what are the differences between Catholic and Protestant?

[Pineapple Lump]

it's pretty much all there in the title
all help would be greatly appreciated as i'm studying English history this year but my school doesn't really go into religion or anything
i also do a bit of writing and my current story is based on English history, but it's hard to do when i don't understand something that was so important back then
thanks for taking the time

 

[Mr Dave]

As you're focusing on English History, I guess it's more of a difference between the CofE and the RCC? If so, this would be a good place to go to
Worship-Book of Commom Prayer-Articles

If it's more generic between protestant and catholic, this will still be useful to you. These are the 39 articles of Religion of the Church of England. These were written back in the day and are the individual things that the CofE believes. Some of them show the differences in belief quite clearly as they are arguing against some RCC beliefs/practices;


Art. 6 - Roman Catholics use the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books and view them in the same light (fully canonical) as the 'normal' books. Protestants either don't use them or treat them differently (as the CofE does).

Art. 18 - At the time, there was persecution, and protestants were branded as heretics, they were told that they would not be saved as they did not belong to the RCC. This argues against that.

Arts. 19 & 20 - Start to put the view over that the RCC has gravely erred and has done things 'repugnant to the word of God'. This view is not held by the RCC in so cheerful a manner.

Art. 22 - Protestants do not believe in Purgatory

Art. 24 - Back to History, at the time RCC mass was carried out in Latin. Protestants have always emphasised the accessibility of the Bible and church services.

Art. 25 - Protestants (of a more traditional viewpoint) have two sacraments (some less traditional prots don't recognise sacraments). The RCC has 7.

Art. 28 - Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation, there's that word 'repugnant' again.

Art. 30 - It was common practice to offer congregations only the bread in the mass. Protestants have always taken both the bread and wine (except in exceptional circumstances when this has been unwise; last year the CofE prohibited the wine to congregations from one cup due to the swine-flu outbreak)

Art. 32 - Protestant clergy have always been allowed to be married.

Art. 37 - At the time, Roman Catholicism was established religion across much of Europe. Protestants (in England) broke with this. Also the Pope is recognised by RCs as the leader of the Church. Protestants do not recognise him as the leader of the world's Christians, and do not accept his authority.

Hope that helps to start with.

 

[Pineapple Lump]

wow! thanks a lot!! it certainly helps

 

[Rhamiel]

also at the time of the reformation Catholics were persicuted in Protestant England, just saying that everyone had blood on their hands in that time period

 

[laconicstudent]

Well, Protestantism was the result of a schism from the Roman Catholic Church when a monk named Martin Luther rebelled. That resulted in a cascade of fractal schisms.

 

[σύνδουλόν]

Well, Protestantism was the result of a schism from the Roman Catholic Church when a monk named Martin Luther rebelled. That resulted in a cascade of fractal schisms.

Yet, there was a split far older than that, even so named in scripture:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - 1 John 2:19

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:3

 

[LST 1154]

Well for starters the RCC teaches that when you die you go to purgatory to suffer for awhile. The reason one must suffer is because Christ's blood was just not quite as powerful as what the bible teaches it is so to atone for those sins he must burn for awhile. Of course this time in purgatory can be shortened by the family by donating lots and lots of $$$ to the church.

Indulgences are another way to shorten time in purgatory. These were quietly reintroduced in 2001 by then Pope JP II. Of course the "official" church position is they are not for sale BUT "charitable contributions" are glady accepted. If the local priest spoke english I would be tempted to ask him if he would make arrangements to provide me with an indulgence for a charitable contribution of $10,000. My best guess is he would be very happy to accomodate, but of course I'm sure he would tell me they are not for sale.

LST

 

[Rhamiel]

Well for starters the RCC teaches that when you die you go to purgatory to suffer for awhile. The reason one must suffer is because Christ's blood was just not quite as powerful as what the bible teaches it is so to atone for those sins he must burn for awhile. Of course this time in purgatory can be shortened by the family by donating lots and lots of $$$ to the church.

Indulgences are another way to shorten time in purgatory. These were quietly reintroduced in 2001 by then Pope JP II. Of course the "official" church position is they are not for sale BUT "charitable contributions" are glady accepted. If the local priest spoke english I would be tempted to ask him if he would make arrangements to provide me with an indulgence for a charitable contribution of $10,000. My best guess is he would be very happy to accomodate, but of course I'm sure he would tell me they are not for sale.

