Catholicism v Protestantism

evil-monkey

Can I ask, what are the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism??

I remember, from school I think, being told once that it was down to two things;

1. Priests being married
2. Catholics believe that at communion the bread and wine actually changes to the body and blood of Christ, while Protestants believe it is only symbollic

Are these right?? Can't remember were I got that impression from, fairly sure it was long long ago, maybe even back in primary school...

Anywhoo...what are the differences between the religions??

Thanks in advance

PDN

Here are a few more differences:

Roman Catholicism claims to be the one true church.
Protestants claim that the true church is comprised of all true believers in Christ, irrespective of which denomination or church they belong to.

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole basis for Christian beliefs and practice. Roman Catholicism bases its beliefs on the Bible and tradition.

Roman Catholicism claims that you become a Christian by being baptised (usually as a baby). Protestants claim that you become a Christian by placing your faith in Christ.

Roman Catholicism believes that Mary was conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception). Protestants believe that Mary was a sinner like the rest of us.

Roman Catholicism believes that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ - indeed that her hymen remained unbroken while giving birth. Protestants believe that Mary, although a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, subsequently had a normal marriage with Joseph resulting in Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Roman Catholicism believes that Mary's body was raised and ascended into heaven. Protestants do not accept this.

philologos

Other things like transubstantiation the bread and wine of the Eucharist being the living flesh and blood of Jesus, are accepted as symbolism in Protestantism.

Catholicism (along with Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy actually) includes the Christian Apocrypha a set of books between the Old and New Testaments to explain what exactly happened in that 600 year period. I personally find much value in this text.

Purgatory is also a major difference. Protestants in general find no basis in purgatory for the sins of believers.

Húrin

I'm no comparitive religion expert but Catholics seem to doubt the sufficiency of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins... leading to unfortunate guilt complexes that I think Jesus came to free us from.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

- indeed that her hymen remained unbroken while giving birth.

What??? Where did you get that crackpot idea? :rolleyes:

kelly1

Húrin wrote: »

I'm no comparitive religion expert but Catholics seem to doubt the sufficiency of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins... leading to unfortunate guilt complexes that I think Jesus came to free us from.

Sorry, you're way off the mark there. Jesus' death on the cross is infinitely sufficent to atone for all sins, past, present and future. You might be referring to Purgatory but this has nothing to do with salvation.

As regards guilt, I think Catholics tend to take sin very seriously but this should never lead to despair but rather a greater trust in Jesus' mercy.

marco_polo

kelly1 wrote: »

What??? Where did you get that crackpot idea? :rolleyes:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II

This seems to support PDNs assertion

Mary -- "ever-virgin"

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156

kelly1

Thanks but that only means that Mary's virginity wasn't compromised by giving birth to Jesus. That says nothing about her hymen! How could she have given birth with her hymen intact?

marco_polo

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks but that only means that Mary's virginity wasn't compromised by giving birth to Jesus. That says nothing about her hymen! How could she have given birth with her hymen intact?

Perhaps it is implied by it, as the two go (almost always) hand in had?

Anyways I have no strong opinion on the matter so I'll leave you too fine gents away to it

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

What??? Where did you get that crackpot idea? :rolleyes:

From the Council of Chalcedon, Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_doctrines_of_the_Catholic_Church#Perpetual_Virginity_of_Mary

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2008/09/marys-perpetual-virginity.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b2.htm

8kvscdpglqnyr4

kelly1 wrote: »

How could she have given birth with her hymen intact?

It should be quite easy for you to imagine how this would be possible considering you believe she became pregnant with sexual intercourse.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

From the Council of Chalcedon, Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_doctrines_of_the_Catholic_Church#Perpetual_Virginity_of_Mary

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2008/09/marys-perpetual-virginity.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b2.htm

I think I've misunderstood you. I thought you meant her hymen was unbroken after the birth of Jesus. Obviously you meant before the birth. Sorry. Silly me!

Dades

Isn't virginity just a concept?

