Catholicism vs. Protestantism

What is the deal between Catholicism and Protestantism? Catholicism is linked directly back to the beginning of Christianity, while Protestantism is linked only as far as the Reformation. Any opinions? If you are posting, please maintain a proper level of respect. I do not want to see any posts which are like "there is no God, so what the hell are you all doing?" This is strict philosophy, and it cannot, nor will not, be limited to one's views... just the facts please. Thank you.

Some minor points...

Reading a book on history recently 'How the Irish Saved Civilization' several points were raised ythat I cn draw upon inclarifying some confusion here and perhaps adding some of my own...

***
Protestants are Christians and trace their faith to Abraham and Jesus Christ of course...not the reformation era.

***
Catholics tend to believe that the Bishop of Rome has a special relationship to Jesus Christ...a point that many other Christians do not agree with. I for one believe that a priesthood of believers is a better way for an ecclesiastical structure to exist...one without a commercial priesthood supported by a 'laity'. A priesthood of believers sturcuture would be more egalitarian and all Christians would be players rather than audience members with some participation. Missions work would be more effective when establishing 'churches' of equal Christians.

***
Ordinary Christians of the first four centuries a.d. had a complex time politically. Constantine made Christianity the state religion, and that tended to make it fraught with false members joinging for the obvious political advantages. Then of course the western Roman empire became corrupted and fell to the Goths and other Germanic tribes in the 5th century.

***

Augustine Bishop of Hippo developed his ideas as opposed the the Pelagians of Britain and elsewhere. He is said to have been the last classic writer and the first modern writers. Augustine after David and Sappho invented the 'I' that became the norm in novels and autobiographies...before that almost all skirted the subject but never used the first person singular in writing hardly.

***
Christians were just Christians in those days of yore...and many did not give the Catholic Christians much weight. For one thing Byzantine Christians developed their own trends, as did the marvelous Celtic Christians of Ireland that eventually returned writing skills, Bibles, Greek Literature and so forth back to Europe in creating monasteries all over western Europe maybe in the 7th and 8th centuries. Well, they actually created monasteries and coverted much of the Britisih Isles before that (until the Vikings arrived to slaughter them). Lindisfarne where the Venerable Bede wrote was one of those Celtic established monasteries later destroyed by Vikings. It was at Lindisfarne the Celtic and Catholic Christianity consolidated and remained so until the Church of England later arose before the English Civil Warres.

***
The first philosopher since Boethius...Scotus Eriugina was a Celtic Christian that attended the Palatine School in Gaul later to become the University of Paris. After King Charlemagne was made Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by the ope Gaul became France, and various Christian scholarship sort of held on...most Europeans were illiterate, and few were capable of meaningful philsophical thought. For a variety of reasons involving technology, education, politics and change ordinary Christians sought liberty from occassionally oppressive or corrupt clerics and reestablished through own faith relationship directly with Jesus Christ as best they could.

***
Though the Spanish Inquisition did create conditions stimulating flight from rule of terror and perhaps armed the need for protestantism, it isn't unfair to say that many ordinary Europeans that desired to read the Bible in the vernacular even so did not feel a complete, permanent antipathy toward there Catholic cousins...one need only consider the horrible treatment of the Irish by British rulers over the time since Cromwell. The poet Spencer thought that genocide of the Irish would be good the author of the book cited above (Cahill) mentioned.

***
Unfortunately there will always be conflicts between worldlyness and spirituality with a union of the two perhaps corrupting each when Jesus is running things personally. This is not a time for Christians to find there differences but instead a time to celebrate their faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. Satin, the enemy, seeks to sew conflicts amidst the faithful...one must alway be on guard.

60% Voted for by GaryCGibson, petethemeat, Xelgaroth.
View 1 comment Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- udo
  June 9, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  
  helps 4 seekers
  http://www.chick.com/reading/books/218/218cont.asp
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