LST

dude, you do not know about the Catholic Church
you have gross characitures

 

[LST 1154]

dude, you do not know about the Catholic Church
you have gross characitures

I see you are one of the millions and millions of Catholics that have no idea of what the RCC has slipped into today's RCC. Even me, a stupid uneducated Protestant knows more about what is happening in your church than does millions and millions of Catholics. Read this article from The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html

Take note this is NOT some Catholic hating Protestant newspaper from Redneck City, Kentucky, but the venerable New York Times.

LST

 

[freezerman2000]

Yet, there was a split far older than that, even so named in scripture:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - 1 John 2:19

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Just who were "they"? Remember that the RC pretty well squashed all forms of Christianity, other than theirs early on...way before the Reformation.

 

[LST 1154]

Just who were "they"? Remember that the RC pretty well squashed all forms of Christianity, other than theirs early on...way before the Reformation.

The book Foxe's Book of Martyrs (first edition written in 1552) has numerous eyewitness accounts of how the RCC murdered several hundred Protestants (most by burning them at the stake) for "heretical" statements like "the pope is not the vicar of Christ" and "the RC is not the one true church established by Christ."

I read it several years ago and in every case the martyr never screamed out in terror or pain even when the flames were burning the flesh off their legs. On several occasions the RC was "kind" to the Protestant by running a spear through his heart before the flames reached his beard because the beard caused a flair up of flames. How kind it was of them to be so thoughful and nice. Of course they also forced the martyr's wife and children to watch the execution in the hope they would see the light (no pun intended) and convert to Catholicism.

No wonder we have so many Protestants today. Praise God for the martyrs.

LST

 

[MrPolo]

The book Foxe's Book of Martyrs

...has been criticized for its inaccuracies many times throughout the centuries. Even so, if a Catholic were to compile a list of murders exacted by Protestants throughout the centuries, it would neither prove nor disprove the truth of their doctrines or validity of their church. Foxe's enterprise, even if totally true, would demonstrate that Christians can sin.

By the way, Qoheleth85 was correct, it is clear you do not know what Purgatory is. It is about purification of the stains of sin, not the forgiveness of sins which Christ's blood fully remits. If temporal punishments for sin didn't exist, then no Christian would die, since physical death is a consequence of man's sinful nature. But Christ's death did not take away physical death for Christians. Christ rather takes away eternal consequences.

 

[MrPolo]

it's pretty much all there in the title
all help would be greatly appreciated as i'm studying English history this year but my school doesn't really go into religion or anything
i also do a bit of writing and my current story is based on English history, but it's hard to do when i don't understand something that was so important back then
thanks for taking the time

If you would like to know what many of the doctrines that divide Catholics and Protestants are, please refer to pages covering the most common topics such as Catholic.com or PhilVaz.com. You don't even have to read the articles unless you are interested, but these sources show you the topics that are usually areas of disagreement.

 

[LST 1154]

Well of course the Catholics are going to say that Foxe lied, do you think I'm stupid? BUT he wrote these accounts while these atrocities were being done. Can you imagine someone today saying that none of the 20 terrorists that murdered 3000 people at the WTC were not Muslims? They would be proven wrong immediately.


"Purification of the stains of sin" is a Catholic invention to obfuscate the truth of Christ's full atonement. Titus 2:14 "[Christ] gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Strongs G2511 katharizō means 1) to make clean, cleanse and 2) (in a moral sense) to purify. The same exact word is used in 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Note that two things are going on in both of these passages, in the latter passage, when we confess our sin 1) Christ is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and 2) Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and in the former Christ "redeemed us from all iniquity and 2) purified unto Himself a peculiar people (us.) So if Christ "purified us (both passages) and He has cleansed us, and redeemed us from all iniquity just exactly what "stains" are left? NONE, Nada. Ziltch, Zero.

The word "stain" or "stain of sin" does not appear in the NT anywhere. The word "stain" appears three times in the OT, none speaking of the stain of sin. The concept of the "stain of sin" is an invention of the RCC to extract $$$ out of their people.

I fear for the Catholics. Can you imagine standing before Christ immediately after death and telling Him that you believed that His blood was not sufficient to atone for all our sins and "the stains left over from sin" according to the one true and apostolic church? I shudder.

LST

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Well of course the Catholics are going to say that Foxe lied, do you think I'm stupid? BUT he wrote these accounts while these atrocities were being done. Can you imagine someone today saying that none of the 20 terrorists that murdered 3000 people at the WTC were not Muslims? They would be proven wrong immediately.

