Differences between Catholics and Protestants?

Question

It might be getting a little old but I wanted to check this out with people.

Protestants keep quoting the bible as the authority for saying that certain catholic practices are wrong.

However Catholics believe that protestants interpret the bible wrong.

So its a circular argument, you could say "the bible says ..." but then I can say "who says the bible is the final authority"

The bible doesnt, in fact the bible warns agains protestants interpreting the bible as a source in itself without Church tradition and history.

So what is the answer, I get people saying the bible says a,b,c, but big deal, the bible isint God, nor is it the only or final revelation of God it is just one way God has expressed himself but it isint the sola way.

You can say certain practices are not biblical, but only using the bible as authority isint biblical at all.

Answer 1

John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

1 Timothy 3:15 "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR and ground OF the TRUTH."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth (oral tradition) or by letter from us."

Well, it looks to me like these verses basically sum it up. Oral tradition is just as important as scripture. Not everything Jesus said and did was written down. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, therefore being the final authority. And besides, how could the Bible have authority over the Church if the Church existed more than 300 years before the Bible?

Answer 2

If the Bible is not God's word for Catholics also then where do Catholics look to for His word?

1. The Pope?

2. Protestants keep quoting the bible as the authority because it is. Catholics also have a Bible (containing some extra books) is it not authoritative to you also?

3. How can you simultaneously get away with saying that "Catholics believe that protestants interpret the bible wrong" and at the same time state that it lacks authority.

4. Please point out where in the Bible it "warns against protestants interpreting the bible as a source in itself without Church tradition and history".

5. Please explain how the Bible can be un-biblical?

6. If as a 'Christian' you claim the Bible is not the only and final revelation of God then pray tell as a 'Christian' what is?

My friend, Church Tradition, Buildings, Regalia, Rules, Regulations and Ritual is largely man made. It all amounts to nothing unless we have Jesus at the centre of our lives and His word in our hearts.

Answer 3

Well, if you ask me, neither the Catholics or the Protestants are correct.

I'm not going to go through all the history here and now - there is a lot of it. However, you can find the evidence you need if you are willing to look for it. But the Bible has been written, canonized (universalized) and preserved by the Church. Since it was written within the context of the Church, to read it under any understanding but the Church's understanding is to take it out of historical context. For example, the NT epistles were written to address specific issues that arose in the Church, not to instantiate a full and universal rule of doctrine. Every epistle begged the particular group it addressed to continue in the traditions and understanding that it first received. Thus, these traditions were not received as the Bible, but by the words of the Apostles. The Bible, in all reality, is a product of the tradition and doctrine that the Church already had. Preservation of the Scriptures and preservation of the traditions and doctrines of the Church cannot be separated.

This being said, if a Church contains a dogma that contradicts what is in the Scriptures, it fails to preserve the understanding of the Church, and, thus, ceases to be the Church in the true sense of the word. The RCC Church has failed to do this. Proof can be found in the statements Pope Leo had engraved into silver tablets in 808 A.D. which condemn the filioque as heresy, and in the statement St. Gregory the Great made declaring that no Bishop/Patriarch/Pope should be declared as universal (as having universal authority). Each of these men, due to the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility, anathematize all the RCC Popes who have accepted Papal Infallibility or the filioque. Likewise, the anathematized Popes in the former statement anathematize Pope Leo and Pope St. Gregory the Great by the same reasoning.

So it becomes evident that neither the Protestant 'church' or the Roman 'Catholic' 'church' are the true Church.

Many are unaware that there is a 3rd Church. It is not western, but Eastern. Most know it as either Greek or Russian Orthodox. Formally it is Eastern Orthodox and includes quite a few Jurisdictions (Romanian, Bulgarian, American, and others). There is no universal Patriarch (only a first among equals), and the laity in this Church is obligated to break communion with their Bishop if they hear a clearly heretical doctrine taught (according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church Fathers). Clergy are appointed to lead, not to dictate. Christ is openly declared as our Pope, our Head.

