Catholics have a centralized administration led by the pope, who through the college of cardinals, makes decisions for the Church worldwide.
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the doctrine that communion is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, not a symbol.
The Catholic Church traces its roots back through history to Jesus via His commission to St. Peter.
Protestants don't have a world wide leader. Some churches have regional heads of administration and some are independent.
All the protestants I know of believe that communion is symbolic; it never becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus.
Protestant churches trace their history back to about year 1500, and the protestant reformation. Some take issue with this, but I've double and triple checked my history sources and it is true as far as I can tell.
Catholicism is not Christian. Catholicism teaches a false gospel of works that leads to eternal torment in hell (Galatians 1:6-9).
It's obvious from the Book of Acts in the Bible that catholics didn't even exist during the days of Acts. Those in the Book of Acts are the first Christians, and they believed what would be called fundamentalist doctrine today. ANYONE can read the Book of Acts for themselves and see. Had Catholicism existed during the time of Acts, the first Christians would have rejected Catholicism completely.
Also here's Christians that called the "pope" the Antichrist, and who also completely rejected Catholicism, long before Martin Luther was even born:
c. 1310
Dante Alighieri
c. 1331
Michael of Cesena
c. 1345
Johannes DE Rupescissa
c. 1350
Francesco Petrarch
c. 1367
John Milicz
c. 1379
John Wycliffe
c. 1388
Matthias of Janow
c. 1389
R. Wimbledon
c. 1390
John Purvey
c. 1393
Walter Brute
c. 1412
John Huss
c. 1497
Girolamo Savonarola
So not only is it false to say that "catholics were the first Christians", but this list blows away the catholic claim that "no churches existed other than the catholic church, until Martin Luther".
There were ALWAYS saved believers outside the catholic cult, who knew catholicism cannot save anyone. Catholicism is not Christian. Catholicism teaches a false gospel of works that leads to eternal torment in hell (Galatians 1:6-9).
Catholicism cannot save. Only believing in Jesus alone for salvation, is what saves.
Salvation is a FREE GIFT that happens in a split second when you believe in Jesus! It is impossible to lose or "leave" salvation (John 6:39-40, 1 John 5:13).
The truth about Jesus is that the only way to be saved and to get into heaven and avoid being sent to eternal hell, is by believing in faith alone that Jesus, who is God, died for our sins on the cross as FULL PAYMENT for all our sins, and then Jesus rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Believe this and you will be in heaven, no matter what!
Please pray now: "Jesus, please forgive me of my sins. I believe that You died on the cross for my sins and You rose from the dead. Thank You for eternal life!" You will be in heaven with Him forever when you die.
Catha pray to non God, they are idolatrous, take the church's word over God's word.
But I'm not protestant, just never been a Catha, so I can't be called a protestant.
in general, Protestants believe that you can talk directly to God, there is no need to ask Mary or Joseph (nor does that bible say that doing so is of any use). Also, Prot's don't follow a Pope.
Well, I've been brought up in a Catholic family but I've had my life changed by going to an extremely general Christian youth group.
So I'm kind of caught in the middle.
I do consider myself a general Christian with Catholic roots that I hold quite dear, and that works for me.
I believe that if you believe God is the creator of all things, Jesus died for our sins, and accept both into your heart, as well as leading a life that reflects the teachings of the Bible as well as honoring God, there is no reason why you shouldn't go to Heaven.
That's why it frustrates me when people get into heated Protestantism vs. Catholicism debates, when in the end we're all going to heaven anyway.
It must make God sad to see his blessed children finding about picky differences, when the prime fundamental beliefs are the same.
The main differences I have so far experienced, is the fact that Catholicism is led by the pope, and has priests, as well as recognizing saints and overall being more traditional and church based, rather then a personal relationship with God.
I really dislike labels,
And as I said before.
We all believe the main thing, so why waste time arguing and defying Gods love thy neighbor, when we could be praising him ?!
Catholicism involves a leader that the followers bow down to and worship. They also worship Mary and other false gods that have been "elevated" to the status of a god (considering Catholics pray to them, and therefor assume they have the power to answer prayers) as the pope assigns. The doctrine teaches that (contrary to Biblical teaching) we can achieve salvation through works. I'm not sure how they would then explain the thief who died next to Jesus and whom Jesus assured would be in paradise with him that day.
Protestant beliefs vary between doctrines, but they generally follow the same beliefs, the central tenant being that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was resurrected and we are saved, by grace alone (not by our own deeds), through him.
Roger Housten ETP - it depends on your definition of tolerance. I don't harm Catholics, and I don't condemn them individually. But I do not tolerate what Pagan religions teach, and neither did Jesus.
Jon M's answer is the only factual one that you've received so far. The others are colored by personal prejudices or individual beliefs, rather than what each group actually teaches and believes.
Both groups focus on the role of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of all mankind, and both are Christians. Both worship God the Father and Him Alone (not the Virgin Mary, the saints, or anyone else.)
Catholicism has a strong internal hierarchy beginning with the Pope and continuing down the ranks to the parish priest. Protestant churches have varying degrees of organization, depending on what denomination they're a part of.
As Jon pointed out, Catholics believe that the Eucharist (Communion) is the real and literal Presence of Christ, while most Protestants regard Communion as a symbolic act done as a memorial to Christ. Catholics participate in the individually-administered Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance (Confession), while Protestants generally do not or else participate in a general (communal) confession of faults.