Two things. First, reporting and indeed history as we have it today was not the same in Europe at the time Foxe was writing. So the parallel you draw is inaccurate. At the time in historical writing it was accepted practice to exaggerate details and numbers to make either a king or faction look better. Add unto that the fact that he was likely not present for the vast amount, if any, of the executions he records, and the tendency of people to exaggerate stories. Now add unto THAT the fact that he most likely exaggerated these events even further in his writing, especially since he had an axe to grind with the hierarchy of the RCC. The end result is a kernel of truth wrapped in a rather large amount of misinformation, hearsay, and exaggeration.

Second, his writings have been criticized by historians from all across the spectrum, and not strictly by historians with an axe to grind.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I see you are one of the millions and millions of Catholics that have no idea of what the RCC has slipped into today's RCC. Even me, a stupid uneducated Protestant knows more about what is happening in your church than does millions and millions of Catholics. Read this article from The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html

Take note this is NOT some Catholic hating Protestant newspaper from Redneck City, Kentucky, but the venerable New York Times.

LST

I remember you. You're the guy who put up that headline in another thread and claimed it said something completely different than it actually said and then attempted to defend it for several pages when it was clear that you were completely wrong.

And then you put up the other headline about "Pope says gospel writers got it wrong" when it was absolutely, explicitly clear that not only were you not representing the article fairly, but that you were just fabricating stuff. Of course, you didn't post in that thread for quite awhile and only came back later to address points tangential to the main topic.

Looking at that thread now it seems like you've tried to address the main point (that is, everybody tearing your misrepresentation to shreds). So I guess it will be another comedy along the lines of your indulgence thread.

For everybody's reading pleasure:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7541217/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7534056/

 

[LST 1154]

I remember you. You're the guy who put up that headline in another thread and claimed it said something completely different than it actually said and then attempted to defend it for several pages when it was clear that you were completely wrong.

And then you put up the other headline about "Pope says gospel writers got it wrong" when it was absolutely, explicitly clear that not only were you not representing the article fairly, but that you were just fabricating stuff. Of course, you didn't post in that thread for quite awhile and only came back later to address points tangential to the main topic.

Looking at that thread now it seems like you've tried to address the main point (that is, everybody tearing your misrepresentation to shreds). So I guess it will be another comedy along the lines of your indulgence thread.

For everybody's reading pleasure:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7541217/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7534056/

Comedy? Buying your way into heaven is not funny.

LST

 

[scotslad83]

The bible clearly states that Christ's death was fully and completely sufficient. If you want to prove that just read the book of Romans.

On the issue of purification Rev 1v5 says:
Revelation 1:5 (King James Version)

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[Walter Kovacs]

what are the differences between Catholic and Protestant?

The mansions in heaven are different sizes.

 

[mmmcounts]

This is how I would answer the question.

One of the most important differences between Protestants and Catholics is found in their respective descriptions of what salvation is.

To the Protestant, salvation is a miracle of God. What I mean by "miracle" is a marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act by a divine agent. Other labels attached to this miracle are things like new birth, born again/anew, being regenerated, being saved, becoming a Christian, etc. In the words of Katherine Anne Porter, "Miracles are spontaneous; they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves." I would actually say they come of God whenever and wherever He does them, but the main idea is that the miracle of salvation cannot be summoned.

By way of contrast, the Catholic idea of salvation centers on the sacraments. Salvation is not seen as a miracle in any sense that's remotely similar to "a marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act by a divine agent," and it's absolutely normal for "sacramental grace" to be summoned in a manner that is the opposite of "spontaneous" on a daily and weekly basis. Instead, salvation is the eventual attainment of eternal life by means of a relatively high level of faithfulness to about 5 or 6 religious rituals that are very important to Catholics and at the same time relatively easy to accomplish. Anyone can do them, really, and anyone who does them is said to be infused with sacramental grace. It is especially important for a Catholic to be faithful to the sacraments later in life because a Catholic must ultimately be in a "state of grace" at the time of death in order to guarantee a steady progression from purgatory to heaven.

That's basically the main enduring difference. Protestants understand salvation to be a transformative miracle whereby God causes an unregenerate hell-bound person to become a spiritually-alive regenerated "new man" who is now heaven-bound. Catholics don't see salvation as a miracle, but as a reward given to those who are relatively faithful to the sacraments. It can also be granted as an act of mercy to relatively good people (Protestants and non-Christians alike) if they are ignorant of Catholic teaching, but the best way for Catholics to assure themselves of salvation is to make sure they're in a "state of grace" at the time of death.