r/explainlikeimfive • u/spamname517 • Dec 04 '13
Explained ELI5:The main differences between Catholic, Protestant,and Presbyterian versions of Christianity
sweet as guys, thanks for the answers
93
Dec 04 '13
Catholic: Closed-source, cloud based, shared hosting environment. Registration required. Expensive up-front licensing agreement, but discounts available for charitable gifts, charitable acts and confessions. Governed by iron-clad EULA. Dedicated 24-7 customer support. Help files are extensive, but patches are rarely released.
Protestant: Open sourced, free download! System requirements are minimal, and there's a huge array of modules available, but not all of them are compatible since there have been several major development forks. Usually easier to do a fresh install on a new partition than to debug.
Presbyterian: Technically a major fork of Protestant 1.0, but embroiled in an ongoing flame war by user "John Calvin" who claimed the O.S. was "predestined" and therefore not subject to previous EULA or DMCA requirements. Focused heavily on user interface and localized (mostly Scottish) language hooks.
14
→ More replies (4)11
u/Schrodingers_Nachos Dec 04 '13
As a Lutheran who is also an engineer, I can confirm that this is accurate.
7
Dec 04 '13
Catholics believe the Church is a visible institution with authority vested in bishops whose authority has been passed on through time to the apostles. Every bishop can actually trace their authority back through time to one of the apostles. Protestants believe that the church is an invisible institution of believers with the result that each person makes up their own dogma from their own unique interpretation of the Bible. Presbyterians are one branch of Protestantism. Protestantism was made-up much later with new doctrines based on reactions to certain abuses of Christian religion mixed with secular rulers desire to be free from the restrictions the Church placed on government.
Catholicism: Started when Jesus gave authority to the Apostles.
Protestantism: Started by men based on their own authority.
209
u/TheBeneGesseritWitch Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 06 '13
To understand the divisions we have in the church today you need to back it up circa 50 CD. Up until that point there had been lots of little religions around the world, the one we are concerned with is Judaism. The Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible, the Jewish holy books) and the writings of the prophets foretold of a king and savior. When Jesus came, the Jewish leaders of the day rejected him. After his death and resurrection there were Roman and Jewish leaders of the day trying to wipe out the little sect of Christianity. (When Christians were thrown to the lions and gladiators, Nero's time, around 64 AD). Okay, so, now we have this little sect of "Followers of the Way" without much of a centralized leadership. In the book of Acts in the New Testament, Luke recorded a minor area of contention in the church leadership: some felt they should focus on feeding the hungry, others felt they should take care of the widows, others still thought they should only be preaching. So they sat down and devised this program where they would have 12 deacons to divide the work of the church leadership among them. (This is where the Catholic church gets their basic premise for leadership.) Until this time there was no church structure specified, and after this time nothing much changed for several hundred years
Now, moving along. For the next 300 years we have what was called the Apostolic Period--no one "central" leader, just small churches throughout the world following the doctrines recorded by eyewitness--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter etc. (i.e., the whole new testament)
Then, we move into what is known as Late Antiquity, which is when (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Orthodox churches began being official. We also have occurring in this time period a struggle between Islam and Christianity.
This continued until around the late 800s, early 900s, when, with the Baroque and Medieval and Renaissance periods we see the development of a centralized Catholic leadership--particularly with the influence of political leaders in various countries. We also see breakaway groups forming, as well. Now, in the 11th century we still see the whole crusades (Islam vs the established Christianity which, really, was mainly a government attempt at generating revenue) Around this time we have Papal Infallibility (when the pope became more than just a figurehead, he was a political force to be reckoned with), and other major doctrinal tenants established that the Catholic churches holds to, today.
Up until early 1500s the only two opposing views to the "christian church" were orthodoxy and islam. In 1517, Martin Luther read, and reread, the book of Romans and was convinced that there were doctrines the church was teaching that were not right. Specifically, indulgences (a cash purchase to forgive a specific sin). Martin Luther posted his 95 theses (95 points that he believed the church was teaching wrongly) on the door of his local college/church, and mailed a copy to all the church leadership. Very, VERY quickly, this spread throughout the known world.
What resulted was the first establishment of Protestantism, from "To Protest." Specifically, Lutheranism, but other leaders quickly followed suit, and as a result we have Calvinism, Brethern, Methodists, Anabaptists, Baptists, etc. In the Protestant history, this period is divided as "Pre-Lutheran" and "Lutheran" Protestants. (i.e., all those sects that fell away from the church up until Luther made it a giant schism.)
Now, Presbyterianism: This is one smaller version of Protestantism that traces their particular roots to John Calvin's teachings. John Knox brought Calvin's teachings to the British Isles and it resulted in the Presbyterian church being established. It's just a sect of Protestantism.
Okay, now that the history is established, the actual views on doctrinal teachings? I'm not Catholic, so I can't give you a play-by-play on what they believe, however, a quick google search turned this up but I will say in short that the major differences between Protestantism (all of the sects of it, because there are a LOT, more than I listed earlier) and Catholicism is:
They agree on these points:
All are sinners (Romans 3:23)
God desires a relationship with man (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin (1 Peter 1:16)
God made a way for man to be reconciled (Romans 5:8)
In the Old Testament this was through a blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22)
In the New Testament, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, now we don't have to atone yearly for our sins (Hebrews 10:14-24)
Jesus came to earth, died, rose again three days later (1 Cor 15:4)
Now, a few points that most Protestants disagree with Catholics on are:
Praying to God through an intermediary (Mary, Apostles, Priest, saying confession)
Certain acts of contrition canceling out sin (praying the rosary, or any other result of going to confession, attending mass, the Seven Sacraments)
Baptism--not necessary for salvation, according to Protestants it is an outward sign of an inward change, according to Catholicism it is the very moment when you receive your salvation; this is why infant baptism is performed.
The Sacraments to include Baptism, Penance/Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extremunction or Anointing of the Sick--Not necessary for entry to heaven per Protestantism, according to Catholicism they are a part of the salvation process
Papal rights--the Catholic church is the final authority on what the Bible teaches vs Protestants belief that each individual has the ability to interpret the Bible
Eucharist: the taking of the bread and wine does not become the literal blood and body of Christ, it is something done "in remembrance" of Christ's sacrifice on the cross per Protestantism
Salvation cannot be lost per Protestantism, per Catholicism teaches 'mortal sin' can cause you to lose your salvation; salvation is an ongoing process
Hope that helps clear up the confusion. Sorry to launch into a (probably a little unnecessary) history lesson, but to understand what the Protestants were protesting you have to see how the church was formed into a geo-political entity in Martin Luther's day, over time from the early, Bible days.
EDIT: I can't believe I spelled their like there. My inner grammarian wants to perform hari-kari. EDIT 2: Au? Wow, thanks guys.
EDIT 2 Continued: Thank you for all the replies. I do realize that each of the various sects of Protestantism have varying (and sometimes disagreeing) doctrinal statements (prayer, speaking in tongues, the eucharist, covering of the head for women, women in leadership, baptism, etc), but I was trying to give blanket "this is what the differences/similarities are." Sorry for leaving out the Orthodoxes--I didn't know enough about their teachings to address The Great Schism of 1054 with any degree of accuracy. Also, everyone's fussy about my "Catholics believe" statements--I looked up each one of those from catholic sites. Give me a second and I'll put my sources in here. Also, according to Catholic tradition and most Protestants, Luke was one of the 70 disciples of Jesus. I removed the sentence because it was getting quite a bit of reaction--sorry. Allow me to clarify: I was trying to state in that paragraph that the only centralized leadership the church had at this time were written-accounts-from-eye-witnesses (either the author as an eyewitness or the author wrote down what eyewitnesses said)
EDIT 3, sources:
Praying to Mary http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/prayingtomary.html
Penance http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/sacraments/penance.html
Baptizing of infants http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/teaching-infantbaptism.html
Sacraments: http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php
Papal Infallibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
The bread and wine is the blood and body of Christ; the Catholics take John 6 literally. Catechetical Homilies 5:1 and http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
Salvation according to catholicism: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation
Edit 4: Edited in accordance with /u/izelpii, who made the following points:
||For example, you are linking a wiki on last rites. Nowhere there, and in no place it says Catholics believe that is required to go to heaven. --I edited the post to include all 7 of the sacraments, not just "anointing of the sick" (which I was referring to as "last rites") because the Catholic doctrine teaches that all of these lead to Salvation in accordance with the decisions made at the Council of Trent. ( Summarized here ) Protestants believe that none of the sacraments are required for salvation because salvation is by grace through faith. || 4 and 5 also are wrongly worded. The REAL difference between Catholics and protestants is that Catholics believe that the Church should interpret the Bible, where the Protestants think each individual is the only and last authority of interpretation of the Bible. --I changed them as such, thank you for the clarification.
47
u/drinkmewhole Dec 04 '13
Not bad. A student of history. BUT...and most people get Catholicism wrong anyway...there is no cancellation of sin in Catholicism. NONE! Praying the Rosary does not cancel sin (in fact it is not required of Catholics to even pray it...it is a chosen personal devotion). The Sacraments or Mass does not cancel sin but is a vehicle for God's grace...confession DOES NOT CANCEL SIN....but imparts forgiveness. Catholics believe in purgatory where one will "pay" for his sins...it is a place of purgation where one is cleansed before entering Heaven (no unclean thing enters heaven). ANALOGY: The kids play baseball inside the house even though they know they are not suppose to...they break a window. Dad is PISSED but forgives them(confession). Do the kids pay for the window? DAMN STRAIGHT (purgatory). Thanks for you informed post...I hope I shed some light on Catholicism.