Examination of the hymen is just a crude and unreliable* way of determining if someone is lying about having had sex. The emphasis on this seems odd. i.e. Breaking the hymen in birth hardly makes her any less of a virgin than she had been before.

btw Noel, PDNs links seem to back up what he suggested originally.

*Considering Mary was not averse to being transported on the back of a donkey.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I think I've misunderstood you. I thought you meant her hymen was unbroken after the birth of Jesus. Obviously you meant before the birth. Sorry. Silly me!

Noel, didn't you read the links?

From the wikipedia link:
Further important statements of the belief include the Lateran Synod of 649, Thomas Aquinas's teaching (Summa Theologiae III.28.2) that Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen, and Pope Paul IV's Cum quorundam of 7 August 1555 at the Council of Trent.

From the Catholic Champion link:
It is the teaching of the Church that the Blessed Mother of God is a Virgin, before, during and after the birth of Christ. Dr. Paul Haffber gives an overview of the teachings concerning Mary's virginity. The doctrine of virginitas ante partum teaches the absence of marital relations between Our Lady and St Joseph up to the time of Christ's birth, and therefore affirms the virginal conception. The virginitas in partu includes no rupture of the hymen at the moment of birth, which takes place without any opening of the membranes or damage to Our Lady's body, and without pain.

From the Religious Tolerance Link:
The dogma of the Roman Catholic church also includes the perpetual virginity of Mary and Mary's immaculate conception. It teaches that:
bullet Mary's hymen was preserved intact during the delivery of Jesus. Although there is no mention of this in the Bible, this belief was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE

Here are some more links.
Catholics United for the Faith http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=102
"The Church has traditionally understood Mary’s virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother’s womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary’s virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation. It was, in reality, a miraculous birth, which relates more to her role in the New Creation (and thus her Immaculate Conception and Assumption) rather than her virginity before and after."

Noel, you say that such a notion is a crackpot idea (your words). That doesn't trouble me since I'm not a Catholic. But it should trouble you since the virginitas in partu of Mary is a required dogma of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares, "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man"

The first Lateran Council declared, "If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, Who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned".

kelly1

Thanks PDN, I wasn't aware of this teaching about Jesus' miraculous birth. I knew about Mary's perpetual virginity but not the extent thereof.

It is my understanding that Mary didn't suffer in childbirth as the pain of childbirth is an effect of original sin. And since Mary was conceived without original sin by a special grace of God, she wouldn't have suffered in child-birth.

The miraculous birth is news to me, thanks.

kelly1

Another difference between Catholic and Protestants is the emphasis on sacraments. The CC has 7 sacraments. Many protestant churches don't see baptism as a sacrament but marriage is considered to be afaik.

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

What??? Where did you get that crackpot idea? :rolleyes:

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks PDN, I wasn't aware of this teaching about Jesus' miraculous birth. I knew about Mary's perpetual virginity but not the extent thereof.

It is my understanding that Mary didn't suffer in childbirth as the pain of childbirth is an effect of original sin. And since Mary was conceived without original sin by a special grace of God, she wouldn't have suffered in child-birth.

The miraculous birth is news to me, thanks.

I had no idea of the extent of the crackpottedness of this teaching!

So does the idea that the pain of childbirth is an effect of original sin have an impact on the woman opting for an epidural?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Another difference between Catholic and Protestants is the emphasis on sacraments. The CC has 7 sacraments. Many protestant churches don't see baptism as a sacrament but marriage is considered to be afaik.

Most Protestant churches teach that there are only two sacraments: baptism & communion. I don't know of any major Protestant churches that treat marriage as a sacrament.

Two denominations, the Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Salvation Army, practice no sacraments at all.

My own church prefers the term 'ordinance' rather than sacrament. We observe communion, water baptism and foot-washing as ordinances.

Chong

How does someone become a protestant , do you just start attending services.

Also how does one determine which line of Protestanism is the one to practise , to my knowledge there are many forms of protestanism.

Fanny Cradock

While there may be an official ceremony involved, I'd imagine that it is you who decides if you are a Protestant or which denomination to attend.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Most Protestant churches teach that there are only two sacraments: baptism & communion. I don't know of any major Protestant churches that treat marriage as a sacrament.

