Comparisions Between Catholic and Protestant Faiths

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tireman44, Apr 20, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Tireman44

    Tireman44 member

    Dear Esteemed Board Members,

    A co-worker of mine would like to have a questioned answered. Do you know a list of books or websites that have a good comparision between the Protestant and Catholic faiths? Thanks
     
  2. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    The vast majority agree on the Apostles Creed. The differing is NOT usually on those cardinal issues.
     
  3. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I think the Pope figures into this somewhere.
    Jack
    (please note the effort to bring "current events" into the picture)
     
  4. kansasbaptist

    kansasbaptist New Member

    Almost all the differences can be traced back to three foundational issues

    1) Faith
    Protestants believe salvation (through free grace) comes by faith in Christ's atonement alone. Basically salvation is given at the time of conversion. Catholics believe salvation comes through a combination of faith and works, while salvation begins with Christ's atonement, one must continue to work on their salvation through deeds

    2) Grace
    Protestants believe grace is a free (but not automatic) gift from God; not earned. Catholics believe grace is given by God through sacrements (over simplification). In other words God's grace must have an "avenue" to be imparted to man.

    3)Authority of Scripture
    Protestants believe the Word of God is revealed through Holy Scripture and nothing else. Catholics believe in a combination of Holy Scripture + Church Tradition. In other words, dogma holds equal authority to Scripture.

    The variances in religious practices generally stem from one of these chasams of theology
    It is hard to find a balanced resource to compare the two. Most that I have seen are slanted one way or the other because they are authored by followers of one faith or the other.
     
  5. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Part 1 of 2

    Your co-worker friend's question presumes that all Protestant denominations are sufficiently similar that they can be lumped into a single group called "Protestantism" which will then compare well with Catholicism. If that were true, every non-Catholic Christian would be a Lutheran. On the contrary, if the number of different kinds of Lutheran -- and their divergent views -- is any indication, even Lutherans can't all agree on what it all means! And when fundamentalist and/or evangelical protestants do take aim at anyone, they are more likely to target ECUSA Episcopalians and/or ELCA Lutherans -- both considered Protestant denominations -- well ahead of Catholics.

    My point is that your friend needs to be very careful in this quest to make sure s/he understands the perspective of whomever's words s/he's reading. Some conservative evangelical protestants refer to themselves as Protestants, but they refer to more liberal denominations (like ELCA Lutherans or ECUSA Episcopalians, for example, just to name two) as "liberals" or "modernists," leaving the word "Protestant" out of their description altogether.

    So, my first bit of advice would be that your friend needs to know that just because all the non-Catholic Chrisitians might belong to the generally "Protestant" club, it doesn't necessarily mean there's agreement among them about precisely what differentiates them from Catholics. If your friend misses that crucial point, then s/he will likely become quite confused in his/her research and, worse, may come away from said research with an unclear or inaccurate understanding of the differences.

    Secondly, as a first step toward trying to understand the differences between Protestants and Catholics, one really needs to understand the history of the reformation itself, which will mean understanding something about Martin Luther and what he was all about. There are many web sites on which one may find a summary -- be it brief or otherwise -- of Martin Luther's life and, more importantly, his beliefs and writings. In fact, pretty much all 56 volumes of "The Works of Martin Luther" may now be found, one way or another, on the Web... veiwable for free, I might add.

    I also recommend Michael Root's review of the book Christian Contradictions: The Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought by Daphne Hampson (Cambridge University Press; 323 pp) and believe it might also be helpful... as would reading the book itself, of course.

    Many of these articles about Catholic theology; or these about liberal theology; or these about Post-liberal/Modern theology; or these about Evangelical/Conservative theology, might also help bring things more into focus.

    At any rate, here, simply as something of a starting point, are the salient differences between Catholics and Protestants...


    JUSTIFICATION: At its most basic, Protestants and Catholics differ in the area of justification and/or salvation. Most Protestants believe in justification by grace through faith. Period. Catholics believe in justification by grace through faith and that it may be appropriated by good works. Some Protestants state it as: "Catholics say we are saved by the kind of works produced by faith. Protestants say we are saved by the kind of faith that produces works;" and then they go on to cite the maxim, "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone" as something that either Calvin or Luther either wrote or said. Many Protestants would argue that the matter of justification -- and the fact that we cannot merit our salvation -- is the single most important difference.