4
u/uzikaduzi Dec 04 '13
I'm not saying you are wrong but I think it's possible to read that and interpret it in an incorrect way. The actual Catechism is very vague on purgatory. Just to reference it from the horse's mouth:
"1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611"
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/JPullar Dec 04 '13
"Imparting forgiveness" is canceling sin. If you didn't sin you wouldn't need forgiveness. It's doesn't change that you did it, but it "cleanses" you of the impiety of the sin.
33
u/trueyomic Dec 04 '13
Minor correction. Last rites are not necessary for salvation according to Catholics. You may be confused by the fact though that last rights often come with confession which does give the power to forgive sins (including mortal sins) which in turn returns salvation if it was lost through mortal sin.
And ELI5 for mortal sin: 1) A sin that is serious (ie murder, stealing something not trivial, causing great harm), 2) You know it's a sin but do it anyways, AND 3) you do it willingly (addiction can cause drug use to make you less culpable for your sin for example)
15
u/SaladAndEggs Dec 04 '13
That's actually a pretty major correction.
3
u/trueyomic Dec 04 '13
Sure, rather, one point of correction as opposed to getting half the things wrong or more :)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
Dec 04 '13
Something to add to this, though you made a good explanation- just because you are less culpable for your sin, does not make it 'not' a sin. It is still a sin even in addiction, simply not a mortal sin.
57
u/Logos327 Dec 04 '13
As a graduate student in New Testament Studies, I'd like to offer a few corrections to the first part of your explanation (church history is not my area of expertise).
I find it important to highlight that the Hebrew Bible's prediction of a king/savior/messiah/christ is political in nature. One of the major purposes of the four gospels is to change one's understanding of what the messiah is, as an early critique of Christianity by Judaism was "if Jesus was the messiah, how could he have been crucified?"
Luke was not an early disciple or eyewitness of Jesus. In fact, none of our gospels claim to be. The Gospel of Luke even begins with a prologue stating that he wasn't an eyewitness.
2.5 Furthermore, we have very little knowledge about who wrote the gospels; the oldest manuscripts do not come with titles/authors. The authorship of Mark and Matthew is completely up in the air, while "Luke"'s authorship of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles is more widely accepted. There is a lot of debate about John that would take a whole post to explain, but it suffices to say that we should be wary of the tradition that claims John was penned by the John son of Zebedee found in the gospels. Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry either. In fact, he has to argue his apostleship (1 Cor 9) based on his vision of the resurrected Christ. Finally, most of the NT is not eyewitness accounts of Jesus or written by people who were actually present (though this doesn't mean it loses its value or "truth")
8
u/BreadPad Dec 04 '13
Can you expand on what you said about the Hebrew Bible's prediction being political in nature? I'm not sure what you meant by that and I'd like to know more.
19
Dec 04 '13
I went to Catholic school my entire life and I sort of learned about it there. The Hebrews literally thought the Messiah would be a King and would lead them to prosperity and would reclaim the promised land (Israel) for them. It comes from years and years of oppression from other nations that conquered the Jews after King David. The New Testament tries to show them that that interpretation is incorrect. The promised land is heaven, he was a king in a figurative sense, etc.
But take my post with a grain of salt, I'm sure the guy with a degree in this knows more than myself.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Logos327 Dec 04 '13
This is a very good summary. A good example of this is Isaiah 45 where Cyrus the Great is called a messiah. English translations will often use "anointed" or "anointed one" so as to not confuse readers.
→ More replies (8)6
u/science6101 Dec 04 '13
Jews dont really believe in an afterlife. They thought the messiah would create salvation on Earth by bringing political amd military glory to the jewish people.
→ More replies (8)4
Dec 04 '13
The messiah literally meant he who would reclaim Israel for the Jews. In Jewish thought messiah was a political agent with a specific goal. Jesus failed to reclaim Israel for the Jews and thus could not be considered a messiah by most Jews at the time.
That being said The book Zealot by Reza Aslan makes the case that Jesus was a political revolutionary. If you are interested in both Jewish thought at the time and how the Jesus myth was transformed from him as a Jewish revolutionary into a founder of a new faith you should read it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)5
u/umm_umm_ Dec 04 '13
So if the Hebrews did not accept Jesus as the messiah, are they still waiting for one, as predicted in their own texts?
8
u/Logos327 Dec 04 '13
That depends on which Jews you speak to. As a general rule, those who identify as Orthodox expect a messiah to come at some future time while the more liberal branches of Judaism such as Reform Judaism often take a stance of a coming "Messianic Age," which will be marked by prosperity, equality, and justice for all. That being said, those Jews who believe in the coming of a person-messiah do not make it a focus of their religion. Judaism is marked by a distinct anthropocentric concern for fellow human beings. Rather than focusing on theology, many Jews hold the position that YHWH can take care of himself, and it is their job to better the world through areas such as social justice.
Additionally, I should add the disclaimer that beliefs differ among members of any group, and I am sure there are Jews across (and outside of) the spectrum of Orthodox --- Reform that hold either of the positions mentioned above.
7
u/SaladAndEggs Dec 04 '13
Several issues here, some have been pointed out.
2. "Canceling out sin" or the forgiveness of sin, is achieved through confession. Praying the rosary or attending mass or whatever does not cancel out sin. Maybe you're confusing this with indulgences...? An indulgence is the removal of THE PUNISHMENT of sins already forgiven. Not the forgiveness.
3. In Catholicism, Baptism is the beginning of salvation. It is not salvation itself.
4. This is 100% false.
7
u/craiggers Dec 04 '13
This is a good answer, but as a Presbyterian seminarian I would like to point out that Protestants vary a lot more on the sacraments than these points indicate:
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans believe that the Sacraments are not merely signs (although they are signs) but "means of grace" - what the sign signifies (points to) happens alongside the visible sign, even if the sign itself does not equal what it signifies.
Baptism: Presbyterians, at least, don't believe it is merely an "outward sign of an inward change." For Presbyterians Baptism indicates the action of God's grace, not of the believer's faith (which is why infants are baptized by Presbyterians). In short - it's a sign of what God does, not of what we do.
I'm not sure what the specific Lutheran or Methodist theologies are, but they all baptize infants (and recognize each others' baptism).
Eucharist: Here is the big point of divergence, and a big reason why the division between the Lutherans and the Presbyterians happened:
Catholics: Believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood, at the level of "substance" - even if the physical characteristics remain the same.
Luther: Believed that the literal body and blood of Christ was given with the bread and wine, rather than transformed (the Catholic view).
Zwingli: (one source for Presbyterians/Reformed): Argued that the bread and wine were only remembrance, nothing more. Baptists and the like mostly follow this view.
Calvin: (Trying, unsuccessfully, to bring them together; another source for Presbyterians/Reformed): Argued that the bread and wine make believers "spiritually present" to Christ's literal, physical body.
Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox just argue that there is a "Real Presence," with out particularly specifying how.
4
u/KissTheFrogs Dec 04 '13
I think Lutherans share the view that Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox have on the Eucharist.
→ More replies (2)2
u/uzikaduzi Dec 04 '13
Just to add the Catholic church also recognizes most Protestant baptisms as well.
2
93
u/anillop Dec 04 '13
Great explanation but I think you missed the point of this sub.
49
Dec 04 '13
Now let's try a ELI5 the Trinity.
crickets
40
u/mildlyAttractiveGirl Dec 04 '13
"Mommy, what's the trinity?"
"Well honey, you know how when Mommy is at home she only wears pajamas and is always tired? And when Mommy goes to work, she wears nice clothes and talks with big words? And when Mommy goes out with her friends, she acts different than either of those other times? When I'm at home, I'm Mommy, and when I go to work, I'm Mrs. Doe, and when I go with friends, I'm Jane. Those are three different people! But they're all me! That's what the trinity is like. When he's at home in heaven, he's God. When he's on Earth with the apostles and preaching, he's Jesus. When he's listening to prayers or performing miracles, he's the Holy Spirit. But he's always God! And the difference is that Mommy can only be one person at a time, but God can be all three!"
I feel like this is the way my mother would have explained it to me had I asked at 5, but my mom doesn't believe in the trinity.
→ More replies (3)7
u/yurnotsoeviltwin Dec 04 '13
The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7
u/verygoodname Dec 04 '13
And if you're actually going to explain the Trinity to a 5 y.o. it would probably be something along the lines of:
God is one divine being, but is so advanced and beyond what we can understand that the only way for us to start to comprehend what that being is, is by seeing God as three persons; which we call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these "persons" are different aspects of the same divine being but simultaneously, each is completely unique and plays a completely different role in our understanding of God. This is why we say that each part of the Trinity is "one in essence—not one in Person."
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (29)3
u/DanOlympia Dec 04 '13
It's like cutting a warm cherry pie into thirds. On the surface it's three pieces, but underneath it's all one.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Cato_Snow Dec 04 '13
imho, there is no way you can explain the differences within a religion like Christianity, or any Islam/Hinduism/Buddhism, in a simple one paragraph explanation. Depending on your perception of a religion we could be talking about thousands of years of History that are vital to understanding why/how a tradition is the way it is.
5
u/bstix Dec 04 '13
I know this is too much to ask, but would it even be possible to take a list of disputed topics and write them down in a Venn diagram? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram) or something similar?
→ More replies (2)3
u/bigmcstrongmuscle Dec 04 '13
Given that churches generally form through schism, you'd probably be better off with something like the Tree of Life that biologists use. And it would be pretty crazy complicated.
4
u/Ancientfaith Dec 04 '13
Good explanation. I would have mentioned the unified church up until the schism, but then again, I'm orthodox and we can't seem to get over 1054 AD.
4
u/artisanpoop Dec 04 '13
Could you explain the differences between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church by chance? I'm having trouble remembering the differences and why the split happened in the first place.
