Protestants and Catholics

AMBASSADOR HAT



Please remember to avoid debating each other! This is a no debate forum. If you want to debate - do it in a different forum. Make sure to address the OP, not eachother’s posts.

This is the second time I needed to post this. To avoid reports, please edit your posts accordingly.

Pools said:

Well, up to this point I didn't really look into the matter much and I just considered myself to be on both sides equally. I didn't regard myself as protestant or catholic; just a supporter of both. But that's because I really never figured out which one to follow, because I don't really see the difference; both accept Jesus as the Messiah, so how is it so different than one another?

Which one came first, etc.?

Thanks

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church was present throughout the Roman Empire to its bitter end, through the early Middle Ages and the late Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance. It wasn't until 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of Wittenberg Castle church, officially starting the Reformation, and it was many years later that he was actually excommunicated from the Catholic Church and began Lutheranism, the first Protestant denomination.

The main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is what we respectively consider the infallible source for doctrine and morals. Protestants have a teaching called Sola Scriptura, which means Bible only. The Catholic Church has never accepted this. For one thing, THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT CANON until hundreds of years after Christ. At first, all the letters from the apostles and bishops were considered equal and passed around, so that Clement's epistle and the Didache were considered as binding as Paul's letter to the Romans. During this time, Christians depending upon the teaching authority of the CHURCH to tell them the gospel straight. Jesus ordained the Apostles. The Apostles found men they could trust to accurately teach the gospel, and ordained them bishops. These bishops ordained other bishops. "Who listens to you listens to me," Christ said. And so in an unbroken chain of ordination (the laying on of hands) this teaching authority is carried on to this day. It means, i.e. that when all of the bishops are gathered together in one place for an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Spirit guides them infallibly. Indeed, the REASON we have a New Testament canon, is because of the authority of these bishops who met together in council to put the NT together.

These differences have consequences:

• If you are a Protestant and believe in Sola Scriptura, then every Protestant believes their own personal interpretation is correct, and you end up with tens of thousands of denominations.
• If you are Catholic and believe in the Authority of the Church, you must also accept the Authority of the Bible (the two cannot contradict) and the doctrines that are part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, such as assemblying on Sunday for communion. All the Catholic teachings that Protestants don't like, such as asking the Saints to pray for us, having a Pope to administrate the Church, Transubstantiation, etc., become easy to accept because the Authoritative Church teaches these interpretations of Scripture.

Neither. The Catholic Church broke from the Orthodox Church in the Great Schism of 1054.

East–West Schism - Wikipedia

As for what their differences in beliefs are, there are many in every denomination. You'll have to search these out for yourself and compare them, maybe visit them, most churches have a statement of faith that lists their core beliefs, and ask the pastor/priest any questions.

Ronald said:

Lets just all call ourselves Christians for Pete's sake. It would be wonderful if we could remove the obstacles that separate us.
There are essentials that we all share, faith in Jesus, that He died for our sins and rose on the third day, according to the scriptures. We all believe in His Word, at least 66 books. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Jesus refers to us as Gods children NOT PROTESTANTS OR CATHOLICS. The Holy Spirit doesn't give a message filtered through our misunderstandings and misinterpretations, its the other way around. We take His message and twist it and bend to conform to our ways.
Fear not, He is sovereign and every soul has been saved right on schedule. His perfect plan factors in our flaws and when we get there, He will clarify it all. In the mean time, lets not be divided.

Click to expand...

I feel ya, bro!

LoricaLady said:

The authentic ones are the result of believing in what the Bible says.

Click to expand...

The miracles I experienced came before I knew anything about what the Bible said, and are the chief reason I picked it up to read it, afterwards. For me, miracle demonstrated God IS, so then I went to go find out more about him. That's where the Bible came into the picture.

Pools said:

Well, up to this point I didn't really look into the matter much and I just considered myself to be on both sides equally. I didn't regard myself as protestant or catholic; just a supporter of both. But that's because I really never figured out which one to follow, because I don't really see the difference; both accept Jesus as the Messiah, so how is it so different than one another?

Which one came first, etc.?

Thanks

Click to expand...

The first Protestants were all Catholics who left the Catholic Church in the 16th century. So Catholicism came first and Protestantism came over 1,500 years later. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The Catholic Church claims to be the church Jesus founded. If that's true, then it's God's will that everyone join and refusing to join would be disobeying God.