    SACRAMENTS: One outward and obvious difference between Catholics and Protestants is in the area of sacraments. Catholics believe there are seven:
    1. Baptism
    2. Confirmation
    3. The Holy Eucharist (communion)
    4. Holy Anointing (extreme unction)
    5. Holy Matrimony
    6. Holy Orders (deacons and priesthood)
    7. Penance (confession, attrition, contrition, absolution).[/list=1]Protestants, on the other hand, believe there are only two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Period. Additionally, some -- ne, many -- Catholics believe not just in the doctrine, but in the actual miracle of transubstantiation as essential to the real presence of Christ found in the Eucharist itself. Based on a tradition which grew slowly in the Church and was finally accepted as doctrine by the Lateran Council of 1215 A.D., transubstantiation, as the Council of Trent wrote, and as appears in Catholic catechism, is described as: "...by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." In other words, those Catholics who believe in it will swear that at the moment of consecration the bread and wine (which they admit still looks like bread and wine), changes, supernaturally, into the actual and literal body and blood, respectively, of Jesus Christ. Protestants -- and many Catholic scholars, actually -- summarily reject the notion of transubstantiation and recognize the bread and wine as mere symbols.


      AUTHORITY: Another fundamental difference is the whole notion of the Protestant's "authority of scripture alone" versus the Catholic's belief in the authority of scripture along with its reverence for the Magisterium, its Pope and its vaulted dogmatic traditions as having approximately equal authority. The Protestant will counter the "traditions" argument by citing Mark 7:8,13; Matthew 15:2-6; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; and Galatians 1:14. Among many Protestants is the strong belief in the bible, alone, as the inspired and inerrant word of God... leaving no room for the authority of Popes or other typically Catholic dogma and traditions. However, not all Protestants hold with the inerrancy argument, making it one of the very things that differentiates Protestants of the evangelical and fundamentalist types from those of the more liberal or modernist types. The "liberal" or "modernist" (or so the evangelicals call us) ELCA Lutherans, for example, talk about:
      • the bible as being "the inspired [but not inerrant] Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of [Lutheran] proclamation, faith, and life;" and,
      • further cite "the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as true declarations of the faith of this church;" and,
      • further cite the Lutheran writing "the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it In faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept [its] teachings;" and,
      • "accepts the other [Lutheran] confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church;" and,
      • "confesses the Gospel, recorded in the Holy Scriptures and confessed in the ecumenical creeds and Lutheran confessional writings, as the power of God to create and sustain the Church for God's mission in the world."
      So, while not holding with extra-biblical authority in the form of Popes and dogmatic traditions, ELCA Lutherans, just to name one type of Protestantism, have other extra biblical authoritative sources. The more conservative Protestant flavors say it should be the bible and that's it. Period.


      IMAGES: Another difference is how Catholics venerate images (of saints, or the Virgin Mary, for example), while Protestants believe that it is wrong to do so. Citing what Protestants say is the correct and accurate second commandment as found in Exodus 20:4-6, a Protestant would tell a Catholic that one of the bible's major themes is the Lord's hatred for images. The reason, they will say, is that images separate man from direct contact with God by providing something else to which to pray and in which to place one's trust. Protestants will, further, accuse Catholics of misrepresenting the Ten Commandments in order to avoid what Protestants believe is the obvious conflict between the Ten Commandments and the Catholics' penchant for worshipping images by

      Continued in next post...
     
  6. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Part 2 of 2

    ...contintued from previous post

    calling to the listener's or reader's attention the fact that the second commandment as described in Exodus 20:4-6 is missing, altogether, in the Catholic catechisms; replaced, there, by what Protestants consider to be the third commandment (and with all subsequent commandments four through nine moved up one position, accordingly), and then the Protestant tenth commandment (as described in Exodus 20:17) being broken into two commandments (the Catholic's 9th and 10th) in order to camouflage what Protestants consider the Catholics' theft of the rightful second commandment; and, therefore, Catholics will cite the bible's review of the Commandments as found in Deuteronomy 5 rather than what Protestants see as their giving as found in in Exodus 20, whenever talking about them.


    THE VIRGIN MARY: Catholics often pray to her -- or to images of her -- which Protestants believe is wrong, pointing out that Christ is the only mediator and that there is no example in the Bible of anyone getting to Jesus or God through Mary. Protestants use the aforementioned Exodus 20:4-6, as well as Luke 4:8; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; and John 14:6, among others, to make the point. A Protestant will point out that the Roman Catholic church's teaching that Mary should be called the "mother of God" is an expression never used in the Bible. The Catholic's reasoning for doing so, the Proestant will point out, is that she is the Mother of Jesus Christ, and he is God. Ergo, if she is the mother of God, Catholics reason, then one would have to conclude that she is the mother of the creator... and, therefore, of everything about God which has existed from all eternity. The Protestant would argue that the bible does not teach this and that, instead, it teaches that God, who has always existed, took on a human nature by means of the virgin birth; and that Mary was the mother of Christ's human nature, but not of his divine nature which has existed from all eternity (John 8:57-58). The Protestant would argue, further, that Jesus did not encourage the excessive glorification of Mary that is so common among Catholics, citing the biblical passage where a woman from the crowd called out, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you" to which Jesus replied "Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it" (Luke 11:27-28).