There are many differences between Rome and the East. I have not found any of the Eastern doctrine to conflict with he Scriptures. Rather, I found that it fit so well with them that the Scriptures supported each other better than I had ever dreamed possible.

So my answer is, the Pope is not God, or even Vicar of Christ, and neither is the Bible God. But Christ is God, and the Church is His Body. Thus, just as the husband is head of his wife, so Christ is the Head of the Orthodox Church. History itself is the evidence for Christ's hand in preserving the Church throughout the ages - leading it in all Truth, Wisdom, and Unity.

** as a side note, I respect the RCC very much. Their faith and dedication has evidence of being preserved - they still have miracle working icons and weaping statues of Mary and such things. They do not have anything like the Holy Fire (http://www.holyfire.org/eng/), which has happened yearly for over 1000 years, or the Jordan River Turnaround, or the descent of the Cloud of Transfiguration on Favor Mt., which also happen annually, but the miracles in the RCC, I think, testify to the faith of the laity in many of these churches. Of course, faith should not be based on the miracles, they are just cool.**

I'd like to clarify that neither the Catholics or the Orthodox claim that the Bible is not an authority. It is highly revered in both Churches has having a great deal of authority. What Catholics (and Orthodox) and Protestants disagree on is that the Bible is the sole authority. The Bible can't be the sole authority, because the Church had the authority to write it and universalize it. To be totally honest, the Canon of Scripture still is not 100% universal. So the Bible is an authority, but its not to be taken by itself as the only authority. Rather, the Church teachings and traditions are there to compliment and support the Scriptures, and the Scriptures, in return, compliment and support the traditions. They are one in the same, the Scriptures, they are part of a larger whole.

Answer 4

The fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants are the books of the 'Bible' accepted by Catholics, but not by Protestants. There are other 'additions' to God's word that are unfortuneately accepted by both presently. Those 'additions' are further dividing Catholics and Protestants currently worldwide.

Answer 5

"What separates us as believers in Christ is much less than what unites us." (Pope John XXIII)

Almost all important doctrine is completely agreed upon between Catholic Christians and other Christians.

Here is the joint declaration of justification by Catholics (1999), Lutherans (1999), and Methodists (2006):

By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

There are many minor doctrine issues and some major cultural traditional differences which, I believe, do not matter that much.

A Catholic worships and follows Christ in the tradition of Catholicism which, among other things, recognizes that Christ made Peter the leader of His new Church and Pope Benedict XVI is Peter's direct successor.

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

With love in Christ.

Answer 6

I would say that none of us are capable to read all of the ancient texts, or even the bible in its original language, understand the style it was written, and the context it was written in, and all of the 2000 years of study.

So, if that is true, do you want to rely on the Catholic Church that has been studying this for 2000 years, or a group that has only been around for a few hundred (at most) years.

There is noting in the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture.

Peace be with you all!

Answer 7

God's word is the final authority!
2nd Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness:
To call or attack the word of God tells me that they are not true Christians no matter what denomination or church pew they sit in.

Answer 8

I think the problem for the protestants was that the Roman church had added its own interpretations in, but often people who added these interpretations have been humanly wise, but not necessarily at all on a level with the original apostles. Some of the Roman bishops were very worldly and may not have even been believers Jesus will recognise at their judgment (it will outer darkness for them). Then bishops and church prelates were frequently 2nd sons of noble families, and just in it for position and wealth; many of course did their job conscientiously, and many were real believers. So when they became cardinals, they often took that worldliness with them. Result: they started adding very ungodly things into official Roman church doctrine, directly contradicting teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

So one can't just accept something added by church hierarchy theologians and leaders. A good basic test is if it contradicts the core teachings of the New Testament. Then a very impressive-sounding and powerful man cannot force his idea onto people.

Answer 9

Simple!
Catholics = Ritual
Protestants = Relationship

`

Answer 10

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue, “the Bible nowhere states that it is the ONLY authoritative guide for faith and practice.” While this is true, it fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for “sola scriptura,” it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of Sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone, and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the Word of truth."
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church (and many other churches) is that it bases traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions – often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.