Printable View
I don't want to start a debate on the rights and wrongs of each one but I have always wondered what the main differences are between the Catholic and Protestant faiths i.e. beliefs.
I'm Catholic, my wife is Protestant but she wasn't too sure either.
Anyone enlighten me?
I may be wrong, but i think one of the major differences is the actual whole 'Body of Christ' thing. There's a long word that it can be escribed with, but i think that Catholics belive that they see the bread turn into Christ on the altar, whereas Protestants don't...I think? :confused:
Good topic, btw
Transubstationation being one of the main theological differences, (hope this isn't patronising but...) when the preist blesses the host in a Catholic service, the congregation beleve that the body and blood of Christ comes down iinto the host , the protestant faith teaches that this is merely symbolic.
The rest is a mixture of things, as the protestent faith has so many branches there are also diference s between these. For example some branches - the Calvanist and the Free Presbyterian believe that the Catholic Church has to much in the way of pointless symbolism that detracts from worship (smells and bells as I believe they would call it) they also believe that it is somewhat heretical to pray to statues and therefore have few of them in their chapels but on this point they would also object to high church protestantism (Church of England or Ireland for example) that would also have have similar trappings.
These are some of the theological differences but at the end of the day lot of it in Ireland can come down to divide and rule of British imperialism that meant that to keep both sides scared of each other would ensure that part of the population would remain loyal to Britain so lessen the effectiveness of opposition. Of course this almost came unstuck after the Act of Settlement (William of Orange's accession the the English throne) as this discriminated against low church protestants as well as Catholics and this was one of the spurs for the growth of the Unted Irishmen and why they had so many protestants in their leadership.
To build on what Pat O' said - there is no 'protestant' faith. It's an umbrella term for a host of Christian religions that are essentially united by opposition to the rule of Rome in the Christian faiths.
The differences between some of the Protestant religions are as broad, if not more so, than the differences some of them have with Catholicism. For example - High Anglicanism is incredibly close to the Catholic church. I think the key differences revolve around Confession and transubstantiation (Catholics believe the bread and wine literally does change into body and blood at the priests's hands, Anglicans believe it is merely symbolic of that change). The ecumenical movement is a joint organisation between Catholicism and High Anglicanism to continually explore common ground, and arguably to look at whether the 2 churches could re-join at some point in the future. The advent of women priests in Anglicanism has knackered this to some extent though, as Rome is very opposed to it.
The key difference between all Protestant faiths and Catholicism is that they refuse to accept that the Pope is God's appointed representative on earth. Some sects (e.g. Paisley's Free Presbyterians) believe that the Pope is actually the anti-Christ (in a literal meaning - not in the meaning of The Omen films etc - i.e. that the Pope is essentially claiming the same role that Jesus did when he came). Most Protestant faiths are as a result much more democratic and less hierarchical than Catholicism is (indeed most other major world religions are as well...) - they have no single spiritual head of the church who's word is law in their faith. Presbyterians, Methodists etc are structurally very democractic - with decisions made at annual Synods (essentially AGM's).
Another key difference is Confession. Protestant faiths believe that confession is a personal thing, and doesn't need to be done via a priest in order to secure foregiveness.
I also believe that reference of the Virgin Mary is a particularly Catholic trait - protestant faiths value her as important, but don't put her up on a perch alongside Jesus and God as the Catholic Church does. This may reflect the fact that a number of Protestant faiths are very scriptually-based - i.e. women have a less important role within their churches, as the bible is from a time when 'men were men'.
Finally, there's a stereotype about 'the Protestant work ethic' that has a large grain of truth in it. A number of Protestant religions (again, the more scriptural-based likes of Presbyterianism, Calvinism and Methodism) believe that you are judged entirely on whatever you do on this earth. Therefore, it is your god-given duty to work as hard as you can, to be frugal etc etc, and to live a clean-living, hard-working, Christian life. The onus for this is based upon the individual. Catholicism engenders a less individualistic and more 'communal' ethos amongst it's followers.
There are so many splinter faiths within Protestantism that it's difficult to generalise, but those are to the best of my knowledge the key differences with Roman Catholicism (as an aside, my girlfriend in Derry went to school with a girl from a Protestant faith were they weren't even allowed to eat in front of other people ! I believe the faith was called 'Brethren'. Apologies if not - especially to anyone reading this who may be offended).