    PRIESTS & MARRIAGE: Of course, there's the difference between Catholics and Protestants in the area of Catholic priests not being able to marry, while Protestant clergy may do so. The protestant would point out that there's just no biblical justification for the Catholic position; that religious leaders in both the old and new testaments, including bishops (I Timothy 3:2-4) and deacons (I Timothy 3:12), were married; and that Peter himself -- who the Catholics say was the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope -- was clearly married (Matthew 8:14 and 1·Corinthians 9:5). The Protestant will point out that the Catholic tradition of priests not being able to marry was something imposed upon the Catholic clergy much later in history by certain synods (Elvira, Orange, Arles, Agde, Toledo) and by the Lateran Council of 1139, with the overarching intent of eliminating nepotism in the Roman Catholic church which, at the time, controlled a great deal of property. If priests were allowed to marry, the Council reasoned, they could have children to whom they could then pass the Church's property... something which, by the 12th century, had become a vexing problem in the Catholic Church.


    CHURCH FOUNDATION: Citing Matthew 16:14-18, Catholics believe that its church was built on Peter, the Rock. The Protestant, however, will cite 1·Corinthians 3:11, among others, as evidence that it is Christ, and not Peter, upon whom the church is built... and, moreover, that Peter clearly understood this (1 Peter 2:6-8).


    MASS & PURGATORY: Roman Catholics who, for the first time, visit some Protestant churches -- especially old LCA Lutheran churches back when the red Service Book and Hymnal was in use; and some Episcopalian churches, still today -- are often astonished by the similarity of the liturgy of the Protestant Communion Service and the modern, non-Latin Catholic mass. The underlying purpose of the Catholic mass, however, goes beyond the Eucharist. Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass was established at the Council of Trent, affirming, among other things, that mass is "a sacrifice of expiation ... of sins and the punishment for sins ... not merely for the living, but also for the poor souls in Purgatory" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 412-413). Catholics believe that Christ's sacrifice is renewed in the mass, and that each time it is said it adds a tiny bit of merit which counts and accumulates, as if God were keeping score, toward one's eventual salvation. Moreover, when mass is said for the dead, it reduces by some mysterious and unknown amount, the time that they (the dead) must suffer for their sins in purgatory. It was originally Virgil, the pagan (Latin) poet (70 - 19 B.C.) who wrote that departed souls go into one of three places: One for the good (heaven), one for the damned (hell), and a third where the less bad could pay for their sins (purgatory, with the hope of finally ending-up in heaven). It is thought that when the Roman Emperor Constantine brought so many people of all types and backgrounds into the Church around 300 A.D., some pagan ideas such as Virgil's probably came along with them... hence the notion of "purgatory." In 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, idolatry was condemned by telling the story of Hebrew soldiers wearing small images on necklaces and, therefore, being thought of as having died in the sin of idolatry; and then there being counseled appropriate prayer for their souls. But Roman Catholics reasoned that prayer for them would have been unnecessary if they were in heaven, and useless if they were in hell, so there must be yet another place: Enter purgatory. Many Protestant historians believe that purgatory was little more than a contrivance of the Catholic church to give the faithful yet another reason to go to mass -- and often -- to renew Christ's sacrifice and, therefore, to add/accumulate the aforementioned tiny bit of merit; to reduce the amount of time that the departed would need to spend in purgatory; and, therefore, to increase the income of the Church. If purgatory existed, after all, and saying mass -- often -- helped people to get out of it, then the rich would have a tremendous advantage by being able to pay priests for masses to shorten their suffering; but the poor, on the other hand, would be left to the mercy of the occasional priest who might say an unpaid mass for them as a compassionate act... a condition, I should add, that irritated Martin Luther and helped, among other things, to fuel his work which lead to the reformation itself. Protestants find repugnant the whole business of there being a way for Christ's sacrifice to be renewed (Hebrews 10:10-12, and Romans 6:9-10); or that, therefore, his one sacrifice wasn't enough (Hebrews 10:14, 17-18). The Protestant argues that the idea that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to cleanse everyone of their sins would have condemned a sinner such as the thief who was crucified alongside Jesus to suffer in purgatory or, worse, in hell. But the Protestant would argue that Luke 23:43 tells us that there was nothing that Christ's death on the Cross did not sufficiently cover... including the sins of that thief who, once placed his trust in Christ, was told by Jesus himself, "I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise."