Something I don't understand is this. If most Christian churches say baptism is a sacrament, why do so many believe that baptism is merely symbolic? By definition, doesn't a sacrament confer grace?

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While there may be an official ceremony involved, I'd imagine that it is you who decides if you are a Protestant or which denomination to attend.

Two friends of mine had to go through an official conversion from RC to get their kids into the local CoI school!

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Something I don't understand is this. If most Christian churches say baptism is a sacrament, why do so many believe that baptism is merely symbolic? By definition, doesn't a sacrament confer grace?

That depends on how you define 'sacrament'. Many define a sacrament as an outward sign of a inner spiritual reality.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Two friends of mine had to go through an official conversion from RC to get their kids into the local CoI school!

I hardly think such a conversion of convenience will benefit the Church of Ireland much.

getz

one of the things that i do not understand is how dose the cross come about?there isent any record of jesus being on a cross in fact the romans only crucified people on a stick --ie it was always the way it was done-and the cross did not come about untill the 3rd century--the other thing was the church took the word virgin from the old jewish word for unmarried[there was no word for virgin at that time] --

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I hardly think such a conversion of convenience will benefit the Church of Ireland much.

You may well be wrong, at least in the long run. Religion's primary vector is through kids, hence every religion's interest in schools. So while you're probably right that the parents are unlikely to turn become religious any time soon, the CofI stands a reasonable chance with the kids who almost certainly won't become CofI-religious without at least attending a CofI school.

Anyhow, even after 150 years, there are still plenty of "soupers" around Dublin -- as fine an investment in religious futures as I've come across!

evil-monkey

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks but that only means that Mary's virginity wasn't compromised by giving birth to Jesus. That says nothing about her hymen! How could she have given birth with her hymen intact?

i suppose the same way she conceived without intercourse...

evil-monkey

PDN wrote: »

Here are a few more differences:

Roman Catholicism claims to be the one true church.
Protestants claim that the true church is comprised of all true believers in Christ, irrespective of which denomination or church they belong to.

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole basis for Christian beliefs and practice. Roman Catholicism bases its beliefs on the Bible and tradition.

Roman Catholicism claims that you become a Christian by being baptised (usually as a baby). Protestants claim that you become a Christian by placing your faith in Christ.

Roman Catholicism believes that Mary was conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception). Protestants believe that Mary was a sinner like the rest of us.

Roman Catholicism believes that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ - indeed that her hymen remained unbroken while giving birth. Protestants believe that Mary, although a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, subsequently had a normal marriage with Joseph resulting in Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Roman Catholicism believes that Mary's body was raised and ascended into heaven. Protestants do not accept this.

ok. i see. it's just that i was born and raised a Catholic, but always thought, though i never had the b*lls to say it, that Protestantism made a lot more sense.

for example, the whole Eucharist thing really bothered me. there was no possible way that the blood and wine physically changed to the body and blood of Christ, especially when they had a version of celiacs!! I could completely see why the Protestants would say it was symbolic, because that is what it is. Is it not something the Catholic Church should consider changing?? I'd find it very hard to see how someone could claim that it wasn't symbolic and infact the actual body and blood of Christ...any thoughts??

kelly1

evil-monkey wrote: »

i suppose the same way she conceived without intercourse...

Thinking about it, if you accept that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit (which I do), it wouldn't take a huge leap of imagination to say that Jesus was born miraculously i.e. without emerging from the birth canal.

kelly1

evil-monkey wrote: »

for example, the whole Eucharist thing really bothered me. there was no possible way that the blood and wine physically changed to the body and blood of Christ, especially when they had a version of celiacs!! I could completely see why the Protestants would say it was symbolic, because that is what it is. Is it not something the Catholic Church should consider changing?? I'd find it very hard to see how someone could claim that it wasn't symbolic and infact the actual body and blood of Christ...any thoughts??

The belief of the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is absolutely central to the life of the Church. This belief has been there from the beginning and only began to be questioned seriously around the time of the Reformation. Check out the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Keep in mind that all things are possible with God. It's no great miracle to God to make Jesus present in the form of bread and wine. Our senses can detect no difference before and after consecration but the true substance has changed.