But - as I'm only an aul' tadgh, it's probably best left to someone with a first-hand knowledge of the religion for a definitive answer ! :)
Apologies to any Protestant readers for any inaccuracies above.
What about the hooved feet? :D :eek: :D
I thought that was just Donegal wimmin....? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by corkharps
:D :eek: :eek: :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
protestants call it consubstantiation. ludicrous to think youre eating the flesh of a 2000 year old dead man.its just very plain sandwich really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat O' Banton
dont make pictures or statues of your god is a commandment.though catholicism does this anyway.regardless of whether you believe in a god or not,organized religions are all stupid anyway
i would venture to argue that most people here who call themselves Catholic would feel more at home belief wise in the COI than actually in the Roman Catholic Church.
Dcfcsteve gave an excellent rundown really.
Because Anglicanism is not in the main theoritically opposed to reunion in the future with the RC church they are strictly speaking a Catholic church as well.
They believe in one Holy and Catholic Apostolic church.
Most Protestants in NI are Presbyterian while in the South they are COI and there is huge differences between the two faiths.
Maybe some posters here should go along to a service in their local COI church, who knows you may convert! Plus, you get free tea and biscuits after service. :)
have to agree with you thereQuote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
I suggest closing this topic. Religion is a personal thing and is very close to the nerve with some people.
I think we're still on Ok ground here, as all we're talking about here is history, not whether or not religion is a 'good thing' or not. And before anyone kicks off with the "All religion is rubbish" tirade, can I perhaps politely ask they open a seperate thread to this one? Thanks. :)
The real split in Christianity happened not with the Catholic and Protestant thing, but long before, in the schism between East and West, when half the church became Catholic and half became Orthodox (both words meaning the same thing). There were many reasons for the split, some to do with theology, others to do with political issues regarding the relationship between Christendom and Islam and the power balances of the Middle East. Pre-schism the church was governed by senior bishops based in Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and so on. The bishop of Rome, so the Orthodox say, was merely one bishop of many, with ideas far above his station.
The Roman Catholic church then suffered a further series of splits. In the British Isles the most significant being the breakaway from the authority of Rome, replacing it with the governorship of the monarch. Henry the 8th, despite being credited for forming the Church of England, was actually very catholic in his outlook, and would have been fairly outraged at the way that he Church of England became seen as a protestant church. He wanted the church frree from Rome and under his thumb, but he still wanted it to be Catholic in its theology. There were protestant thinking leaders within the English church who steered it down that path- indeed many parts of Anglicanism are very very Catholic, with statues of Mary, rosaries, the whole thing, whilst other parts are very very protestant. From this, more and more groups split off and broke away giving us Baptists, Methodists, United Reforemed and so on and so forth, each with their own take on things.
What's intersting is that the Orthodox church regards every Chsritian who is not Orthodox as being Catholic. Indeed, churches who broke away from Rome are seen as being still Catholic by them. Roman Catholics? Catholic. Church of England? Catholic. Baptists? Catholic. Prebyterian? Catholic.
I dunno Harry -provided people don't go out of their way to offend each other I think it's good to have people explore and discuss faith positions -be they their own or other peoples. I'm facinated by religion and the archaeology of it -though i must admit I'm a confirmed atheist (raised RC mind).
I like the way Bob Geldof summed it (God/Religion/creationism) up best
"You Know ...when you sit back and think about it ...it's all very improbable"
I also like the words of the man (who's identity avoids me -Kavanagh? Wilde?) who wrote "you must respect the other fellows religion -but only so far as you respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children clever"
Just on one major christian division -I'm led to believe one of the major differences that divides a large number of bible protestant faiths (ie those protestant faiths who base their entire belief on the bible/"word"/"gospel") and their Catholic/orhodox/High Anglican counterparts, is a belief on the formers side that "man is saved by faith alone" against the latters belief that other things such as good works, charity whatever can count towards being saved as well (from which we got the highly corrupt middle age practice of buying "indulgences" -a practice which still casts a shadow today).
However, apparently Luther took a bit of an editorial leap when translating his bible into German. Seeminly he simplified it to read "man is saved by faith alone" when it should've read "man is saved by faith above all other things".
That's a hell of a difference. Yeah sure faith is most important -but the text that Luther translated from states that there are "other things" that while being less important are worthy of an auld mention.