    CONCLUSION: Citing passages such as John 14:6 and Romans 5:1, the Protestant will focus on the Catholic's "purgatory," among other things, to make the essential "salvation by grace through faith" point; and will chastise the Catholic notion of burning in purgatory until one has sufficiently paid for one's own sins as pretty much the best that the theologically-flawed Roman Catholic system of "salvation by works" has to offer.

    There are a great many other differences between Catholics and Protestants, but these, above, are the highlights. Most other differences have more to do with form than with content and are, therefore, less consequential. All of the above having been said, however, the Protestant will argue that, in largest measure, the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are fewer than are the similarities; and that most of the differences have to do with authority. The Protestant will, by and large, accept nothing more nor less than the bible as the only authority; and will shake his/her head in disbelief at all of the Catholic's extra-biblical authorities... especially the Magisterium and all that it entails.

    But I renew my warning that no one paint too broadly what "Protestant" means. There are many kinds of Protestants... some of whom, the conservative, evangelical and fundamentalist protestants would argue, have done little more than substitute such things as The Works of Martin Luther for the non-biblical writings of the Catholic church; and are, therefore, little better than it in their refusal to accept the inerrant bible, alone, as the only authority that anyone would ever need. I pride myself in being in that category as a Lutheran of the ELCA; and I hereby publicly decry the schism-baiting tactics of the biblically and politically conservative "Word Alone" movement within it. Ah, but I bring a whole 'nother thing into the picture, don't I. Sorry. Just couldn't resist taking the shot, as long as I was on the subject.
     
  7. Tom H.

    Tom H. New Member

    Where does Orthodoxy fit in?

    I'm not trying to complicate things but just where does Orthodoxy fit in when you try to compare Protestantism to Catholicism? My rudimentary understanding of the relationship is that Catholicism is somewhere in-between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Is that a fair generalization, a gross oversimplification or an outright misrepresentation? :confused:
     
  8. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Re: Where does Orthodoxy fit in?

    Does this web page help? Or maybe this one?
     
  9. marilynd

    marilynd New Member

    Re: Where does Orthodoxy fit in?

    "In between" in relation to what? What is the point of comparison?

    If by "Orthodoxy," you mean the Eastern Orthodox churches, I don't know that I would place them on a Catholic-Protestant continuum.

    I'm speaking only from memory, but this is my memory.

    The early church congealed organizationally into five bishoprics that were considered to have primacy with respect to other bishops: Jersusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Athens (later Constantinople), and Rome, as I recall. The Roman church, which was the only Latin of the primary churches, had a number of organizational and theological disagreements with the other "Greek" churches. Most of the Greek churches, as I recall, tended to consider the Roman church unsophisticated theologically. On the other hand, the Roman church came to claim primacy among the primary churches (Patriarchates) because of its traditional connection with Peter.

    The Roman church was further isolated from the Greek churches with the split of the Roman Empire into two parts, which began with Diocletian, which left the eastern half of the empire with four Patriarchates and the western half with only one, Rome. The collapse of the western half of the empire in the 5th century further isolated the two groups. The Eastern Orthodox churches today are, in large measure, the heirs of those eastern patriarchal churches. While there was a more or less formal split between Rome and the eastern churches in 1054, they have periodically attempted to find points of reunification doctrinally, if not really organizationally (although there was a claimed "reunification" of the "universal church" after the Lyons II council in 1274.

    The Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches have far more similarities, I would say, than they do differences: ecclesiologically, sacramentally, and even theologically. They developed along two different, but in many ways parallel, paths.

    The Protestant churches emerged from a religious revolt in the 16th century with vastly different views on ecclesiastical authority and the character of how the on-going relationship of God and humans is to be managed, articulated above by Gregg and others.

    I don't think I would be comfortable with a description of an Orthodox--Roman Catholic--Protestant continuum.

    Now, if we're talking pure praxis, that's a different story. I've been to Russian Orthodox weddings where the ceremony lasted three hours! It's torture for the elderly, let me tell you. Here, there just might be a time continuum.

    ;)

    marilynd
     

Share This Page