What are the main differences between Catholic and Protestant religions ?

[Mrsgrumble]

I Know transfiguration and our lady there doesn't seem many differences. Holy Communion is one, blessing yourself.

I would like to read a bit more about it.

I know Roman Catholics are not meant to use artificial means of contraception but I went to a convent school and we were taught about natural body changes etc, basal method.

My dh is a very strong catholic and upholds a lot of the very traditional views but most people I know don't. A local catholic pharmacist won't provide the morning after pill due to his beliefs etc.

Holy Communion doesn't seem to be such a big part of services in C of E ?

MrsG - it varies hugely between CofE churches. At mine there is a communion service every day and three on Sundays. At the church I went to growing up it was once a month (though there may have been a weekly 8 am Eucharist for those who wanted it... I was a teenager, 8 am was an unknown zone to me back then!).

LRD a more positive spin on 'CofE people all disagree with each other' is that the CofE is broad enough to accommodate a wide range of views without losing sight of what is really important at the centre of them all. (For example, I've heard more than one person who was at Synod last week say that what was inspiring was not - or not only - that the pro-women-bishops lobby rightly won, but that the debate was carried out with sensitivity towards disagreeing factions and with the aim of as much inclusivity as possible. This is hard to do, of course, and I can see that it can look like either an unholy mess or an un-thought-out 'anything goes' kind of approach, but it's probably better in the long run than the 'my way or the highway' alternative.) It's often said that Christians are judgemental, unwilling to compromise or to see good beyond their own narrow perspective. Trying to work to accommodate those with whom you disagree is a reminder that we must not be these things, I think.

But I may be biased...

I think the transubstantiation is the key difference although I understand that some C of E people also believe this which means the key difference for those people is the Church leadership.

I actually think we all have a lot more in common than people realise, especially when you start to get to the heart of what's really important for Christians. I think much of the differences are people finding a way of worship that resonates with them and when they become too bound up in peripheral rules losing sight of this.

tuo - didn't mean to offend you. I'm C of E myself.

I think 'Holy Tradition' versus 'sola scriptura' is a big one too.

"I actually think we all have a lot more in common than people realise, especially when you start to get to the heart of what's really important for Christians." Well said ginger.

Yes, I think there is a huge amount that is the same. I have learned so much. I didn't even know C of E were Catholic

Is the Our Father slightly different ?

I was watching the film Elizabeth the other night. That's what got me into thinking about it all.

C of E aren't Catholic, they're catholic. Catholic with a big C means the denomination (Roman). catholic with a small c means 'all inclusive'.

I dunno if the Our Father is different (would like to know actually), but I know the Catholics/Protestants and the Orthodox disagree about bits of the Nicene Creed.

The Our Father is slightly different. We finish after the deliver us from evil bit. However in mass the priest says a bit so it goes like this:

All: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Priest: Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

All: For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.

And I believe the C of E goes like this:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen

So again slight differences but far more in common.

Oh, LRD, not remotely offended... what you said is exactly right!

Interesting, as I'm from a different country with a large proportion being RC in addition to protestants. RC are considered to be less strict than the protestants. Amongst my old friends who consider themselves RC they will often only attend church at Xmas, weddings etc.
In some villages, communities children are not vaccinated, you couldn't get cable television etc all in the name of religion. They were protestants.
Someone said a big difference is that RC believe in forgiveness and protestants don't.

change this us how my DM views this matter. Brought up RC. My DGF converted after the war due to some very frightening esoteric experiences he had with some Bedouins.

The RC, I guess with the confidence in the authority of the church were confident enough to deal with anything. The non RC, I guess C of E and the Protestant churches around at the time, were decidedly nervous. So he went with the RC.

However my DM's experience being taught by nuns definitely involved aspects of pure superstition and sometimes cruelty. The concept of Grace did not feature much.

I was not brought up RC but am Christian in belief. My DM still shies away from reading the Bible, as a point of, principle would not read my DF's, or my King James, and has dipped into witchcraft and new age beliefs. She sees my rejection of this experimentation as puritanical. Although she seems to regret this experimentation, again like my DGF, very frightening experiences, and she supports my Faith.