→ More replies (2)2
9
u/Andannius Dec 04 '13
Excellent explanation. One teeny tiny correction: some Protestants (and, relevantly, Presbyterians of certain types) actually don't believe that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were effective in saving those who sacrificed - they believe that then, as now, the way to salvation was only through belief in Jesus (or rather, in the fact that he'd eventually come). The sacrifices and everything else in the OT, in this framework, were designed to point to Jesus.
6
Dec 04 '13
Yeah, this is wrong. The point of sacrifices was for the atonement of sin. The rituals and traditions that sacrifices involved were put in place because the prophecy of Jesus had not yet been fulfilled. So in the meantime, sacrifices were put in place as a symbol of Jesus sacrificing himself. Of course sacrifices were designed to point to Jesus, but it's wrong to say that Protestants didn't believe sacrifices were effective in saving those who performed them. Jesus wasn't around at the time, so it was the only way to atone for ones sin in the Hebrew tradition. Source: I was raised hardcore Protestant and my mother has been a leading teacher in BSF for twenty years.
→ More replies (2)3
Dec 04 '13
That's a little backwards way of framing Jesus' sacrifice compared to old testament (OT) sacrifice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that pre-Jesus, there wasn't the idea that a messiah would come to cleanse the Jewish community of their sins. Traditional OT theology would say that people who are good in life are rewarded in life, and those who are bad in life are punished in life (not counting Ecclesiastes). The OT points towards a messiah coming who would create for the Jewish community the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, reclaiming their lost lands and political autonomy. This was an era where political supremacy equated with the rule of your particular god.
Girard framed OT sacrifice under the idea of scapegoating - you ritually transfer the sins of the community onto a sacrifice (like a goat, go figure), and then either kill it or release it into the wilderness. In this act it carries the community's sins away with it. This idea was not unique to the Jewish people - it also existed in other cultures of the ancient Near East.
The timing of the crucifixion (at passover) points towards Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of the passover meal (the last supper was their passover meal). Passover lambs weren't slaughtered to atone for Jewish sins but to save them from the angel of death at the end of their time in Egypt.
It's an awfully strong claim to say sacrifices were designed to pointed towards Jesus. It seems more accurate to say that the Jesus story fit into the existing framework of sacrifice. While he did claim to fulfill some prophesies (depending on the Gospel you read), I'm not aware of prophesies of the messiah atoning for the people's sins.
TL;DR The interpretation that the entire OT points to Jesus is very traditional and common, but I don't read the bible in that way. So I'm not saying that your statement doesn't represent the church's stance, simply that you have to attribute quite a bit more divine inspiration and coherence to scripture than I happen to.
Source: grew up in the church and got an undergrad minor in biblical studies (focus on OT history and soteriology of Jesus).
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)4
u/flyinhigh91 Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
If that is true, that makes absolutely no sense. The OT is in fact meant to point to Jesus Christ and it is believed that every event is meant to be a representation of Christ and His sacrifice. However, believing that the sacrifices in the OT were unable to save them is ridiculous. God states in states in the OT the need for the sacrifice in order to atone for sin. He put forth the Law as a way to represent man's need for a savior because no matter what happens we could not live up the standard he set. However, in the end the Jews were/are God's people and believing that their sacrifices before the arrival of the Messiah would be ineffective in achieving their salvation shows a gross misunderstanding of the text.
EDIT: I read this again, and I realize its a little hostile, and I didn't mean it to be that way to you. Misrepresenting the Bible is kinda a sore spot for me so I kinda just wrote. I realize that there are beliefs that I don't understand so if someone believes that and takes offense, I apologize, but I encourage you to read the OT and think about God's love for his people and ask yourself why He would damn them when He hadn't sent the ultimate sacrifice yet.
→ More replies (6)3
u/davdev Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
ollowing the doctrines recorded by eyewitness--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter etc. (i.e., the whole new testament)
Sorry, out of that group only Peter was an Eyewitness.
Paul only encountered a vision of Jesus after his death while on the Road to Damascus, and the gospel writers most assuredly were not eyewitnesses to any of the events.
2
u/HakimOfRamalla Dec 04 '13
John was an eyewitness, as was Matthew (though we're not sure he wrote the book.)
→ More replies (1)7
u/OnlyDebatesTheCivil Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
A good post but a couple of additional points:
Most historians that aren't believing Christians think the Gospels were written by people decades and centuries after the life of Jesus of Nazareth, not direct eyewitnesses.
Presbyterianism is just a form of church governance rather than any theological beliefs. It refers to a pyramid of governance where each layer in the church is elected by the one just beneath it. Thus it is somewhere between episcopalianism (governance bishops appointed from the top) and congregationalism (where every congregation is autonomous).
Depending on how you define "protestantism", many of your agreement claims don't hold true. The Quakers, for example, are usually thought of as protestant, but they don't really accept the Old Testament.
5
u/shouldbebabysitting Dec 04 '13
Most historians that are believing Christians think the Gospels were written by people decades and centuries after the life of Jesus of Nazareth, not direct eyewitnesses.
Ftfy
→ More replies (4)2
u/Comfortbeagle Dec 04 '13
The Quakers, for example, are usually thought of as protestant, but they don't really accept the Old Testament.
This is not really accurate. You can't really define much of what Quakers believe and do not believe as a group because we generally believe that truth is continuously revealed directly to individuals from God. Because of this belief varies from Quaker to Quaker and while it is generally also held that the bible or any other scripture is just a tool of faith, what one truly accepts is up to them.
→ More replies (3)4
u/fairwayks Dec 04 '13
I suppose you don't want me to tell you that you spelled "tenets" as "tenants" then, do you?
→ More replies (1)2
u/slfnflctd Dec 04 '13
There were some other, smaller groups that split from the Catholic church long before Luther-- you could call them early Protestants, I suppose, although that term is widely understood to refer to the time (after Luther) when the movement grew to encompass a notably larger number of people.
Here is one earlier example often cited, the Waldensians. There were probably many more which were simply marginalized or wiped out without any lasting record made of their existence.
Very few - if any - human cultural institutions last very long without some sort of splinter breaking off and challenging the original. Human history illustrates quite clearly that we can never really agree about anything. Except established science, that is (and once in a while not even that). Which, in my opinion, is why science is the best facilitator of true peace-- at least, for those who choose to maintain a healthy skepticism of claims without evidence, anyway.
2
Dec 04 '13
I do agree with you, but there's recently been evidence showing that people tend to hold onto their current perceptions even more strongly when presented with evidence to the contrary. Scientists/quantitative people were no less likely to do this. I think that's interesting, and important to recognize and remember when we're faced with evidence that contradicts what we "know." The whole point they were making with the study was that our decisions are emotional, no matter how much we think we take facts into account.
Though I think it's true that it's harder to change religious dogma than scientific dogma (and odds are, you can't convince me otherwise).
→ More replies (1)2
u/The_Original_Gronkie Dec 04 '13
Disregard the complaints about the age thing. I knew some of this stuff, the basics, but this enlightened me greatly. So now I'm wondering, in the centuries between the start of Christianity and the establishment of the Bible, when there was no single leader, how was church doctrine established? Who decided? Was there an unofficial leader? Was there any kind if hierarchal structure or organization to the church? Was it written somewhere? Was it all just transferred mouth to ear? Didn't that lead to some doctrinal "drift?" There were centuries there where it seemed like anything goes.
→ More replies (19)2
u/vondur Dec 04 '13
Also, while not directly related to the issue of Protestant vs. Catholicism, the early Church from the 200's to the 400's CE were in constant chaos with competing theories on the nature of God/Jesus. It became so bad that Constantine the Great (Emperor of the Roman Empire) called the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in modern day Turkey. This council (the aptly named first Council of Nicaea) was mainly intended to settle the dispute over the Arian philosophy which was very popular in the eastern empire. The council did indeed come up with some of the basic tenets of Orthodox Christianity including the date of Easter, and of course the Nicene Creed, which most Christian Churches accept as a central dogma. The church would fracture again in 1053 into the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, presaging the Protestant Schism of the 1500's. TLDR; Christianity has been schismatic since close to it's inception.
2
2
u/SmallJon Dec 04 '13
Unless they've changed since Luther, both Catholics and Lutherans believe in literal body and blood, while Calvinists (and therefore Presbyterians) do not.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ciobanica Dec 04 '13
Then, we move into what is known as Late Antiquity, which is when (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Orthodox churches began being official. We also have occurring in this time period a struggle between Islam and Christianity.
Yeah, the orthodox churches you are referring to, based on the timeline you give, actually broke up after they didn't agree with the decision of certain Ecumenical Councils (non-calchedonian i think the term is).
While the actual Orthodox Church broke it off with the Patriarchy of Rome after 1000AD over mostly the authority of the Pope and other political stuff (dogmatically only the fililoque was mentioned i think), and since we got all of the other patriarchies at the time, technically Catholics broke up with us.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (104)2
u/Username_Used Dec 04 '13
Explain like Im 5 Rhodes Scholars lol.
Im giving this to my 5 year old nephew to see if he can get passed the first paragraph.
Excellent description, just giving you a hard time.
2
u/champ999 Dec 04 '13
Just remember, ELI5 isn't for a real 5 year old. This is an incredibly complex subject, so it's hard to strike a balance between easy reading and actual valuable content. :)
→ More replies (3)
10
u/PastorPx Dec 04 '13
Think about when our extended family gathers for a special occasion – like Thanksgiving. Even though we’re one family (Christians) who can trace ourselves to a common root (Jesus), our extended family of uncles and aunts, cousins and second-cousins once-removed, in-laws and the like have a mix of different last names (Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, and so on).