Catholicism formulates doctrine in three ways: the Bible, the teachings of the Magisterium (the scholars and theologians of the Church), and Sacred Tradition, all of which must agree with the others. Protestants usually believe in "Sola Scriptura," or by Scripture Alone. Again, this is not universally true among all Protestants.
Catholics believe that in order to keep ones faith alive, it is necessary to obey God by caring for His people and performing acts of charity: "Faith without works is dead." (Please note that this is NOT how we are saved, which can only be accomplished through accepting Christ's atoning death on the Cross.) Protestants often believe that "Once saved, always saved," and that one does not necessarily have to do anything to keep ones faith alive since it is a gift from God. This is not universally true, but it does tend to be a part of fundamentalist and evangelical denominations' beliefs.
There are many other differences depending on the Protestant denomination that we're talking about, but these are the major areas. Again, both Catholics and Protestants ARE Christian, and both should love one another as brothers and sisters in the Lord.
And having said that: Chris, I love you as my brother in Christ.
Edit:
Amazing -- a factual, unemotional comparison of the two groups gets 5 thumbs-down, while the bashes and haters get all the kudos. It's really great to see that objectivity and fairness are alive and well here in R&S.
The principal foundation of Protestantism is the assertion that no human being other than Jesus Christ has the power to affect the supernatural salvation of any person, living or dead. The second foundation is that no doctrine not derived directly from scripture is valid.
Before Protestantism was founded, the Christian Church maintained that religious teachings could be formulated based on scripture and reason, and that the authority for dogmatic innovation comes from the Holy Spirit and an unbroken line of ordinations dating back to the apostles.
It was also understood that believers ("saints") could pray on behalf of each other. This was based on the experience of the early Church, when the Christian community that believed Christ's return was imminent was devastated by the martyrdom of some of its members before it happened. Departed Christians were regarded as continuing members of the community, to be honored as heroes, prayed for, and petitioned for help in asking God for aid in dealing with the perils of Christian living in a time of persecution. When Christianity was legalized, martyrdom became rare, and "sainthood" became reserved only for dead Christians.
During persecution, some members of the community quit to avoid prison or death. When the danger ended, many of these apostates asked to return. There was some bitterness among loyal members, plus a theological problem. Baptism was a one-time initiation. Renunciation of the faith was about as bad as you could act. It was determined that the only way to be reunited was to public ally confess ones sins and do penance outside of the worship meetings for an entire year. It was hard, but it proved the sincerity of ones re-conversion. And in time, the severity was reduced. A remorseful sinner could confess privately to an official representative of the community and perform ones penance in private. This representative was another development of the end of persecution.
In an environment of approval, bishops could act more freely, and church populations increased dramatically, so much that they were more than the bishops could handle. They delegated some of their authority to a new class of minister, the priest, who could represent the bishop and perform some of the sacred functions of the bishop and who reported the status and concerns of his sub-community to the bishop.
Then in the West, the civil government eventually collapsed, leaving all responsibility for secular services, infrastructure and defense in the hands of the bishop of Rome. He fumbled through, eventually organizing public functions and building a reputation as the "papa", the person to go to to get anything, secular or religious, done. Since then, worldly political power has gradually and haltingly found its feet, but religious authority became bound into a rigid hierarchical structure with the pope at the top.
Supreme authority is difficult for one person to handle effectively. Details become lost. Shortcuts get taken. And alliances of efficiency form. In the 16Th Century, Rome had exhausted its treasury on political intrigues and aesthetic excesses. A cardinal came upon the idea of exploiting a common custom among wealthy Christians: paying people to perform their penances and say their prayers for them. To facilitate his fund-driving efforts, he sent out agents who proposed that people shorten the process and pay the Church directly, making salvation that much quicker. It was completely immoral of course, but few people felt they had the authority to question the practice.
The first to mount an effective protest was Martin Luther, a priest who was deeply concerned about issues of morality and salvation. He saw the corruption in Church leadership and wished to reform it by bringing attention to it. But there had been reformers before him, all branded heretics to save the Church embarrassing itself. He too was headed down that road unless he found a way to undermine the Church's assumed right to condemn.
He did this by focusing on some very specific Biblical passages that credited a believer's faith for his justification, not anything he did. (This ignored other passages that said otherwise, but Luther was fighting for his life.) He was not able to prevail against the hierarchy, but he WAS able to convince peasants and nobles who chafed under the burden of Roman authority.
Perhaps he was the excuse for their revolt, but he ended up starting the first of many alternatives to the Roman brand of Christianity. And because of the underpinnings of Luther's theology, Protestantism had to conduct its business very differently than it had been under Catholicism.
Gone was any notion of praying FOR or TO the dead. Confession to a priest, gone. The sacra mentality of the Eucharist, also gone. The entire purpose of the priesthood was erased, replaced by that ancient idea of the priesthood of the people. Worship became a very plain affair. Ministers were employed at the sufferance of their congregation. And interpretation of the thornier passages in the Bible was up for grabs. Everyone was a theologian that wished to be. It took a long time to organize the new faith and a lot of disputes broke out, leading to the endless splitting of denominations through a relentless drive for "reform".
The Reformation did have an effect on the Catholic Church. At its next council, the worst abuses were condemned and abolished. Doctrines and procedures were clarified. But the hierarchy remained intact, its power waning and waxing with the vicissitudes of time. The basic co-intercessory practices continue, minus the abuses.
Which approach is right? Was Protestantism an unjustified rebellion? Or was Catholicism off the rails? Likely it's a little of both.
Protestantism vs. Catholicism?