Another major difference is the Catholic Church teaches that a person must love God to be with Him in Heaven (scripture says those who love God obey His commandments). Every Protestant church I attended taught that it was optional, that you could live as you please because the grace of God gave believers a license to sin. The fruits of that teaching showed up in their sinful lifestyle. The Protestants I know sin constantly (and proudly admit it - they love to boast they are just sinners saved by grace). That's not just my experience. The founders of Protestantism (Luther and the leaders of other sects) admitted that their new faith alone teaching led to a huge decline in morality. Here's what the leader of one Protestant sect said about the fruits of faith alone:

"The Lutherans teach and believe, that we are saved by faith alone, without any regard to works... Their open deeds bear testimony; for the excessive eating and drinking; the superfluous pomp and splendor, the whoring, lying, cheating, cursing, swearing by the wounds, sacraments and sufferings of the Lord, the shedding of blood, fighting, &c., which exist among many of them, and, alas, have neither measure nor bounds. In many carnal things, both the teachers and disciples are the same, as may be seen (Menno Simons, Lutheran belief)"

Even Luther, the founder of Protestantism, admitted that his followers left the Catholic Church and became Protestants because they wanted to be set free to live in sin instead of having to listen to the Church tell them to lead godly moral lives.

Of course, some non-Catholics choose to live relatively moral lives despite believing it is optional so this is not an attack on Protestants.

samir said:

The first Protestants were all Catholics who left the Catholic Church in the 16th century. So Catholicism came first and Protestantism came over 1,500 years later. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The Catholic Church claims to be the church Jesus founded. If that's true, then it's God's will that everyone join and refusing to join would be disobeying God.

Another major difference is the Catholic Church teaches that a person must love God to be with Him in Heaven (scripture says those who love God obey His commandments). Every Protestant church I attended taught that it was optional, that you could live as you please because the grace of God gave believers a license to sin. The fruits of that teaching showed up in their sinful lifestyle. The Protestants I know sin constantly (and proudly admit it - they loved to boast they are just sinners saved by grace). That's not just my experience. The founders of Protestantism (Luther and the leaders of other sects) admitted that their new faith alone teaching led to a huge decline in morality. Here's what the leader of one Protestant sect said about the fruits of faith alone:

"The Lutherans teach and believe, that we are saved by faith alone, without any regard to works... Their open deeds bear testimony; for the excessive eating and drinking; the superfluous pomp and splendor, the whoring, lying, cheating, cursing, swearing by the wounds, sacraments and sufferings of the Lord, the shedding of blood, fighting, &c., which exist among many of them, and, alas, have neither measure nor bounds. In many carnal things, both the teachers and disciples are the same, as may be seen (Menno Simons, Lutheran belief)"

Even Luther, the founder of Protestantism, admitted that his followers left the Catholic Church and became Protestants because they wanted to be set free to live in sin instead of having to listen to the Church tell them to lead godly moral lives.

Click to expand...

Then again, I read recently this description of the Huguenots, French Protestants who were severely persecuted for their faith:

" [Sheldon's Church History provides a description of the Huguenots from Florimond de Raemond, a Roman Catholic historian in the late 16th century. He observed the life and behavior of the Huguenots and summarized his impressions.]

They comported themselves as the pronounced enemies of luxury, of public festivities, and of the follies of the world, which were all too prevalent among the Catholics. In their societies and at their banquets, one found neither music nor dancing, but discourses from the Bible, which lay upon the table, and spiritual songs, especially the Psalms as soon as they were brought into rhyme. The women, with their modest apparel and bearing, seemed like sorrowing Eves or penitent Magdalens, repeating in their lives the description which Tertullian gave of the (Christian) women of his age. The men appeared dead to the world, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Each was a John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. The outward demeanor expressed only humility and obedience. They sought to gain a place for themselves, not by cruelty but by patience, not by killing but by dying, so that in them Christianity in its primitive innocence seemed to be restored."

Not that I dont agree with you, though.

Ronald said:

Lets just all call ourselves Christians for Pete's sake.

Click to expand...

Great idea! We should do it for Pete's sake (since he was the first infallible Pope, you know)!

Vicomte13 said:

Great idea! We should do it for Pete's sake (since he was the first infallible Pope, you know)!

Click to expand...

I know, all joking aside, emmm _ infallible? Peter denied Jesus three times. Talk about lying about know the Lord to save your butt. Then later on Paul rebuked him as well for being a hypocrite. (Gal. 2:11-16) I believe all men since Adam were sinners except Jesus -- he's the only one who was infallible.
I guess we can't agree on everything (like the infallibility of Popes), but we can believe as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ronald said:

I know, all joking aside, emmm _ infallible? Peter denied Jesus three times. Talk about lying about know the Lord to save your butt. Then later on Paul rebuked him as well for being a hypocrite. (Gal. 2:11-16) I believe all men since Adam were sinners except Jesus -- he's the only one who was infallible.
I guess we can't agree on everything (like the infallibility of Popes), but we can believe as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Click to expand...

