disqualify the secular and Jewish communities who already recognize that Jesus built his Church upon Peter and the Apostles of Jesus. The Orthodox in schism with Peter’s chair does not disagree with my above statement. Where they enter schism is when they reject Jesus building this Church upon Peter and continued with his successors in the Popes. But this does not surface centuries after the east and western Church began to influence political powers.

Jon;
Agreed again. How do we do that? How does east and west do that?

Gabriel of 12;
Jon the East and Western Catholic Church are united. Those eastern Church’s in schism of which I assume you are inquiring are not seperated from the Body of Jesus Christ, but are Protesting the authority of Peter’s Chair. These Eastern protestants are not in the same category as the Western Protestants who seperated themselves not only by full communion with the body of Jesus Christ, but also by Apostolic succession. Here we begin the debates of differences when the first difference of seperation has not been sufficiently or fully addressed.

Jon;
I’d like to hear more of your idea here. For example, could Rome accept the Augsburg Confession as essentially a Catholic document? Could this be a start?

Gabriel of 12;
Hold on there my brother, to break this down would take a couple of lives of Canon Lawyers, and possibly multiple Popes. In short, I dont know? That is not to say the Augsburg Confession need not apply or may encounter corrections, deletions, or additions for clarification as a whole into full commuion with the Apostolic Catholic Church, should this confession be made for a new Holy Order of Priesthood to adhere too. My commentary was along these lines, where Protestants instead of seperating themselves from the apostolic Catholic Church, should of appealed to the magesterium for new holy orders, that would support more reading of the bible, more translations, the evangelical movement which never tires, the movement of the Holy Spirit upon individuals and interpretation of scripture would of complimented the body of Jesus Christ if done with unity of the same Holy Spirit… there is much more to discuss here.

Good to hear from you brother, yours in Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am a Protestant, but believe my roots started before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). I believe my roots of redemptive history began in Genesis 3, right after the fall. The OT church and NT church are really one as revealed in redemptive history, as Christ crucified applies to both NT and OT Saints. Therefore, from the Protestant perspective, my church is much much older than the Catholic Church which claims to be 2,000 years old.

Gabriel of 12;
I could understand your roots, if you could reveal who taught you your Christianity or from what authority you hold to that proves your Protestant faith to be True?

Reveal who in history holds to your religious belief’s and then we can find a common ground of understanding.

You see the OT church as you call it; never heard of Jesus yet? So how can a protestant faith be any older than the Catholic Church unless what you protest is not from a Christian perspective, but I believe this may not be your case.

You do have the correct terminology placed here, but I dont know of any protestant faith, Jewish faith or Catholic faith that started before the foundation of the world? So to corrolate with your terminology from the perspective of Jesus that unites both old and new testaments from which you mention makes sense to me as a Catholic. The difference here is that as a Catholic I can prove my existance of faith from ancient Israel to the New Covenant from history and persons who lived out my Catholic faith. As a Protestant what you have is “only faith” that does not prove your historical history. Where as a Catholic can prove both faith and works of Jesus and the Catholic Saints.

Peace be with you

 

[2nd_Adam]

Gabriel of 12;
I could understand your roots, if you could reveal who taught you your Christianity or from what authority you hold to that proves your Protestant faith to be True?

Reveal who in history holds to your religious belief’s and then we can find a common ground of understanding.

You see the OT church as you call it; never heard of Jesus yet? So how can a protestant faith be any older than the Catholic Church unless what you protest is not from a Christian perspective, but I believe this may not be your case.

You do have the correct terminology placed here, but I dont know of any protestant faith, Jewish faith or Catholic faith that started before the foundation of the world? So to corrolate with your terminology from the perspective of Jesus that unites both old and new testaments from which you mention makes sense to me as a Catholic. The difference here is that as a Catholic I can prove my existance of faith from ancient Israel to the New Covenant from history and persons who lived out my Catholic faith. As a Protestant what you have is “only faith” that does not prove your historical history. Where as a Catholic can prove both faith and works of Jesus and the Catholic Saints.

Peace be with you

Okay, when Jesus spoke these words, was He referring to the New Testament or the Old Testament Scriptures? . Therefore, the OT is about Jesus Christ. Protestantism is older because a historic Protestant knows that redemptive history began before the foundation of the world which by the grace of God alone, he becomes part of God’s story of redemption upon faith in Christ.

John 5:39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am a Protestant, but believe my roots started before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). I believe my roots of redemptive history began in Genesis 3, right after the fall. The OT church and NT church are really one as revealed in redemptive history, as Christ crucified applies to both NT and OT Saints. Therefore, from the Protestant perspective, my church is much much older than the Catholic Church which claims to be 2,000 years old.

Okay, when Jesus spoke these words, was He referring to the New Testament or the Old Testament Scriptures? . Therefore, the OT is about Jesus Christ. Protestantism is older because a historic Protestant knows that redemptive history began before the foundation of the world which by the grace of God alone, he becomes part of God’s story of redemption upon faith in Christ.