Purely personal, and not necessarily representative of the denominations, but interesting nevertheless.

If Protestants didn't believe in forgiveness, they wouldn't be following scripture at all!

I've heard children sum it up thus: (inaccurately, obviously!) "Protestants are the ones who support Rangers and don't believe in God"

There is a very readable book by Stephen Tomkins called 'A Short History of Christianity' which gives the outline of early Christianity to the present day with many denominations.

One of the major differences between the denominations is where the authority comes from. In the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it is the Pope and the tradition of the church. Within the Protestant Churches the authority lies with scripture (sola scripture) although as scripture is interpreted this means in practice that authority lies with the elders. That may be in the local church or at a more denominational level.

One little known but sure fire way of telling Protestants and Catholics apart are prayers for the dead. I was at an ecumenical meeting last week where this came up and all of the independent evangelical/protestant church ministers shuddered at the thought whereas the RC chap and myself (catholic end of the C of E) were comfortable with it.

That's really interesting, greenheart. Do you believe in Purgatory (not necessarily as a 'place' but maybe in terms of a temporary period of suffering/separation from God, during which cleansing happens, pre-salvation/reunion with God) or, if not, can you say what you think prayers for the dead are for (IYSWIM). I know that there is Biblical justification for prayer for the dead, so it's interesting that Protestants tend to reject it, but I wonder if it's because it's linked with some of the worst excesses of the medieval Church - trade in indulgences and so on. I hope that makes sense. Typing on phone, but interested in this.

Thanks tuo.

I know people who think praying for the dead implies you don't have faith in God's ability to judge - that it's like saying 'hey, you might be wrong about damning so-and-so' (obviously that's a very simplistic view!).

Catholics compiled the Bible by deciding which of the Jewish holy scriptures they believed the Holy Spirit was directing them to include making up what Christians call the Old Testament. They also discerned which Christian writings since the time of Christ should be included to create the New Testament. Old Testament + New Testament = Bible. This compiling of the bible happened centuries after Christ's Ascension, Jesus obviously did not walk around handing out Bibles (especially as the printing press was not invented for many more centuries and the Jewish people kept their holy scriptures on hand written scrolls). Despite not having a bible for centuries (although of course holy writings would have been used) the church grew through the teaching and evangelising of the Apostles. Therefore it was oral teaching and tradition together with scripture that formed the church. Just like the Jewish people the Christians had a history of interpreting the scriptures through tradition and oral teaching. The Christian community therefore had three sources of authority: Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Teaching Authority (from the Apostles). The teaching authority is called the Magisterium which is vested in the Pope and bishops who are in communion with him. Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Tradition "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church".

The office of the Pope developed from St. Peter the Apostle which we see in scripture

"Simon said "You are Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answering said to him "Blessed are you, Simon-Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: You are Peter [Aramaic Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9 :18:21

The line of Popes is unbroken from our current Pope Francis to St.Peter and St.Peter's church in the Vatican, probably the most famous church in the world, is built over the tomb of St. Peter which can be visited in the crypt below. The vast majority of Catholic doctrine is based on scripture anything else comes from Sacred Tradition. The Bible was unchanged for 1500 years (so 3/4 of the church's history) until the Reformation when Luther and other Protestants removed a number of books which had always been considered part of scripture by all Christians. Catholics call these books Deuterocanonical and Protestants Apocrypha. The books Luther removed contain the scriptural teachings on Purgatory and asking for the prayers of those already in heaven (the saints).

The Catholic church (there was only one unified church at the time no Orthodox or Protestants) compiled the bible and therefore believes she has the authority to interpret scripture and what it means. All Catholics can of course read their Bibles and they hear scripture read from the Old and New Testament and from the Gospels at every Mass but in case of disputes the church uses her teaching authority of Tradition and the Magisterium to state clearly what we believe it says and means. This is how the teaching of the Trinity developed as it is not taught clearly as such in the scriptures.

The big difference between the Catholics and Protestants is Authority. Who has the authority to say what the Apostles taught and what scripture says? The bible ALONE does not hold up as we did not have the bible for many generations. If you read all the history of the early church (even before the bible was compiled we have written records) you discover early Christians believed in the same dogmas that modern Catholics do.