The passage below is also very important:-

John 6:47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

See also http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html

BrianCalgary

evil-monkey wrote: »

for example, the whole Eucharist thing really bothered me. there was no possible way that the blood and wine physically changed to the body and blood of Christ, especially when they had a version of celiacs!! I could completely see why the Protestants would say it was symbolic, because that is what it is. Is it not something the Catholic Church should consider changing?? I'd find it very hard to see how someone could claim that it wasn't symbolic and infact the actual body and blood of Christ...any thoughts??

My thoughts. I was raised in the Anglican church and understood that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ (my take and not necessarily the churches).

As time went on I came to the point that it was purely symbolic. At this stage the communion table became meaningless.

At the last supper Jesus does say "this is my body" "this is my blood". Christ is present in the communion. How I don't know.

The two biggest ceremonies are baptism and communion. The Holy Spirit is present in baptism and I look for the presence of God in the communion.

PDN

getz wrote: »

one of the things that i do not understand is how dose the cross come about?there isent any record of jesus being on a cross in fact the romans only crucified people on a stick --ie it was always the way it was done-and the cross did not come about untill the 3rd century--the other thing was the church took the word virgin from the old jewish word for unmarried[there was no word for virgin at that time] --

There is considerable evidence that the Romans forced the condemned man to carry a horizontal bar called a patibulum. This was then nailed to a stake, or even a tree, which made the cross shape with which we are familiar.

Seneca, a Roman historian who was a contemporary of Jesus, records that crucifixion was carried out in many different ways, including some with arms outstretched and even some with their genitals nailed to the cross.

As for the word for 'virgin' - I think you've got yourself a bit confused. The Hebrew word translated as 'virgin' in the Greek version of Isaiah can also be translated as young woman.

However, the Greek word for virgin used in the Gospels (parthenos) clearly refers to a virgin.

BrianCalgary

getz wrote: »

one of the things that i do not understand is how dose the cross come about?there isent any record of jesus being on a cross in fact the romans only crucified people on a stick --ie it was always the way it was done-and the cross did not come about untill the 3rd century--the other thing was the church took the word virgin from the old jewish word for unmarried[there was no word for virgin at that time] --

Go and recheck you history. You are dearly misinformed.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

genitals nailed to the cross.

Merciful hour!

philologos

PDN wrote: »

Most Protestant churches teach that there are only two sacraments: baptism & communion. I don't know of any major Protestant churches that treat marriage as a sacrament.

Two denominations, the Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Salvation Army, practice no sacraments at all.

My own church prefers the term 'ordinance' rather than sacrament. We observe communion, water baptism and foot-washing as ordinances.

In the Church of Ireland (Anglican) we have 2 major sacraments, the ones which PDN has named, and 5 minor sacraments which are the same as the remaining Catholic ones.

Chong

Jakkass wrote: »

In the Church of Ireland (Anglican) we have 2 major sacraments, the ones which PDN has named, and 5 minor sacraments which are the same as the remaining Catholic ones.

Can you possibly describe what goes on in an Protestant service per se?

evil-monkey

kelly1 wrote: »

Keep in mind that all things are possible with God. It's no great miracle to God to make Jesus present in the form of bread and wine.

but then why a version for celiacs??

philologos

Bill wrote: »

Can you possibly describe what goes on in an Protestant service per se?

Sure on an average Sunday it goes basically like this:

Welcome and Greeting: basically a prayer by the priest as a means of greeting, and then a verse which is related to the topic of the day is read out in the church. For example last Sunday was All Saints Day, so a verse related to that was read out.

Introductory Hymn, generally something written between the 18th and the 20th centuries, although new hymns are being gradually phased in.

Collect for Purity, a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer the latest edition of which was published in 2004.

Gloria. A prayer to give praise to the Almighty God.

Collect for the Day: A prayer related to the subject of the day.

The First Reading: A passage from the Old Testament.

A hymn.

Second Reading: An epistle reading from the New Testament.

A hymn.