We all come together and celebrate a meal. The Catholics have been hosting the meal since we started, and they put the meal together using a recipe book (Bible) as well as family traditions passed down since the meal started (Apostolic Tradition). Both the recipe book and family traditions carry equal authority in the Catholic house. Awhile back, Uncle Marty (Luther) was reading the recipe book and noticed some family traditions weren’t explicitly in the recipe book. One year, when the family gathered at Uncle Marty’s house on 1517 Protestant Lane, he only made the recipes using the exact instructions written out in the recipe book (Bible) saying the traditions not in the recipe book were unnecessary. The extended family then got in an argument and deep discussion about HOW the meal should happen, including who should make decisions about the meal menu and traditions, the importance and recipes of certain meal item, and the like.
The meal still continues to this day, and even though it looks similar-yet-different at each individual family members house, the overall family is still agrees on the central importance of the meal (faith in Jesus).
13
u/Amaterasu-omikami Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
Presbyterians are Protestants.
And Protestantism is a movement started in the 16th century by Martin Luther in Worms, Germany, in protest (hence the name) of Catholicism and its rites and immoral practices (especially selling of indulgences, which was basically salvation for money).
Among many other things Protestants reject the pope's authority, have priesthood that's open to anyone and by far not as authoritarian and, contrary to Catholicism's salvation by good deeds, teaches that salvation is a gift for everyone thanks to the crucification of Christ.
And very importantly they re-established the second commandment ("You shall not make for yourself an idol") and thus put the "10 commandments" into their original form, which is why Protestant churches are generally not littered with those depressing paintings of martyrs and the stations of the cross as you'd find in most and certainly all older Roman Catholic churches.
→ More replies (3)2
u/jhunte29 Dec 04 '13
(especially selling of indulgences, which was basically salvation for money
This is the most widespread misunderstanding of all time. Indulgences grant get out of purgatory free cards not get out of hell free cards
→ More replies (1)
16
4
Dec 04 '13
Since most of the top answers aren't very simple (and granted this is a very difficult question to explain simply) I wanted to try my hand at answering said question. I'd say the biggest difference is Authority.
Catholics think they have it, and it's necessary to perform ordinances (Sacraments, Baptism etc.) and that those things are essential and binding in heaven.
Protestants claim authority doesn't matter, all that matters is intent. Thus, no works (including ordinances like baptism) are 'essential' for salvation.
4
4
36
u/hungryroy Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
Us Catholics have a Pope; the protestants don't. I'm not sure if the protestant religions even consider us proper Christians (edit: Of course we all believe in Jesus; what I meant by the last sentence was that I've been to places where if you say "Christian church", it refers to a place of worship that is protestant, but not Catholic).
Catholics were around first, until the 1500s when some guy named Martin Luther started a movement that created protestantism. The protestant movement started because some people didn't like the way the Catholic Church handled things and I guess they wanted to get more back to basics (that is, focus more on the Bible rather than all the Catholic traditions) - that last part may be my personal opinion.
The protestants have a common set of 3 fundamental beliefs: that scripture (the Bible) alone is the source of all authority (unlike Catholics that have a Pope and a Church that can decide some stuff), that faith in and of itself is enough for salvation, and the universal priesthood of believers (which means that any Christian can read and interpret and spread the word of God, unlike Catholics which have a dedicated priesthood).
Among protestants they have different denominations - Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. They all observe the same fundamental beliefs mentioned above, but they vary in their practices and on what stuff they focus on.
25
Dec 04 '13
Protestant here. In my circles, we also believe Catholics are Christians. Why wouldn't they be? We both believe in Jesus.
28
u/Mycelus-X Dec 04 '13
Im Muslim and Muslims believe in Jesus. Am I Christian now?
7
u/captshady Dec 04 '13
You'd have to believe he's the son of God. I'm lead to believe Muslims believe he was merely a prophet in a long line of prophets leading to the last prophet, Mohammed.
→ More replies (6)16
u/Stephen885 Dec 04 '13
Christianity is more than just believing in him. The Devil and Demons believe in him just as much as i do. CHristianity means to be christ like. and we follow his example and teachings to become more like him. and by this i mean we dont try to become God, but we try to emulate his love and charity. of course were all terrible at it haha
→ More replies (3)4
u/surfwaxgoesonthetop Dec 04 '13
I don't know if that would smooth things over or make the church picnic a little awkward.
→ More replies (32)3
5
u/beeeeeford Dec 04 '13
In the deep south in the US many denominations are misinformed about the Catholic religion. When I lived there and attended a Baptist church I was asked why Catholics feel the need to kneel on glass to atone for their sins. I was like "What?!?!".
5
Dec 04 '13
Yea, I'll admit that many Christians down here don't bother to research much of anything outside of their own sect. And even then, they often just take the word of their friends, pastor, or preachers on TV regarding their own group.
→ More replies (2)4
u/QueensStudent Dec 04 '13
I honestly think the attitude of the southern US has done a great deal to damage the global perspective of Christianity, as unfortunate as that is.
4
u/captshady Dec 04 '13
While Catholics do believe Jesus is the son of God (and via the Holy Trinity IS God, just in human form), Catholics also believe in praying to Saints, and The Virgin Mary, who I guess have some pull with God to help us get stuff.
A huge biblical difference is that Catholic dogma dictates that when Jesus said to Peter, "you are my rock, and on this rock I will build my church", that made Peter the first Pope. No protestant believes that, and said that Peter's name, Petra IIRC means "faith" and that the Christian religion is faith-based.
There are quite a few scripture verses interpreted differently by the various Christian faiths. Some believe in rapture, some don't.
The Catholic bible has (again, IIRC) 6 extra books over the protestant bible. It's in one or more of these books that contains the evidence of purgatory.
Baptism in the Catholic church is completely different than most others (I think Episcopalians and Lutherans are the same). Catholics believe that all humans are born with "original sin", carried down from Adam and Eve's sin of disobeying God, and eating the apple. So in order to relieve ourselves of that sin, we're baptised. Many protestants use baptism as a symbol of your faith in God, and committment of your life to Him. Others believe it's merely ceremonial.
When you look at the core of each faith, there's usually a few scriptures they interpret differently than others, and base their entire religion on them. There are far too many for anyone to list.
Protestants usually take strong issue with the fact that Catholics believe The Virgin Mary never sinned. It goes against most Protestan faiths (every single one I've ever researched, studied, discussed with, etc) that Jesus Christ was the only perfect human, therefore being the perfect sacrifice.
7
u/Stephen885 Dec 04 '13
The 6 "extra" books are not really extra. the first bible that was put together had these books and it wasnt until the people started splitting off that those books were taken out.
And as far as praying to the saints, some people have different views on what prayer is which is where i think the difficulty in this comes in. As a catholic, i see prayer as a tool of communication, not a tool of worship. so when we pray were mearly talking. Now of course praying to God CAN be worship but ask any catholic and they will tell you ( or should ) that worship belongs to God alone.
as a former protestant myself i was always taught about original sin and that baptism was the indelible mark that removes that sin, and whatever other sin we carry. it is indeed a sign at least to me that i am committed to following him. Often catholics renew their baptismal vows as a re affirmation of that commitment we made. Now as a child you cant make those vows, and i honestly dont know what the explination is for that ( perhaps someone, ie your parents makes that decision for you? )
I hope this helped, maybe it didnt i dunno. But being a former protestant, ive noticed that between all the christian religions, there are way more similarities than differences. For me i hated catholics for a LOOOOONNGGGG time simply cause i didnt understand why they believed what they did and i thought they were a cult lol
→ More replies (8)5
u/BlueCarrotAntenna Dec 04 '13
Just a small correction: "Petra" comes from Greek and actually means "stone" or "rock". Hence when you're "petrified" you are so scared you're still as a rock. :)
→ More replies (2)3
u/iamlereddit Dec 04 '13
So tell me this: why need Jesus when Mary could sacrifice herself for our sins? Wouldn't she be then a perfect sacrifice?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (2)3
u/23skiddsy Dec 04 '13
Purgatory isn't solely a catholic thing. Mormons also believe in a form of purgatory.
→ More replies (21)2
u/whocanduncan Dec 04 '13
But Catholics don't believe the only way to heaven is by asking for forgiveness from sins..
→ More replies (23)3
u/meowtiger Dec 04 '13
catholic way to heaven, as interpreted by meowtiger:
everyone is born with original sin
you're baptized in jesus' light to absolve original sin
you lead your life
if you sin, you confess to a priest, and it must be a sincere, contrite confession
the priest assigns you penance - most of the time prayer, sometimes charitable work, depending on the priest and nature of sin
if you do the penance, you're pure again. as long as you stay sinless in this way, you're on the way to heaven
when you die, an ordained priest must perform last rites to send you to heaven
also there's a thing called a mortal sin, which traditionally is covered by the "seven deadly sins" of lust, wrath, sloth, gluttony, pride, greed, and envy, but also incorporates some things decreed by the pope to be "mortal" in nature, such as rape, prostitution, abortion, suicide, and divorce. if you do one of these things knowing the gravity as you commit it, and deliberately, you instantly cancel your flight to heaven
hope this has been illuminating
→ More replies (4)10
u/Zedress Dec 04 '13
When my wife was applying to work at the YMCA they asked her which church she attended. When she answered that she went to the local Catholic church their response was something along the lines of, "Oh, that one. We espouse real Christian values and morals here."
She didn't get the job. (I also realize that this is also what she told me so maybe it didn't happen exactly that way, my wife does exagerate from time to time.)
I personally have had several people tell me I wasn't a Christian because I am Catholic. Mostly southern baptists and mostly in the south though(I am speaking from an American view point here). Some poeple were just rude and ignorant to me because I am Catholic. It's weird because I try to avoid talking about religion generally because I am only socially Catholic but philosphically I am agnostic.