Isn't one of the main differences is that at it's most basic level, most Protestant groupings are, in a way, "made up"? I mean in the respect that you take a particular version of the Bible that you believe in. You then say that your life must be lived by what you interpret that version to be saying. The likes of Paisley, even though an extreme example, and quite a few preachers in America, can set up a whole sect based on their own opinions. Didn't Jello Biafra, of The Dead Kennedys, set up a church, which came within Protestantism, so he could be exempt from any military service?
Catholicism and Islam have different sects within them, but the basic belief and structure is the same, i.e. you can go to a mosque or church anywhere in the world and the priest/mullah will follow the same ceremony and teaching. In most Protestant services, the main "event" is the sermon, which will depend almost entirely on the personality and beliefs of the preacher/priest.
belief in the infallibility of the pope and the virgin birth are 2 of the main differences afaik
Yes and no - there's quite a few differences between an Irish RC mass and an English RC Mass, and a lot in the whole sitting/standing/kneeling bits, and especially stuff like the wedding mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
Also in England, the whole coming in late, standing at the back having a chat and doing one at communion wouldn't be accepted at all, as seems to be the case here... ;)
Err No.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
I think you're right about the potential pitfalls of personality-driven churches, Patsh. The focus in many protestant churches, especilly 'Low' churches, is the focus on the Word of God. A reading from the bible which will then be examined and expanded upon in the sermon. Of course, the personality, politics and prejudices of the preacher come into play, and it's up to the congregation to then try and pick out those bits come from God and which are purely from the preacher-just as the bible tells us we should do. :) At no point are the congregation ever expected to accept that what the preacher is saying is in fact the true and authentic word of God, unless it is a piece of the bible. The 39 Articles of the Church of England, for eg, state that everything necessary for salvation is to be found in scripture- in essence, safeguarding believers from having to accept any old twaddle that a preacher might come up with off the top of his head.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
I think that differences between Sunni, Shia and Suffi Islam are at least as diversive and profound as those between Strict Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and happy clappy churches. Yes, they're all Moslem in the same way as we're all Christians. Well, except for the atheists of course.. :o
Patsh - there's plenty of differences within other faiths as well - e.g. in Islam, Ismaili's are vastly different from the more 'orthodox' Sunnis, or the philosophical theology of Suffiism. And if you think that all Imans in mosques follow centrally-defined teachings, you should listen to some of the more controversial clerics ! There are vast differences within sects of Judaism as well - particularly between orthodox and moderate groups. A number of Orthodox sects even openly support the Palestinians, as they believe that the expulsion of Jews from Israel was God's will, and that to reverse it is therefore wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
The key thing that has stopped Catholicism splintering into lots of different sub-sects is the fact that it is a hierarchical organisation with a clear centralist structure and a single leader. If you want to set-up your own Catholic sect (a la Pat Buckley and Sinead O'Connor) you can only do it by breaking-away/being kicked-out of the Roman Catholic church. In this way, you effectively cease being a Catholic organisation. However - as Protestant churches are generally non-hierarchical, less centralist and more democractic in structure, you can set-up a sub-sect without any one single person/source being in a position of authority to kick you out of 'protestantism' and stand in your way. There is no leader of the protestant faith to tell you you're wrong and to 'unrecognise' you.
It's always going to be very difficult to maintain a rigidly standard way of conducting something as emotional, contentious and personal as a single religion over centuries, across cultures/continents, languages/peoples, political systems etc etc without there being a 'referee' of some sort in the middle to define what can and can't be done as part of that single religion. That's primarily why Catholicism is fairly cohesive, versus protestantism in particular and other faiths in general.
I think we're alright here too. I'm a believer myself in the big man upstairs but I can also understand those that don't. My f-in-l comes out with the best line for door-to-door religious salespersons: Who created your God? :D It's just that things like evolution and a universe as complex as ours coming from sterility make even less sense than the presence of a higher (unseen and unknown) being. After all dogs lie around all day sniffing each other's ar*es without a clue about the huge knowledge that humans possess.
One of the main pillars of the 'Paisley' style churches, I believe, is the need to be 'born again.' Not an expert on this but it's got something to do with predestination, where life is all worked out in the spiritual context and good deeds count for nothing. Therefore the need to repent once more. I remember vaguely that a Dutch Catholic cleric of the 17C by the surname of Jansen was involved in this theory, but little else.