John 5:39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

2nd Adam: I really do not see your logic in proving that Protestantism is older than Catholicism. We, as Protestants, share a common history with Catholics up to the point of the Protestant Reformation. I’m not denying God’s eternal plan for salvation and reconciliation.

Regarding your reference to redemption by the grace of God alone or salvation by faith alone; what Scriptures are you using to support this belief?

In Christ,
Anna

 

[jesuspsr]

Eucharisted said he had gotten the information from a JW site. He said the infromation could be wrong. He welcomed correction.

Your accusation of him being a liar is disgusting. I suppose you are a reader of hearts. There is a big difference between a mistake and a lie, and we neither need or like those accusations being thrown around by ANYONE. Have you never made a mistake or a mis-statement? Were you a liar because of it? Certainly not! Well neither is Eucharisted! Grow up!!!

well said Brother:thumbsup:

Me, I’m such a hothead and find it hard to find the right words to say to such rude people thank you for your eloquence.
God bless you all

jesus g

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam: I really do not see your logic in proving that Protestantism is older than Catholicism. We, as Protestants, share a common history with Catholics up to the point of the Protestant Reformation. I’m not denying God’s eternal plan for salvation and reconciliation.

Regarding your reference to redemption by the grace of God alone or salvation by faith alone; what Scriptures are you using to support this belief?

In Christ,
Anna

I guess it depends on how you understand redemptive history and the Old Testament. I clearly see two humanities in all of Scripture. We are all born into this world united to Adam without exception (old humanity). For those who are vessels of God’s mercy, by the grace of God, He moves certain sinners from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. Those who are moved to the kingdom of light are united to the 2nd Adam (Rom 5- new humanity). Within fallen humanity, God has His remnant of His saving grace in each and every generation. Redemptive history of His remnant of grace is revealed from Genesis 3 throughout the history of mankind. I believe dispensationalsim missed the continuity between OT Saint and NT Saints, for there is only one people of God and not two. I believe in Remnant theology. I think the best Scripture to support grace alone through the instrument of faith by the person and work of Christ alone would be the entire books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, John, etc. . Those united to Christ worship the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, right?

 

[adrift]

In the same source I cited in the previous post.

And lying doesn’t help your defense of Catholicism.

You gave no source and after doing a search I see why you might not want to.
John Calvin vs. “Emotional Exegesis”—Jesus is Michael the Archangel

If this was not the web site, than I suggest you provide a link.

 

[kcmekim]

You gave no source

Actually, I did. In verse 4, I very clearly cited the source as “Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65”

By the way, I find it interesting that your only source is a Catholic source that has an axe to gring against Calvin, not a neutral source.

 

[adrift]

Funny, it took me all of about fifteen seconds to do a Google search and find out that you took Calvin’s quote out of context.

“Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people…The angel…calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people” (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65).

He’s not saying that Jesus is the Archangel Michael, but that Michael, who is never identified as the Archangel Michael, shows characteristics that pre-figure Christ.

I guess Catholics have to defend Catholicism at any cost, even if it means playing fast and loose with the truth.

You CLEARLY state that you did a Google Search. You were asked to provide that link. You have not.

Actually, I did. In verse 4, I very clearly cited the source as “Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65”

By the way, I find it interesting that your only source is a Catholic source that has an axe to gring against Calvin, not a neutral source.

It was the first source I found that had the complete quote. Since you said 15 seconds, I went with the first one. I however searched for the entire quote which you did not have. When I put in the original quote, I found only one For An Answer. This is also a blog by Robert Hommel a member of Shepherd’s Community Church.
I find it interesting that you are so reluctant to provide the website that you got it from. It is sad how you are so ready with an attack

 

[kcmekim]

You CLEARLY state that you did a Google Search. You were asked to provide that link. You have not.

Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65

 

[MDK]

I take a different tack on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and boil it down to one difference:

Either one accepts Tradition (Big T) and Magisterial authority that flows from it or not. Seems pretty simple distinction as all other differences flow from that.

Spot on. Jesus founded His one Church with Magisterial authority and oral proclamation. After Jesus ascended to Heaven, this same Magisterial authority and Oral Tradition were used to create the Scriptures. Later, the same Magisterial authority which still used Oral Tradition, then assembled the valid Scriptures into the proper Bible we have today.

The ignorant and unstable have rejected what Jesus actually established in the Magisterium and Oral Tradition, and have taken the Catholic Bible and now they twist it to their own destruction.

 

[kcmekim]

The ignorant and unstable have rejected what Jesus actually established in the Magisterium and Oral Tradition

Nice. Can you imagine the Hell that would break loose around here if a Protestant called Catholics “ignorant and unstable”?

 

[adrift]

Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65

Repeat the same thing over and over is still not a LINK. This is where it originally came from however, it is not a LINK to a WEBSITE. The claim you made is you GOOGLED it. You still have not provided the WEBSITE that you retrieved the information from. You know the one you found in 15 seconds. I wonder why

 

[kcmekim]

Repeat the same thing over and over is still not a LINK.

That’s cool. If you want to know where Calvin said what he said so that you can look it up for yourself, that’s it. If not, then stop wasting CAF’s precious bandwidth.