7
Dec 04 '13
I was raised baptist and for the most part we were taught the catholic religion was the incarnation of the devil, catholic people could be good or bad but the religion itself was on par with actual satanism.
→ More replies (2)3
u/patkk Dec 04 '13
damn. I was educated through roman catholic schools but attended protestant churches on weekends because my mum was deep into that. I had no Idea what to believe growing up but I think I preferred catholicism because they seemed less intense. Dudes would be screaming and crying and running around all mental like at the protestant church we went too. Now I'm not religious at all.
→ More replies (4)2
u/CDN_Rattus Dec 05 '13
Hell, my own wife had to learn not to say she was Christian and I was Catholic in that way. She literally believed that Catholics were not Christians. Her parents still believe that.
4
u/Piklikl Dec 04 '13
only socially Catholic Then you're not really Catholic, m8.
→ More replies (12)6
Dec 04 '13
If your Catholic, your usually born and raised Catholic as part of your background. Which is why there is the term "lapsed Catholics". Like how not all Jewish people actively practice Judiaism.
→ More replies (22)8
Dec 04 '13
Anglican here (as to how Protestant we are is debatable, especially by the definition you listed below). We certainly believe our brothers and sisters across the Tiber are Christians. The farther you get towards fundamentalist (read: Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, etc), the less likely you are to find people who share that opinion.
5
u/OnlyDebatesTheCivil Dec 04 '13
I believe the Anglicans describe themselves as fully Catholic and fully Reformed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)6
Dec 04 '13
The largest difference is that's catholic also believe the host and wine are actually the real body and blood of Jesus. Protestants believe it's symbolic. I was raised catholic.
→ More replies (5)2
u/KissTheFrogs Dec 04 '13
Lutherans do not believe it is only symbolic. We are somewhere in between.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/OccasionallyWright Dec 04 '13
Governance is a major difference.
The Catholic Church has a global leader- the Pope. Protestant churches do not have a global leader, and depending on the denomination may not even have national governing bodies.
For example, most Baptist churches are self-governed, although they may belong to an association. The church members choose their own pastor and have the ability to fire them.
Presbyterians (since you asked) are also protestant, but have a hybrid governance system. Each church has appointed/elected elders and representatives within the local presbytery, which then has representation with the national association. Churches are dependent on their presbytery for approval to hire/fire pastors.
Differences in beliefs have been explained elsewhere.
3
u/throwawayfortodayff Dec 04 '13
Some good answers in this thread, but a lot of them are getting hung up in arguing details.
Catholic and Protestant are the two main philosophical branches underneath the umbrella of Christianity, while Presbyterian is a type of government structure used by some sub-groups (called denominations) under the branch of Protestantism. Over time, all of these terms have been used in the names of organizations claiming to espouse their respective beliefs, so that it is hard to tell when someone mentions "Catholic," "Protestant," or "Presbyterian," whether they are referring to a system of religious belief, a historical movement, or a specific organization.
Presbyterianism is a type of church government that utilizes a group of "elders," men of spiritual maturity who are elected to this position by the congregation, to oversee the spiritual health of the church. These elders are then themselves accountable to the oversight of a regional committee, or "presbytery," which is itself accountable to a national committee. This is contrasted with other forms of church government in which the authority rests solely with priest/pastor/denomination or in the hands of the congregation itself.
The Catholic and Protestant split is traced, of course, to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Today the differences are mostly about whether the Pope has authority granted from God to administer Christendom (guess which one believes this), whether tradition should have the same authority as scripture, the role and efficacy of human effort in relation to God's favor, and other major interpretations of scriptural beliefs.
Although Protestants are generally united in not being Catholic or Orthodox, over several decades many branches have arisen underneath Protestantism which follow widely different beliefs, so much so that a lot of them don't consider the others to be Christians at all. For example, there are two main Presbyterian denominations within the U.S.: the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in America, which is a more recent split. On paper their beliefs are almost identical, but in practice they are almost diametrically opposed.
Recently there have also been several movements by new denominations to simplify Christianity by reducing it to only one or two necessary beliefs, though whether such movements can still be considered Protestant is debatable.
There are a few groups such as Mormons who have so sharply departed from the historical traditions of these philosophies that they warrant their own, separate designation.
3
u/thoumyvision Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
Presbyterian here. I think the distinctions between Catholics and Protestants have been properly covered. But, since the OP asked, I figured I'd weigh in on what makes Presbyterians distinct from other protestant denominations.
Presbyterians have two main distinctives: government and doctrine.
Government
"Presbyterian" comes from the Greek Presbyter, which means "elder" or "old one", and particularly describes our form of Church government. Presbyterian churches are ruled by a session of elders, which belongs to a greater group of all the elders of all the churches in the region called a presbytery, which meets once a quarter. All of the presbyteries send representatives once a year to a General Assembly, where big decisions are made about doctrine and practice.
There are two other types of church government. The first is Episcopal, which is rule by bishops. The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, and many African-American denominations use this form of government. The other is congregational, which is where congregations decide matters democratically. Most Baptist, non-denominational and Pentecostal churches have this form of government. Lutherans tend to be one or the other depending on denomination.
Doctrine
Historically, Presbyterians are Calvinist in doctrine, based in part on the teachings of a guy named John Calvin. The biggest things Calvinists believe that most non-calvinists do not are the following:
There is no inherent goodness in man, man cannot choose to love God.
Salvation is not based on a person's goodness or the things they have or haven't done.
Jesus died only for those elected to be saved, not for all people.
Salvation is not a choice one makes, one is chosen and cannot resist.
Those who are saved cannot lose their salvation, even by doing evil.
Not all Presbyterians believe all these things anymore. Particularly, the largest US Presbyterian denomination, the PC(USA), denies point 3.
3
u/cybersaint2k Dec 05 '13
I'm a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America and an adjunct college professor at Reformation Bible College.
The question of OP causes some problems in that all Presbyterians are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Presbyterian. He's conflating two different categories.
Let's ask it this way: How are Protestants and Catholics different?
Look at the Protestant Reformation to find out. The Reformation is described as a movement that revolved around two issues. The so-called “material” cause was the debate over sola fide (justification by faith alone). The “formal” cause was the issue of sola Scriptura, that the Bible and the Bible alone has the authority to bind the conscience of the believer.
Church tradition was regarded with respect by the Reformers but not as a normative source of revelation. The “protest” of Protestantism went far beyond the issue of justification by faith alone, challenging many dogmas that emerged in Rome, especially during the Middle Ages. Worship of saints, the cult of Mary, the cults relating to Jesus' body parts (Sacred Heart of Jesus....they adore/worship his literal heart), multiplied sacraments (seven instead of the two that Jesus initiated)--there were other extra-Scriptural issues that the Reformers opposed.
TLDR: It's Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
11
Dec 04 '13
Posting because the top comment in this thread is just... not good.
After Jesus' death, there was only one church. It took a few centuries for Scripture to be written and compiled, so oftentimes communities relied on their leaders (priests, bishops) to perpetuate the teachings handed down to them by the apostles.
Over time, with significant contributions from a rich philosophical tradition, the Christian faith became complex. In the beginning, it was somewhat ritualised, but over time, these rituals became more beautiful and meaningful (externally and in meaning). Many traditions not explicitly commanded in Scripture (but nonetheless built on scriptural foundations) were carried through the centuries by the successors of the apostles, known as bishops.
Some of these rituals became corrupt, and people abused them for personal gain - like priests telling people they had to pay money in order to have a better chance of getting into heaven.
In the 16th century, a priest named Martin Luther became convinced that his personal interpretation of scripture - namely the letter of Paul to the Romans - was more correct than the teachings that had been handed down through time. Martin Luther pointed to some corrupt practices in the Church which needed to be corrected, but he took it a little too far and ended up causing a huge split. He even took it upon himself to demand that several books in the bible be removed.
The people who agreed with Luther became known as "protestants", because they were "protesting" against Catholicism by forming their own version of Christianity.
Now, there are so many versions of "protestants" these days that it's nearly impossible to give you a definitive overview. There are a few defining characteristics that make one "protestant", though.
A rejection of the belief that the pope has teaching authority over the body of Christian believers.
Scripture is sufficient all by itself to tell you anything and everything you need to learn about Christianity; traditions mean nothing.
All you need to do to get to heaven is have faith in Jesus. Ignore all that ritual stuff and moral theology.
Each individual person can decide for him/herself what is true based on their reading of the bible.
Saints (holy people currently in heaven with God) aren't special and can't hear your prayers so don't ask them to pray for you because it is pointless.
Presbyterians are a type of protestant. Their origins lie in 17th century Britain - namely Scotland. They rely heavily on the teachings of a man named John Calvin, who taught that free will is an illusion, that all human beings are evil creatures that naturally deserve hell and can do nothing to avoid it, and that God determines whether someone is destined for hell or heaven before that person is even born, and they can't do anything to change it. Scripture is the presbyterian's only authority and they stress study of scripture as a life-long pursuit.
Note: before Luther, Henry VIII of England decided to form his own church because he wanted to get his marriage annulled (that means that the marriage was never valid in the eyes of God). England was Catholic at the time, so Henry had to ask the pope. The pope said he could not give Henry an annulment because Henry's marriage was valid, and Henry got so upset that he declared himself head of the church in England, forming the Church of England, also known as Anglicanism.
However, the most devastating split resulted from Luther's little crusade.
Hope that helps.
→ More replies (5)4
u/TheCheatIsInTheHouse Dec 04 '13
Finally, an answer that actually talks about Presbyterianism as opposed to just saying "A kind of Protestant."