Father WW: I think it's not the virgin birth that seperates RC and CoE/I but whether Mary kept her cherry for the rest of her life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
must re-check the big red book so,
i cant see the C.O.E or Rom Cath having a problem with mary seeing some action later in life as after all she was a married woman ;)
I know, my point was that Protestantism is much more of an individual interpretation of the Bible, rather than a specific set of beliefs and rules set by a hierarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Again, that was my point. Protestatism is a loose, catchall term to describe a myriad of Churches, sects and particular beliefs based on the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Catholicism (including the Coptic and Orthodox versions), Hinduism, Islam (including Sunni, Shia etc), are much more monolithic, and broadly structured Churches. The fact that individuals within these Churches take a different line doesn't make them similar in structure to Protestant Churces. A Billy Graham or Paisley type figure could not exist within Catholicism, Hinduism or Islam, but there is scope for people to hold "controversial" views, whilst remaining within the fold.
Sadly Father, I've a confession to make. My childhood visits to the house of God were very limited (very limited to nothing) as my parents were, ahem, lapsed RCs. In fact, my unorthodox views on the church almost put a spanner in the works re Conchita when we first met (e.g: Mary and her cherry; Priests marrying; democracy in the church, the whore of Rome) that she thought I was :eek: a Prod. Anyway, she has always maintained that Mary was pure to the end. I think this is why Mary managed to do a bit of a European tour in the late 19 and early 20 centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by the 12 th man
But I digress, I've sought a rapprochement with the Church since those initial days you'll be pleased to hear, even participating in the poppadom and port...much to the disappointment of my parents. :(
Where did Jesus' brother come from, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Derry.Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
Same place as the big man himself....! :D
Now that's news to me :confused: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
Pity he doesnt play for the Candystripes then. Youre gonna need a miracle to stay up! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
And jesus did have a brother wasnt he called James or John?
Came up with this. I saw a documentary about Jesus' brother last easter on TV. Very interesting it was too.
was James really Jesus’ brother?
The point of departure for considering this question is Mark 6:3 (cf. Matthew 13:55-56), where James is actually named as Jesus’ brother, along with four other men; at least two unnamed and unenumerated sisters are also mentioned. Until recently, Roman Catholic opinion has been dominated by the position of St. Jerome (in his controversial work, Against Helvidius), who argued that although "brothers" and "sisters" are the terms used in Greek, the reference is actually to cousins. Dispute has focused on the issue of whether that view can be sustained linguistically, and on the whole the finding has been negative. Before Jerome, Helvidius himself had maintained during the fourth century that the brothers and sisters were just what their name implies—siblings of Jesus: although he had been born of a virgin, their father was Joseph and their mother was Mary. That view clearly played havoc with the emerging doctrine of Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth, and that issue occupied the center of attention. In a recent work which received the Imprimatur, John P. Meier has endorsed the Helvidian theory, to some extent on the basis of support from second century Fathers.10 During that century, a group referred to as the Ebionites even denied Jesus’ virgin birth in the technical sense; his "brothers" and "sisters" were implicitly that in the full sense of those words (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1-2).
Richard Bauckham has given new currency to the view of Jesus’ relationship to James developed by Epiphanius during the fourth century (Panarion 1.29.3-4; 2.66.19; 3.78.7, 9, 13), and supported by the second-century Protoevanglium of James 9.2 and perhaps the Gospel of Peter (according to Origen’s Commentary on Matthew 10:17):11 Mary was Jesus’ mother, not James’, since Joseph had a wife prior to his marriage to Mary. Joseph’s relatively advanced age is traditionally held to account for his early departure from the narrative scene of the Gospels, and that reasonable inference lends support to this theory, while James’ emphasis on the Davidic identity of the Church (see Acts 15:16) is easily accommodated on this view. James’ seniority relative to Jesus might be reflected in the parable of the prodigal (Luke 15:11-32). The story of those with Jesus seizing him in the midst of exorcism (Mark 3:21; cf. 3:31-35) reflects the kind of almost parental concern an older brother might feel for a younger brother.
Another, more pragmatic consideration provides support for Epiphanius’ theory, although in a modified form. As mentioned, Joseph disappears from the scene of the Gospels from when Jesus was about twelve years old. His death at that time has been the traditional surmise, and such a chronology has implications for understanding Jesus’ relationships with his siblings. On the Helvidian view, Mary must have given birth to at least seven children in twelve years (Jesus, his brothers, and two or more sisters). Assuming that not every child she gave birth to survived infancy, more than seven labors would be required during that period, all this within a culture that confined women after childbirth and prohibited intercourse with a woman with a flow of blood, and despite the acknowledged prophylactic effect of lactation and Joseph’s age.