Sure - infallible (as Catholics mean the word). What doctrine did Peter get wrong?

deleted - just noticed post #47 where moderator said:

"Please remember debating is not permitted in either of these forums - this is for answering the Op's questions and concerns"

LoricaLady said:

You don't have to choose between Catholicism or Protestantism since neither are in the Bible. There is no religion, just following the teachings of the Word.

Click to expand...

The word "religion" is a sociological idea describing a common human behavior. Anything having the various characteristics is a religion.

I personally don't find it helpful to distinguish between "religion" vs "relationship" with its implicit judgment on all religions (except Christianity) as bad.

Sketcher said:

Some Protestant traditions are closer to Catholic practices than others. Lutherans tend to be very similar. Baptists and Pentecostals are very different. Methodists and Wesleyans are sort of in the middle.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is a wide gulf between the doctrines of really any Protestant group on the one hand, and Catholic or Orthodox on the other.

Paidiske said:

Protestants broke away from the Catholic church beginning in about the year 1517, when a Catholic monk and theologian (Martin Luther) published criticisms of the Catholic church which led to the beginning of formal division.

Click to expand...

Yes, Martin Luther (a great man of God) retained certain Catholic teachings (well, sort of) but invented others. These distinctively Protestant doctrines include: total depravity, saved by faith only (sola fide), scripture only (sola scriptura), justification vs sanctification, state-run religion, and others.

Fortunately, Martin Luther kept the really important stuff such as: Trinity, Nicene Creed, the Eucharist, and etc. This is why, in my opinion, Protestantism can be considered as Christian.

Vicomte13 said:

Sure - infallible (as Catholics mean the word). What doctrine did Peter get wrong?

Click to expand...

Peter was constantly putting his foot in his mouth. He lied 3x denying that he knew Jesus for fear of capture and torture. OK, you can say his ministry didn't really start until he had the Holy Spirit.
Here's another incident: "But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Matt. 16:23 Again, this happened when he was green, learning and prior to the HS.
But after he had the Spirit, apparently he witnessed to Jews only and wouldn't eat with the Gentiles. ??? About circumcision and the law, was he living and teaching salvation by works of the law and not by grace alone?
In Galatians 2:11-21, Peter's wrong thinking had the potential to affect those under his influence. Paul rebukes Peter because of his bad doctrine, which was affecting him and his hearers. Specifically, Peter feared the ‘circumcision group’ (a group teaching bad doctrine) and held the belief that Gentiles needed to behave like Jews to truly be saved. Because of this, Peter did not eat with the Gentiles. When Paul “saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel” he rebuked Peter. Paul knew that if Peter started believing another gospel (observance to the law) that this would be very detrimental to both Peter and others that he influenced. Peter came around to Paul's rebuke and received it. He knew.

It's scripture, you can deny it, but it's history. If Peter was #1, why didn't he pen 13 books. I believe Paul was the most important apostle, most effective and most used by God.
Peace.

Ronald said:

Peter was constantly putting his foot in his mouth. He lied 3x denying that he knew Jesus for fear of capture and torture. OK, you can say his ministry didn't really start until he had the Holy Spirit.
Here's another incident: "But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Matt. 16:23 Again, prior to the HS.
But after he had the Spirit, apparently he witnessed to Jews only and wouldn't eat with the Gentiles. ??? About circumcision and the law, was he living and teaching salvation by works of the law and not by grace alone?
In Galatians 2:11-21, Peter's wrong thinking had the potential to affect those under his influence. Paul rebukes Peter because of his bad doctrine, which was affecting him and his hearers. Specifically, Peter feared the ‘circumcision group’ (a group teaching bad doctrine) and held the belief that Gentiles needed to behave like Jews to truly be saved. Because of this, Peter did not eat with the Gentiles. When Paul “saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel” he rebuked Peter. Paul knew that if Peter started believing another gospel (observance to the law) that this would be very detrimental to both Peter and others that he influenced. Peter came around to Paul's rebuke and received it. He knew.

It's scripture, you can deny it, but it's history. If Peter was #1, why didn't he pen 13 books. I believe Paul was the most important apostle, most effective and most used by God.
Peace.

Click to expand...

This is something that came to my mind too. Presumably Peter learned from his rebukes by Paul, but for a time he was simply wrong about these things, and the Catholic Church followed Paul and not Peter on these issues.
If it is agreed that Peter was the first pope, and that he was speaking on matters of morals and doctrine, then what does his Biblically recorded failings on doctrine tell us about his infallibility?
There are some dogmas that Catholics just need to take with a grain of salt. No need to become our own pope for sure, or start a new more perfect version of the One, Holy, but to 'interpret' the dogma of papal infallibility in such a way as to account for Peter getting it wrong on circumcision and the dietary laws, before he got it right.

Ronald said:

I believe Paul was the most important apostle, most effective and most used by God.

Click to expand...

It's a free country.