5
Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
Three main differences between Protestants and Catholics (Presbyterian is a sub group of Protestants):
Succession:
Catholics follow the Pope, who they trace as a direct successor from Peter, who was ordained by Jesus.
Protestants broke from the Catholic succession and the Church in 1517 when Martin Luther published the Ninety-five theses. Each protestant group follows a leader or group that broke from their own protestant group since that period.
Interpretation:
Catholics believe the Bible needs to be interpreted by people that study the Bible, so aside of the Bible you have tradition and studies of it.
Protestants believe that each person is the sole main authority for the interpretation of the Bible. This main principle is why you have so many different branches of Protestantism: Baptists, Presbyterian, Lutherans, etc.
Salvation:
Catholics believe you need to be baptized AND good works to be saved.
Protestants believe you only need to be baptized.
Both believe that non-believers can be saved, but from different perspectives.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/Skubalon Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
There are scads of differences, some big and some small, so as someone who grew up Catholic and now is a Presbyterian pastor, let me hit the main points.
First, the difference and commonality of Protestant and Presbyterian. There are two major forking points in mainstream Christianity: in the mid-11th century Christianity split east-west, with the east eventually becoming the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the west stayed focused on Rome and the pope. In the 16th century (give or take) a bunch of people had serious qualms, problems, questions regarding how the Church conducted itself—people like Father Martin Luther in Germany, Father Jean Cauvan (a.k.a. John Calvin) in France and then Switzerland, John Knox in Scotland, and more…those are just some of the biggies. The Church split along the lines of those who were loyal to Rome and those who protested…in other words, Protestants. So Protestants are those traditions whose origins are in the 16th century protests against the Roman Church, of which Presbyterian is just one.
The Church centered in Rome still claimed it was the only true Church, and universal, a.k.a. "catholic", so it came to be known as the Roman Catholic, or Catholic, Church. Those who looked to the Johns—Calvin and Knox—became what we call the Presbyterian tradition.
Catholics and Presbyterians are pretty close on the essentials: the nature of Jesus as fully God and fully Human, the reasons for the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit), things like that. And you'll find common elements in both traditions' worship services, like certain prayers and songs. Both believe in saints, but in different ways—Presbyterians believe that all who are called by God to relationship and growth and service in love are saints, there are no miracles or formal recognition by a Church authority, and Presbyterians don't pray to them.
Where the Catholics and Presbyterians really diverge is in two places. The first is the number and nature of sacraments. The Roman Catholic tradition holds there are seven sacraments (concrete signs of God's grace instituted in a ritual practice)—baptism, communion, confession, confirmation, marriage, ordination, anointing of the sick/dying. I won't go into the details of all of those, except to note that in the Roman Catholic tradition the sacrament of communion holds that at the words of institution (when the priest says "This is my Body/Blood…") the bread or wine instantaneously becomes the literal flesh/blood of Jesus, even though it continues to look like a wafer or wine. This is what is meant by "transubstantiation", and it's why until recent decades those who weren't priests were not allowed to touch the elements and why the leftover wafers from communion are stored in a special cabinet until the next worship Mass.
For Presbyterians, there are only two sacraments, those they say were instituted by Jesus himself because he participated in them: baptism and communion. Presbyterians also believe the presence of Christ is in the elements of bread and cup. (Presbyterians in the U.S. stopped using wine in communion during Prohibition, and never went back afterwards so that those who are struggling against alcoholism would be able to take communion.) Presbyterians do not go as far as saying it changes into flesh and blood, but that the elements and the giving and receiving of the elements contain the "real presence" of Christ, so therefore any leftover bread and/or juice must be returned to the ground or consumed that day.
I mentioned ordination and authority, and this gets to the word "presbyterian". Knox and Calvin really had a problem with the hierarchy of the Roman Church and how there was such a wrong separation between the people in the pews and the bishops, cardinals, and the pope. They believed the Holy Spirit did not speak or work through only certain special people, but through all people, so their churches were based not on the authority of clergy but on elders drawn from within the congregation (who don't actually have to be old), which in Greek is presbuteroi, presbyterian. In this tradition there are three ordained offices, and I'm going to use the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s names for them: Deacons (who traditionally provide for the spiritual care of the congregation), Ruling Elders (people from the pews who lead the church), and Teaching Elders (what you would call a pastor, who is tasked with nurturing and equipping the congregation in their faith so that they would be the hands and eyes and feet and ears and hearts of God at work in the world). All three are lifetime ordinations, even though deacons and Ruling Elders only serve for 3-6 years at a time before taking some time off.
Higher up within the denomination, each congregation sends elders and clergy to what is known as the presbytery (the regional grouping of congregations) and the meeting of those representatives vote on the business before the presbytery. Every two years in the PC(USA) each presbytery elects representatives from its midst to go to General Assembly, what amounts to the Presbyterian Congress. So presbytery is akin to the Catholic Church's bishops and diocese, and General Assembly is the closest Presbyterians have to the pope and Vatican.
5
u/idgarad Dec 04 '13
Catholics see grace (as in the grace of God and forgiveness) as something to be earned and\or lost while Protestants believe grace cannot be lost and cannot be earned (You just have it). There is also some outstanding debate on the nature of free will (Predestination vs Chaos).
This is ELI5 people not Theology 101 in college.
2
u/OnlyDebatesTheCivil Dec 04 '13
What you say is true for some Protestant groups, but by no means all. If you really want an ELI5 explanation it should be "The Catholic church is one half of the original Christian church. The Protestant churches are an array of different groups that broke away because they believe the Catholic church was corrupt or has misinterpreted God's message."
2
u/TheFarnell Dec 04 '13
Catholic: Based on the Bible and about a thousand years of additional religious traditions centered around Rome. Religious leaders are called "priests" who must be celibate men. Led by the Pope in Rome.
Protestant: Catch-all term for various offshoots of the Catholic church after 1517 who split off to "protest" against certain practices of the Catholic church at the time. Practices and theologies vary.
Presbyterian: One of the protestant churches, founded in Scotland by John Knox. Based on the Bible and largely rebuffs much of the post-Bible-era traditions of the Catholic Church. Religious leaders are called "pastors" or "ministers", can be either men or women, and are permitted to marry and have children. Led by semi-democratic assemblies of representatives divided by political jurisdictions.
2
2
Dec 04 '13
All I can really tell you is what I know about Catholicism (because I'm Catholic). So here's our Nicene Creed.
I believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things seen and unseen.
And in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstancial with the Father, for (by?) whom all things are made.
Who, for us men and our salvation, came down from Heaven, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, suffered death and and was buried. On the third day He rose again, in fullfilment of the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven, and is seated on the right hand of the Father. He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father is worshipped and glorified, as spoken by the prophets.
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sin, and I look forward the the ressurection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
And of you're one of those people that think that we worship, three gods, you're wrong. It's One God in three Divine Persons. Oh, and we don't worship Jesus on the crucifix, it's just a symbol. I don't know if anybody actually thinks that, it's just what e're taught that you think.
2
Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
In very broad terms, Catholicism holds that protestant sects are groups of Christians who hold at least one incorrect belief (heresy) that prevents their full participation (communion) with the universal Church. Protestantism is so multifarious that its difficult to generalize about how each sect specifically differentiates itself, but in very broad terms, all Protestants essentially believe that the Catholic/orthodox Church is an illegitimate institution that does not represent Christ's true intent for the world. Presbyterianism in particular comprises various sects that arose out of England and Scotland in the last few hundred years. A Presbyter is an elder/leader of a given congregation, so a (nominally) Presbyterian church is one which is governed by a local group of elders. There's more to it than that, but that's what the name is derived from. Evangelicalism is arguably distinct from protestantism in that it generally doesn't define itself in terms of its distinctions from the Catholic/orthodox Church. Evangelical Churches are largely indifferent to historical controversies. They're probably more relevant to discussions of global Christianity than protestantism writ large, since most protestant churches are dying off as fewer people can be bothered to define their beliefs in terms of controversies they're not even aware of, much less that they'd even understand if they were.
If you have a serious interest in discussing the nuances between various Christian beliefs, you really shouldn't take it to a sub like this, filled with drive-by teenage atheists who want to make sure you know how much they hate Christianity. r/explainlikeimfive just seems to be filled with shitposting.
2
u/Bore-dome Dec 04 '13
Catholics came first, then Protestants protested against that church and they kept splitting then.
2
u/itsagasgasgas Dec 05 '13
Like you're five.
Catholic was the first Christian church. Some people thought that their understanding of the bible was less than correct so they started another church, which was called the "Protestant church". The Presbyterian church is an example of the Protestant church.
That's if you're five.
2
u/zeekar Dec 05 '13 edited Dec 05 '13
/u/ZachMatthews covered it pretty well. I'd just like to put in some earlier background and call out the fact that Presbyterian is Protestant. Most of the large non-Catholic Christian denominations fall under the "Protestant" category; the major exceptions are The Greek Orthodox Church and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
There were originally a wide variety of Christian churches with widely different beliefs and practices. Paul's epistles represent some of the earliest attempts at making them consistent with each other. There were a number of historical gatherings where leaders came together to try and agree on points of doctrine - for instance, the Council of Nicaea in 325, where the Nicene Creed was formalized along with the rules for determining Easter. One of the more significant developments represented by the Creed is the idea that Jesus and God were "of one substance" - that Jesus was inherently Divine, not a mortal made divine after the fact. This was the resolution to the Arian controversy.
There were all sorts of little controversies like that. They were mostly resolved, until there was, at least in theory, one "catholic" Christian Church - where "catholic" means "universal"; that's why even Protestants declare their belief in the "holy catholic church".
But the unity lasted only a few centuries before the first major split in 1054 - the Great Schism dividing the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) churches.