Although the consideration of a likely rate of fertility provides some support to the Epiphanian theory, in its unadulterated form it strains credulity in its own way. A widower with at least six children already in tow is not perhaps the best candidate for marriage with a young bride. A modified form of the theory (a hybrid with Helvidius’ suggestion) would make James and Joses the products of Joseph’s previous marriage, and Jesus, Simon and Judah the sons of Joseph with Mary. The latter three sons have names notably associated with a zealous regard for the honor of Israel, and may reflect the taste of a common mother. Absent their names, or even a count of how many were involved, no such assignment of marriages can be attempted for Jesus’ sisters.
On the Helvidian view, James was Jesus’ younger and full brother, in a family quickly produced whose siblings were close in age. On the Epiphanian view, James was older, and Jesus’ half brother, it seems to me that, suitably modified, Epiphanius provides the more plausible finding.
Ya‘aqov, Anglicised as James apparently...Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
I think we have our first contradiction between the RC church and the good book. :eek: FFS, can anyone clarify this? You can't have all been childhood heretics like myself?Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
The RC church ignores many things that are in the bible. THE RC church disproves of homosexuality because it is mentioned as a sin in the bible. From the very same book however (Leviticus?) the eating of Pork is not allowed. (The reason why Jews see it as not allowed). THE RC cherry picks its own rules and laws as well. The same book i believe outlaws the eating of many different kinds of sea-creatures (oysters & shrimps) and eagles.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Jews dont not just eat pork, other food is not kosher to them as well. Which means really that bible believing christians shouldnt eat it either.
lots of passages from the bible metioned by eoinh there but the bible was not written till i think 400 yrs after jesus died and also it only picked writtings that they saw fit and without getting into conspiracy theories left out writtings that alluded to jesus being married etc personaly i belive in god and was raised a r.c but i think the church has lied to us too much over the years and any orgaisation that is against protective sex in africa when hiv/aids is rife needs some serious thinking to do
Insects are a no-no aswell and Muslims follow the same line. One story I remember was of a massive nose-bag laid on for Prince Nasseem and his hangers-on, but he couldn't touch a thing as it was ham and prawns (the ham for the hangers on, the prawns for Nasseem). Another angle on food is the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. They claim that St. Paul in Acts (??) said that all food was now kosher except blood (a clear question about food from a follower) but his response that one should 'abstain' from blood is interpreted that blood transfusions are a no-no by the JWs.Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
I think one man's cherry picking is another's interpretation. That's what organised religion's all about. Just like 'brother' meaning cousin (not ununusual there. My Zimbabwean mate has loads of 'brothers' that I'd call cousins) or maybe good friend or fellow biblical trade unionist. You name it. We could all be 'brothers and sisters' on this forum if the hat is to fit.
It's a fairly safe and accepted view these days that James was Jesus' brother.
The Born Again reference isn't a protestant fiction, but is taken from the gospels. The words 'Born Again' seem stuck with a particularly American style of Evangelism, as made popular by the fifties super-evangelist Billy Graham, but are actually more of a part of mainstream low key christianity than many might think.
The current Catholic church sticks to some views that seem rapidly out of step with modern thinking, and indeed soemtimes just plain wrong (Such as condom use in the 3rd world). On the plus side, their views on thumbscrews and burning at the stake have come on leaps and bounds in recent years. :rolleyes: In all sincerity, it is to be hoped that with the passing of time, and by petetion and prayer, they may yet soften their views on some of these views, without necessarily compromising their integrity.
Oh yes, and a friend of mine insists Jesus was Italian: He thought his mother was a virgin and she thought he was God. ;)
Surely that'd make him Irish? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by green goblin
Jesus was Black, surelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
(a) He was dark skinned
(b) He went round calling everybody "brother"
and
(C) He didnt get a fair trial.
Baaaaadooooom...ching!Quote:
Originally Posted by eoinh
Don't forget your coat on the way out. :D
Ahh Eoinh you have dissapointed me.
Saw most likely the same show last Easter. Even point they made was preceeded with "could have been", "might be", "not too much of a strech to say" etc
IMO Human beings are falliable and hence dont quite get Gods messages, be they the people who took them down or the people who read them.
Then again thats better than Paisley & Co. who write their own scripture and versions of the bible!
religion has caused the deaths of more people through out the years that any other event or war