Without a teaching authority anything goes and if people disagree they can just walk down the street and open a new church. As a result you have over 30,000 protestant groups all aiming to teach from scripture. The church says it is One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic.

The Canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled at the end of the 4th century at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397 and where was it sent for confirmation? To Rome in 419.

CofE claims apostolic succession too (though of course the RC church does not recognise that in the CofE). Most Protestants don't believe it is necessary

You can't claim Apostolic succession and ignore the role of Peter and that Jesus specifically picked him out and gave him a role different from the others. This stems from Henry VIII deciding to take the authority of the Pope for himself because he couldn't get a divorce after being married for over 20 years to marry his mistress. (That didn't work out too well for her).

Christians can ignore Apostolic succession but then they are not part of historic Christianity as it has been lived for over 2,000 years.

Lookingforfocus this thread seems to be more about exploring the differences rather than trying to convince people which way is the correct way

Sorry not trying to convince anyone but often times on MN statements are made about Catholics and Catholic teaching which are confused. For example up thread someone stated that Catholics were not in England or Europe until the 11th century. This is not the case as Christians were in Europe from the 1st century and Christians were sufficiently organised in Britain to send representatives to the Council of Arles in 314.

looking, you might as well claim that the Orthodox Church compiled the Bible, then the Catholics split off. It's a matter of perspective.

I personally would not choose to say that English Christianity before the Schism was Roman Catholic, because I think it's disrespectful to the Orthodox Church, and inaccurate. I understand why, as polemic, the Catholic Church wishes to claim that, but it's only polemic.

I do think there are quite significant differences between Celtic forms of worship in the ninth century, and what was going on a couple of centuries later.

I'm also not sure quite what 'not having a Bible' means. People used the word from at least the third century, and we've all been disagreeing about what it should contain continually - but I'm not convinced that means people really felt there 'wasn't' a holy book.

Btw, I think the post upthread you're referring to is mine, and I maybe could have put it better, but I didn't actually say quite what you think I said.

I didn't mean Catholicism as Christian religion arrived on our shores in the 11th century. I just picked up the narrative from that point as it seemed more useful in terms of discussing Catholic/Protestant differences, rather than getting into the history of the East/West split. Hope that makes more sense!

Something that is relevant given modern debates about priests being married, is that when the C of E began to emerge, one of the really important issues was whether priests should be married. In fact, people had been moving the discussion in this direction from the late fourteenth century, and one of the claims they made was that in earlier centuries, priests had been allowed to marry (as of course they can in the Orthodox Church). In the Anglo-Saxon Church, married men could be priests (although people weren't at all sure about how holy it was, and you couldn't get very high in the Church if you were married).

Protestant covers a wide range of practices though. Some CofE can be very 'high church', very close to the RC church. My Catholic friends recently attended my dcs' confirmation at our Methodist Church and was stunned how very similar the wording / litergy was. OTOH when I went to a family Christening in their Church, I couldn't get my head round the fact we sat through a service for about 50mins, and there was NO singing!
All these things are about practice and style of worship though, rather than major differences in theology, which others have addressed upthread.

My reason for mentioned the bible in this way is that statements usually come up claiming Catholic teaching is not biblical or somehow we don't embrace scripture. If you reread my post you will see that I did say early Christians were using sacred scripture before the canon was decided. I am trying to explain how Catholic teaching includes Tradition and the Magisterium which can be misunderstood by people not familiar with the Catholic church. To explain it grew from oral teaching and tradition from the time of the Apostles and scripture was an organic growth out of that Christian community.

I did not mention the Orthodox as this thread is about the differences between Protestants and Catholics. At the time the bible was complied the church was united So was in no way meant as any disrespect to the Orthodox. It has been my experience that many people are unaware of the history of Christianity and do not know the history of how the bible was complied. As you know the Catholics and Orthodox are extremely close in their beliefs and there are many rites within the Catholic church not just the Latin rite.

What about the Pope Gregory the Great sending St. Augustine who was born in Rome and was a prior at a monastery in Rome being sent to evangelise the Anglo-Saxons in 595?

I think it would be disingenuous of you to suggest the Catholic church leapt onto the scene in the 11th century.