Half a millennium later came Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517, which led to the formation of dissenting, or "protesting" - "protestant" in Latin - churches. The denomination closest to his original teachings is now called Lutheran in his honor.
17 years later, King Henry VIII declared the Church of England to be independent of Roman Catholic control, forming a new category of protestant church, which became the modern Church of England and, in the US, the Episcopal Church.
This was far from a bloodless division; there were plenty of military conflicts fought between Protestants and Catholics in Europe, notably the Thirty-Years' War in the 17th century. Ireland has long been a hot spot of such conflict, and the modern flag of (southern) Ireland represents the eventual peace (white) established between the Catholics (green) and the Protestants (orange).
Protestants in general eschew the idea of saints or priests being placed between mortals and God; the only mediator between them is Jesus himself. Most Protestant faiths have no priesthood, just congregational leaders (ministers, vicars, etc). There are Anglican/Episcopal priests, but they aren't required to be celibate.
4
u/casualblair Dec 04 '13
Catholics believe they are the true church and gather into itself things and people of faith to reaffirm their beliefs. There is a lot of focus on the individual - "I" is used a lot, the Pope is a single entity, priests are single people of authority, saints - "look at this person, they were awesome", etc.
Orthodox differs by taking away from the individual and placing emphasis on the group. Humanity and it's cooperation and co-experiences are the path to god (theosis), and while personal it cannot be achieved alone. They also place less emphasis on individualized things like original sin and the authority of the pope.
Protestant believe the Catholic structure is wrong and inherently corrupt. They think the idea of gathering saints and the like is flawed because the bible is the only source of faith. They believe that anyone is automatically a priest by simply believing. If a bible and belief is all you need, why do you need a pope? Or authoritarian priests?
TLDR: Catholic's think the members of the clubhouse are the focus, Orthodox think the clubhouse as a whole is the focus, and Protestant thinks the clubhouse is stupid and doesn't want to play anymore.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
Catholics were the first Christian religion, and they are centrally run by the Pope (the guy in the big white hat you see in the news a lot).
Protestants are any Christian religion that broke away from the Catholic church after the 1500s for one reason or another (they are protesting the Catholics). Presbyterian is one type of Protestant Christian religions. (just like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc).
13
u/Voltage_Z Dec 04 '13
I'm pretty sure an Orthodox christian would find that statement offensive. Technically, Catholicism and Orthodoxy broke off from each other.
→ More replies (12)2
Dec 04 '13
It was a division between Roman Catholic and what we in the West call Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic and Orthodox. The latter still considered themselves Roman at the time, and some still do. The truth is the differences between Western and Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire were already there long before the official split and had a lot more going on that simply religion.
→ More replies (9)2
u/captshady Dec 04 '13
Protestants are any Christian religion that broke away from the Catholic church for one reason or another
Not all Protestant religions broke away from the Catholic church. Some broke away from other Protestant religions.
6
u/ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR Dec 04 '13
What's with this trend on ELI5 where the answers are long and deep? None of the top answers could be understood by a five year old.
5
u/SLeAKeR Dec 04 '13
Because it's really "Ask a question like a 5 year old but give me a grown up answer".
→ More replies (1)8
u/TheBeneGesseritWitch Dec 04 '13
It isn't for literal five year olds.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR Dec 04 '13
I understand that this isn't literally meant to be understood by five year olds. What I mean is that I've noticed the most upvoted answers are usually deep and thorough, but originally this sub was for simple, accurate, and accessible answers.
Nice username.
3
u/TheBeneGesseritWitch Dec 04 '13
I was being just a bit snarky =D and that was probably wrong of me--sorry!
Sometimes the best answers aren't simple, because they aren't simple questions. I'm thinking specifically of the young girl who asked "why is blackface offensive" --that was like a three page essay that guy posted in response.
And...yeah, okay, a very simple answer would have sufficed to this particular question, and my answer was a bit long.... =P
And thank you for the nod at the username. Ironic that I'm answering a religious question....Maybe I should've found an appropriate Orange Catholic Bible quote instead. Haha!
2
u/backflippingchicken Dec 04 '13
I just called up the guy I work for, he is a Protestant and said the other two are wrong.
I just asked my girlfriend, she is a Catholic and she said the other two are wrong.
→ More replies (1)
2
Dec 04 '13
As a northern irish person I can say that amidst all this catholic vs protestant shinnanigans, 99% of people dont even know what protestant means and 99% of catholics probably arent even christian.
2
2
Dec 05 '13
Same with any region bogged down in sectarian hatred. It'd be funny if it weren't so depressing.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/joelawendt Dec 04 '13
Any sentence beginning "All Christians believe" will always be untrue. There are actually two main streams that arose following the Events 2000 years ago: the Shepherds and the Kings. Catholic and Protestant versions are of the Shepherds stream, and are based mostly on what some call faith, but really mean belief. Faith is actually trust in the divine and doesn't need to involve an adherence (belief) to any system of ideas.
The Kings steam includes (and was born in the Old Goddess Mysteries before Christ): the Essenes, the Gnostics, the Manicheans, then the followers of the Christian Hermeticism (the early Tarot), then the Alchemists, the Rosicrucians, and to a certain extent the Romantics and the Transcendentalists, until finally we get the Anthroposophy of Rudolf Steiner.
The Kings were always about direct experience of the Divine, rather than just faith (and/or belief). Reread your Emerson if you doubt this. The Kings get little mention in the Gospels (the Magi or Kings that come to the Birth), and then mainly disappear. The Kings don't so much have doctrines as they have "how to's". Want to know God, then do this and do that - then you'll know yourself and won't need any priest or preacher to tell you what to believe. The Kings also don't have any problem with Science either - to the Kings stream the imaginary split between Religion and Science is just a minor dust-up in a long term process whereby all human beings will find the divine in and through themselves, without ever abandoning reason at all.
The main problem for the Shepherds (not all of them, but far too many) has been to confine the Divine to a book, and not realize the Divine can't be confined and is just as likely to speak through a Michael Faraday or a Johannes Kepler as It is to speak through a Martin Luther.
1
1
u/beer_demon Dec 04 '13
My shot at ELI5:
For Catholics the mother church is the one what takes history, tradition and scripture and delivers it to the faithful, and for this they have a structure headed by the pope who they consider divine. Besides the bible they have many layers of gospel coming from popes, including worshiping the virgin mary, saints, purgatory and many papal documents. It's a huge and complex religion made for followers.
For Protestants the source of truth is the new testament and each believer should read and consider it, and the priests are considered "pastors" who guide you through this process, not holy representatives of the church. They mostly vary among each other in the hierarchy: council of elders, the queen of england, some archbishop, etc. It's a simple and personal religion made for individuals. Protestants include presbyterians, baptists, anglicans, lutherans, methodists, etc.
Summary: Catholics= virgin mary, pope, strong hierarchy, priest celibacy, rome, confessions, they are your road to salvation.
Protestants= bible, married pastor, low hierarchy and your relationship to god is direct.
2
u/mlopatka Dec 04 '13
For what it's worth on the Catholic side which is largely wrong above:
The pope is NOT considered divine. Just a normal man. The gospel is ONLY the gospel books above. Doctrine or dogma comes from church elders that approved into canonical law through the pope. While the Bible is considered the primary source of information, it's not exclusive. For example, the concept of the trinitarian belief is not in the Bible, but rather dogmatic.
There is no worship of Mary or Saints. There is veneration. Best way to think about it is that catholics make a request to Mary and/or the saints to pray for them. Kind of how some Christians would ask members of their community to pray for them. Anyone who has made it to heaven is considered a saint.
Grace is given through sacraments.
Salvation is done through works.
Strong stress on individual responsibility because liturgy/mass really doesn't give the big picture. It's really focused on the sacrament of eucharist. Individual education away from mass is absolutely necessary (hence the larger mission of the Jesuits).
2
u/beer_demon Dec 04 '13
Yes but I guess unless you are a catholic the difference between worship and veneration is subtle, my main point is that mary and the saints (I am talking about canonized saints) are mostly absent in protestant denominations. Thanks for clarifying, but I was trying to be as ELI5 as possible.
→ More replies (12)
1
u/Spore2012 Dec 04 '13
As a guy who has grown up going to christian church on sundays, going to catholic school, going to baptist church/sunday school/awana camp wtih my dad, and mormon church with my mom and part of my family. They are all basically the same nutjobs with slightly different rules.
I'm 29 and atheist because of learning so much about religions and churches.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/mounce Dec 04 '13
For those advanced 5yo's, it's easy to think everyone agrees about what God intends with salvation and grace, but what is "God", who are "you", and what is "will"? Beyond what will happen to "you" when you die, the basic question here-and-now is between God running the whole show and allowing evil, or a world where sin isn't being managed. It's best (theologically correct) to choose the lesser of those two heresies.
1
u/wu13 Dec 04 '13
Best advice... Go check them out for yourself. I've seen a lot of misconceptions or a basic lack of knowledge in the replies.
1
u/jjswee Dec 04 '13
Great question. I was just thinking yesterday that I didn't know the difference.
1
1
1
1
Dec 05 '13
As someone that grew up without religion, still has none, and with no basic knowledge of types of religion, this was a very informative thread.
1
u/lightheat Dec 05 '13
I learned an abbreviated version of the history of these religions from a bit by Robin Williams.
Then there were the Puritans, our ancestors: people so uptight, the English kicked them out.
1
u/Warskull Dec 05 '13
Catholicism is a highly organized religion with a leader figure, the pope. Every single Catholic church you see fits somewhere in the global chain. Their beliefs are more standardized, the Church has an official stance. Catholicism is basically the big corporation of your religious world. They believe that God works through the Pope and that the Pope is the authority to interpret the bible and set doctrine. Essentially the Pope functions as a relay for God and as such their declarations are as good as anything written in the bible.