The Gospel Reading: From the 4 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

The Sermon. A talk given by the pastor related to the Bible readings for that particular Sunday, generally a relation between what was uttered in the Bible and it's modern day significance to Christians in the modern world.

The Nicene Creed - A declaration of faith established at the Council of Nicea.

Prayers for the people of the community selected by the church.

Prayers for sins, for which the priest offers absolution after wards.

The Peace, by which the people of the church wish peace to their neighbours in their Christian community.

A Hymn by which an offering is taken.

If the Eucharist is offered (this happens every 2nd Sunday in Anglican churches), there are prayers before and after communion, and a closing hymn.

Chong

Sounds along the same lines of Catholic Mass, with a few exceptions.

Another question I would have is , is the focus more on God than Jesus or equal?

In Catholcism the focus seems to be more on Jesus and Mary.

philologos

Well, in Anglican churches, and I think in Catholic. Jesus is considered a part of the Holy Trinity, and therefore a part of God Himself. However in our churches reference is also made to the Father, as well as the Son. We recognise the huge implications the Crucifixion of our Saviour has for us though. As for prayers to Mary, this never happens. We consider Mary a human being as all others, she carried out a special role, but she is a human all the same. Just as Sarah had been blessed with a child with Abraham by miracle, so was Mary, albeit in much different circumstances.

Chong

So if Anglican is Church of Ireland and Church of Ireland is to Church of England, what is the difference between them and Lutheranism, Calvinism etc?

Sorry about all the questions, I am just intrigued.

Fanny Cradock

I go to a CORE Church which is COI. The focus of these services are placed firmly upon Jesus and the HS and God get the odd mention Recently, when I was attending a wedding, I was surprised that the Protestant service was so formal. Granted, CORE may be a slight aberration (if that's the correct word) in so far as it is very Evangelical in so far as it has a very informal setting. I get very confused as to the differences between denominations.

philologos

The Church of Ireland, the Church of England, etc are national churches of a global organisation which is Anglicanism which started out as a result of the English Reformation.

COI = Anglicanism
COE = Anglicanism
COI does not = COE

National churches make their decisions by national votes at an event called the General Synod which takes place each year. This explains in why in the USA they have different views on certain issues than the Church of Ireland or the Church of England do.

As for Calvinism that is mainly theological differences, such as they believe that we are predestined either to be followers of Christ or not.

Lutheranism is very similar to Anglicanism, infact there is a union of Churches between the Lutherans and the Anglicans which was established in 1992. To read more about that heres a link to the Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porvoo_Communion

I personally emphasise unity between Christian churches, we just practice differently. For example PDN's church (don't mean to pick out ) no doubt is more contemporary in fashion to mine which would be more traditional, but by and large I believe the same things as him.

Chong

Between all the Protestant dominations is there any sort of stigma of sorts of lets say an Anglican looks down on a Lutheran and vice versa?

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally emphasise unity between Christian churches, we just practice differently. For example PDN's church (don't mean to pick out ) no doubt is more contemporary in fashion to mine which would be more traditional, but by and large I believe the same things as him.

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if there is enough in common between certain denominations to eliminate the need for their distinctions.

Chong

Your views are the same as what I have but we(as in Catholics) are led to believe as a Catholic which I am that our Religion is the sole and best religion out there.

Although of late in our Church they seem to be focusing on the term Christian more than Catholic.

I feel if we all believe in the same god amongst Christian religions surely we are striving for the same thing are we not.

philologos

Not really, I guess between a minority they might. It doesn't concern me, if you believe in the Bible as it was written, I really have little issue with any Christian. I may differ in theological opinion, but I don't see that as a reason for looking down on anyone.

Chong

I think Id maybe interested in attending a service, to see what it is like.

philologos

That's great. If you live in the Dublin & Glendalough area, check out http://dublin.anglican.org other than that check for information on http://ireland.anglican.org

garrincha62

Isn't it the point of religion that yours is the one and only true religion. Other than that it seems quite pointless.:( Calvin was right, he's laughing at us now.

Chong

Id agree with that quote , if you have faith and believe in god thats your religion.