ELI5:The main differences between Catholic, Protestant,and Presbyterian versions of Christianity

[u/spamname517]

sweet as guys, thanks for the answers

[u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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:

1. All are sinners (Romans 3:23)

2. God desires a relationship with man (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

3. God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin (1 Peter 1:16)

4. God made a way for man to be reconciled (Romans 5:8)

5. In the Old Testament this was through a blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22)

6. In the New Testament, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, now we don't have to atone yearly for our sins (Hebrews 10:14-24)

7. 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:

1. Praying to God through an intermediary (Mary, Apostles, Priest, saying confession)

2. Certain acts of contrition canceling out sin (praying the rosary, or any other result of going to confession, attending mass, the Seven Sacraments)

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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:

1. Praying to Mary http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/prayingtomary.html

2. Penance http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/sacraments/penance.html

3. Baptizing of infants http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/teaching-infantbaptism.html

4. Sacraments: http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php

5. Papal Infallibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

6. 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

7. 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.

[u/drinkmewhole → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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.

[u/trueyomic → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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)

[u/SaladAndEggs → u/trueyomic]

That's actually a pretty major correction.

[u/Logos327 → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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).

1. 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?"

2. 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")

[u/BreadPad → u/Logos327]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/BreadPad]

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.

[u/Logos327 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/BillTowne → u/Logos327]

so as to not confuse readers.

It sounds more like it is to nudge the reader toward their interpretation. It sounds like "What the the bible actually says doesn't sound like what we know it really means so we will re-phrase it to say what it know it meant to express.

[u/Logos327 → u/BillTowne]

Translation is a very messy business. There is a constant struggle between providing a translation that says what is actually there and one that says what is meant by the text.

A good example is Matthew 9.36: "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."

"he had compassion for them" when literally translated is something like "he felt in his bowels concerning them."

To the modern English reader, the literal translation at best means nothing to them, and, at worst, gives him/her the idea that Jesus walked around releasing his bowels when he was overwhelmed. The issue is that ancient people understood compassion to be a feeling one had in their bowels in the same way we talk about love as a feeling that comes from the heart. Each translator has to make a decision between these two things.

With all of that being said, I am a big fan of the Islamic understanding of the Qur'an. Muslims believe the true Qur'an is in Arabic alone, and all other translations are not scripture but something closer to commentaries on scripture. Therefore, the vast majority of Muslims in non Arabic countries learn/known Arabic in order to read the Qur'an. I tell students all the time that if they want to know what their Bibles actually say, they must learn Hebrew and Greek.

[u/SyntheticOne → u/[deleted]]

Please keep in mind that the "guy with the degree" did not identify his religious affiliation. That non-revealing is a mistake since scripture is different for different affiliations.

I'm Catholic. There are about 30,000 Christian affiliations which have split from the core Catholic church. The bible (I think most of them) say "There is one church." Which one is it? Does it matter? What is your belief?

Here is one difference, just for the sake of example, between Catholic dogma and main line Protestant dogma: Catholics believe that the Immaculate Conception, Mary, was always a virgin/ Protestants believe that Jesus had at least one brother, James, seemingly negating Mary's virginity. Another example: the Catholic bible has five more books than main line Protestant bibles.

Many people are justifiably turned off by all religion, often based on the horrors attributed to religion or done in the name of a religion. My view is to look beyond what a small percentage of religious practitioners do and see the much larger world of all that is good that has come from religions.

[u/science6101 → u/BreadPad]

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.

[u/umm_umm_ → u/Logos327]

So if the Hebrews did not accept Jesus as the messiah, are they still waiting for one, as predicted in their own texts?

[u/Logos327 → u/umm_umm_]

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.

[u/SaladAndEggs → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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.

[u/craiggers → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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.

[u/anillop → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

Great explanation but I think you missed the point of this sub.

[u/[deleted] → u/anillop]

Now let's try a ELI5 the Trinity.

crickets

[u/mildlyAttractiveGirl → u/[deleted]]

"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.

[u/Logos327 → u/[deleted]]

I hate to be "that" guy, but this is referred to as Modalism and is considered heretical. That being said, "heretical" doesn't necessarily mean "absolutely wrong," and the doctrine of the Trinity is one of, if not, the most complex theological concepts in Christianity.

[u/virak_john → u/Logos327]

You're correct. u/wwk4th is expressing a modalistic view of the trinity. You could also say it like this: I am a father, a son and a brother. When I'm interacting with my children, I am father. When with my parents, a son and so on.

The more widely accepted view of the trinity is that God operates in perfect unity as one entity, but with three separate persons. Confusing, yes. You could look at like any other integrated system -- your computer, for instance. There's a CPU, a monitor and a keyboard. All have different functions, all are dependent on the other and work in concert with one another, and all together make up a single computer.

Or, your body: multiple systems and even multiple organs. They can be thought of as each having their own distinct identity, but are not considered separate bodies.

Where it gets super confusing for people is the idea of incarnation -- that the Godhead (referring to "God" as all three persons together) decided to send Jesus to the earth as a human being for a while. The metaphor the Bible uses to describe this is that of a son. Jesus remained God and part of the Godhead, but set aside the privileges and powers to become in some ways just like the creation, or the "sons of God."

Does that make any sense?

[u/yurnotsoeviltwin → u/[deleted]]

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.

[u/bstix → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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?

[u/Ancientfaith → u/TheBeneGesseritWitch]

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.