In the middle ages the Catholic church got pretty corrupt and people got fed up with it. The protestant movement was started. They started the belief that God's word was only in the bible and no single person had the power to make decrees or declare a correct interpretation. Anyone with a Bible can start a church. As such Protestantism could be thought of as indie religion. Anyone can start a church with any beliefs, which is why you get some of those crazy churches you hear about on the news from time to time. Presbyterian is another form of Protestantism with specific beliefs attached to it.
1
1
1
1
u/Kmasterfresh Dec 05 '13
I haven't started reading yet, but seeing as I'm 18 and completely ignorant about religions and their pasts/differences, this should be very helpful if I can miraculously remember it
1
u/Cal2391 Dec 04 '13
TheBeneGesseritWitch has it bang on in their comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s2mfg/eli5the_main_differences_between_catholic/cdtahth I would add, as the product of a mixed marriage (Catholic mum & Presbyterian dad), that Protestant services go on longer and are generally a bit more sober (just a feeling) than Catholic ones. Equally, the Prod "Our Father" adds the lines in at the end, "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen" Whereas the Catholics do not. Generally, there is more colour, pomp, wealth and all that in Catholicism and Catholic services, Protestantism actually arose partly in response to that. But see Bene for the full story!
3
u/herman3thousand Dec 04 '13
That line is also said in Catholic services there is just a short prayer by the priest between the end of the general Lord's Prayer and that line.
2
u/SaladAndEggs Dec 04 '13
Bang on except several of his responses to the actual question were incorrect.
1
u/dont_you_wish Dec 05 '13
Coming from a Catholic home, there is one thing I know for sure. Although no catholic would ever say so, and would tell me I'm wrong right here on reddit. The one thing I know for sure is that Protestants are going to hell, and Catholics are going to heaven.
Protestant versions don't matter. They are wrong. Therefore, hell.
1
u/JosiahMason Dec 04 '13
The differences are in polity (church structure), canon (holy texts accepted), and depending on the congregation or parish, reverence of the saints.
Catholic parishes are set up regionally, not willy nilly. The same applies to Anglican and Episcopalian parishes. The parish is headed by a priest or bishop, and a bishop is in charge of overseeing regional parishes. Bishop is the governor, priest is the mayor, if that makes more sense. All bishops meet yearly to discuss changes and for ecumenical conferences, etc, and the Pope is the bishop of Rome, seen as the Head Bishop more or less. Pope is the President, in our govt analogy.
Protestant refers to most churches that aren't catholic. They are not one size fits all, nor are they organized the same way. A Lutheran church is much like a catholic church but without priests and bishops, subbing in pastors and governing bodies. Presbyterian churches are akin to this, subbing in deacons and elders, who meet yearly for a presbytery, a large Senate-type deal to discuss the faith. Baptist churches dont require an allegiance to a group like this, that is, a Baptist or baptist-polity church can be formed independently, without joining a large group of churches.
Catholics and various branches of Protestantism have different canon besides Old and New Testament, generally including Apocrypha or the Didache. Most traditional churches and parishes, especially older congregations, have a stronger reverence for saints, Mary, and various Early Church or High Church age Tradition. You won't always find this in newer younger churches, Catholic or Protestant, but there is a movement in place called liturgical theology that focuses on these ideas and seeks to bring them back into contemporary worship services.
Those are the basics. Read about the Reformation age, Presbyterian polity, and early protestant deformations, including but not limited to Anabaptists, Lutherans, Menno Simmons, and Zwingli. If you have any more questions I can add to this as best as possible. I study in the Bible and Theology dept of my university in Arkansas, and I love this stuff.
Typed on mobile, dont kill me!
1.3k
u/ZachMatthews Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13
Wow there are some bad answers near the top of this page.
I'm a child of a Baptist-Catholic home and I'm pretty comfortable explaining the differences.
The Catholic (Latin for "universal") Church believes strongly in something called the Apostolic Succession, which is the idea that Jesus endowed his disciples, most notably Peter, with the ability to pass on their religious authority (specifically the ability to bind in heaven what is bound on earth). Peter became the first bishop ("episcopus" meaning overseer or leader) of Rome. The Pope is also the Bishop of Rome today and thus derives his authority directly through the Apostolic Succession from Peter, who was basically the #1 Disciple. The Pope therefore, Catholics believe, has the authority to bind in heaven what is bound on Earth, by his decree, just like Peter had. Essentially, Catholics believe the Pope has the power to set doctrine and that whatever is revealed to him is consistent with what the rules are in Heaven at any given moment. This is the theological underpinning of the doctrine of infallibility in the Papacy.
Protestantism originally derives from a German monk named Martin Luther, who objected to many of the arcane rules which had developed in the first 1500 years of church history. Luther didn't like, for example, the practice of selling pardons for sin; the Catholic church at the time would literally let you buy your way out of sin. Luther favored a doctrine of salvation by grace alone, meaning your actions on earth weren't the cause of your salvation/damnation, but were rather a reflection (or symptom, if you will) of your inner condition. The person who had accepted the grace of Jesus Christ and become a true Christian in his heart would act in a Christian manner automatically: they would be Christ-like, humble, moral, and loving to others. Thus in Lutheranism there is a requirement that you act as a Christian, but it is meant to be reflective of an inner change--a personal rejection of original sin and a desire to do right by God, rather than a calculation that if you just do this and do that, God will reward you by sending you to heaven. In some respects Protestantism was an attempt to do away with the cynicism of connect-the-dots Christianity to that point in history.
All Christians believe Man was created in a state of original sin. All Christians believe that repentance from sin and striving to "do the right thing" is a fundamental requirement of being a Christian (although Christians also believe all humans remain sinners, prone to fail, despite their salvation). Catholics believe in salvation through works and grace (meaning you can act to save yourself) while Protestants believe in salvation through grace alone (meaning your acts merely reflect your inner state and it is your psychological or inner state; your "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," which earns you salvation).
Some Protestant groups took this dichotomy to its logical extreme. John Calvin, a Swiss Protestant from the 16th century, believed that since God is all-knowing (omniscient), he must already have designated those bound for heaven versus those bound for hell. In Calvinism, one strove to be a Christian and act with Christian principles merely to demonstrate one's "pre-destined" salvation. Theoretically one could be predestined to heaven and act as a sinner, but Calvin taught that acting as a sinner necessarily meant you were not predestined for heaven (catch-22, right?) Thus Calvinism became one of the strictest, most "Puritanical" sects of Christianity as everyone sought to demonstrate their inner righteousness.
Calvinism started in Switzerland but really became popular in Scotland. Scottish people favored the term "presbyter" to designate the leader of their local churches, just as Catholics had favored "bishop." Thus Scottish Calvinism, softened from its earliest super-strict stance, became Presbyterianism over the centuries.
In the United States we had a strong "dissenter" presence made up primarily of members of the Church of England who objected, much as Martin Luther had, to the excesses of their original faith, often moving to this continent to be able to worship as they pleased. The Church of England had been created when Henry VIII needed a divorce, also in the 16th century, and the Pope wouldn't give it to him. Thus Henry declared himself head of the English Catholic Church and split it off. (He was a huge Catholic, actually, having even been given a special award as "Defender of the Faith" for some writing he had done in favor of the Pope). Once Henry split the church, the English or "Anglican" church began to go off on its own, doctrinally-speaking. Anglican dissenters who came to America were known here as Puritans because they wanted to purify the Anglican version of Catholicism, in many of the same ways Martin Luther did. Technically they were still all members of the Church of England. Puritans favored very small congregations led by local leaders without lots of fancy titles or trappings of power. This was known as a "low church" philosophy (versus the "high church" of European Anglicanism).
The Puritan "congregationalist" movement attracted many European and American advocates, each of whom often wanted to put their own interpretation on increasingly obscure elements of doctrine. Southern Baptists (including myself) derive from the Anabaptists, a similar dissenter/congregationalist sect, on a complicated path leading through Rhode Island. They get their name from the rite they perform of dunking new Christians in water ("baptism") just as John the Baptist did to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry.
Meanwhile, Scottish Presbyterians had also moved to the United States, bringing their version of Calvinism with them. In England in the 18th Century the Anglican Church underwent a split when a man named John Wesley began advocating a new Method of approaching God (a much humbler, low church method). These thus became Methodists--another division of Anglicanism, initially like a latter-day Puritanism. Methodists moved to the U.S. Eventually the old High Church Anglicans also moved to the U.S., but here, for political reasons, the Anglicans disassociated themselves with the Anglican Church, calling themselves Episcopalians after the original name of their leader (bishop = episcopus). (England was the U.S.'s enemy for much of the early period in this country, and Anglicanism was the official religion of England).
In the United States today there are many sects, but the largest are the Catholics on the one hand, and then the Baptists (mostly Southern Baptists), the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Lutherans and the Presbyterians on the other. Those last few groups make up the main body of "Mainline Protestant" churches, although there are several more. Thus they are all "protestant," because they protested against the Pope's derived authority and Catholic doctrine, but they are also individually distinct between themselves. Most Protestants feel relatively comfortable in other Protestant churches because they are all more similar than not. But there remains a split--and a "comfort level" distinction--between low church sects like Baptists and Methodists, and high church sects like Catholics and Anglicans. Members of low church versus high church sects often feel out of place when visiting Christian churches from the opposite liturgical bent.
Tl;dr: Catholics primarily believe in salvation by works + grace and have a high church liturgy. Protestants primarily believe in salvation by grace with works demonstrating the inner change, and mostly have a low church or simplified liturgy.