Catholic Victory

I have done some research into Protestant denominations of Christianity and can only come up to very few conclusions. Some state that God has already decided those who are saved, and those who are not, and that it does not matter what people do, it won't affect their status. I find this to be rather foolish, as it allows for total moral irresponsibility. According to that belief, no matter if you are the best Christian on Earth, you may not be on the list for salvation. Furthermore repulsive to me is the idea that if you are on the list, you can be the worst person on the face of the Earth, and you'll receive salvation. Why? It makes no sense. It is simply an excuse for moral and religious laziness. On the other side, we have those who simply reject certain beliefs. For example, some denominations reject the idea of Mary being the Mother of God. Now, if they follow the Gospels, and the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the idea that Jesus is the Son of God, and the idea of the Trinity (Three Persons in One God), then it makes sense. This status of "Mother of God" does not promote Mary to a status above or equal to God. Mary was used (with her consent) as an earthly tool for God to redeem humanity. God could not have just had Jesus descend from the heavens and start preaching... that would interfere with free will. Also concerning free will, God ASKED Mary if she would accept the role of Mother of Jesus. In that way, He did not interfere with free will. Insofar as a somewhat universal rejection of the Pope, I cannot see what would lead people to that. If it's the idea that he can claim Papal Infallibility, then there must be some clearing up. Firstly, very few Popes, and very seldom, has Papal Infallibility been declared. Also, the idea of Papal Infallibility is strictly limited to morals. Even then, a council of bishops can override it. I do not see a problem with having a leader of, quite honestly, a nation. And now we come to the somewhat radical: those being the Jehovah's and the like. Some say that Jesus was simply a prophet, yet falsely state they are Christian. Firstly, to be a CHRISTian, one must believe that Jesus Christ is purely God and purely man. Secondly, in the first chapter of the Gospel according to John (of which, Jehovah's Witnesses profess to follow strictly) states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." They contradict themselves. Additionally, I am sincerely and very confused over what organizations such as the KKK (as well as the other organization led by two sisters who protest at soldier's funerals) would state they are Christian, yet go completely against all Christian teachings of love and kindness. I do not believe that hating everything that the organization doesn't have (KKK to blacks, "God Hates Fags" to Catholics, etc.) is good in any way. I will leave it at that for I am deeply affected by the gaul and the inhumanity the people in these organizations have, and do not wish to ramble. It is because of this, that I am Catholic, and am strongly opposed to Protestant views. I hold nothing against the people, simply against the ideas. Thank you.

Voted for by Crusader318.

View 28 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
Weydon
October 12, 2006
Edit | Reply

*Some state that God has already decided those who are saved, and those who are not, and that it does not matter what people do, it won't affect their status. I find this to be rather foolish, as it allows for total moral irresponsibility. According to that belief, no matter if you are the best Christian on Earth, you may not be on the list for salvation. Furthermore repulsive to me is the idea that if you are on the list, you can be the worst person on the face of the Earth, and you'll receive salvation* They think it's repulsive that we think we can earn our way into heaven by shmoozing and pretending to be a good person. They're being good to be good, and hope they were on the list all along. Though technically I don't think most believe that horrid people make it. I never entirely got it myself. *It is simply an excuse for moral and religious laziness.* Yeah, I think that's why Calvinism was started. Laziness. Many of these religions are much more strict than standard Catholocism. *For example, some denominations reject the idea of Mary being the Mother of God.* Which!? I've never heard of that. *Insofar as a somewhat universal rejection of the Pope, I cannot see what would lead people to that. If it's the idea that he can claim Papal Infallibility, then there must be some clearing up. Firstly, very few Popes, and very seldom, has Papal Infallibility been declared. Also, the idea of Papal Infallibility is strictly limited to morals. Even then, a council of bishops can override it.* The Pope hardly talks outside of moral matters. People didn't reject the Pope because of his opinions on desserts. If you do a little more research, you're likely to find a long line of corrupt Popes, as well as a highly corrupt Catholic church, declaring it necessary to pay tribute in order to have your sins forgiven. There is little argument that the original Lutherans were wrong. Most Catholics believe they had generally the right idea, but that we've since fixed ourselves.
petethemeat
October 13, 2006
Edit | Reply

Protestants do not reject the idea of Mary being the mother of God, they reject the notion of raising her to near - deity status as the catholic church does. Trust me i was raised as a Protestant and went to a catholic school, and i found far greater hypocrisy and closed - mindedness in the Catholic Church that I was forced to attend occasionaly. The Catholic Church's history as Weydon stated is often shocking... This is not a biased view as i am looking at these two religions in a retrospect way- i am now agnostic.
Energizer Bunny
October 13, 2006
Edit | Reply

impression
***Protestants do not reject the idea of Mary being the mother of God, they reject the notion of raising her to near – deity status as the catholic church does*** Pete is right. As a Christian my view of Mary is nothing more than that of any other woman. I think she is special to be chosen as the mother of Christ but for me her status stops right there. Yes, I realize there are alot of radicals out there but a true Christian will not put much stress on Mary, but will chose to put the stress where it should be, on Christ and the cross. I think Catholics have what I call a "show me" type of religion. I am not degrading their faith in any way, nor am I speaking down about them. Their practices seem to have alot of sybolism in it. I know this is not true, but it sort of gives the impression they are wanting to bring tremendous attention to the very act of them practicing their faith. It gives me the feeling they are more proud of the way they practice their faith than what their faith actually represents. No attacks plz..... I am simply stating my impression only and I will be quick to state this fact.
ragman
October 13, 2006
Edit | Reply

"A"
Jehovah's Witnesses profess to follow strictly) states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." They contradict themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses get around this by using there Bible that has been altered to their views in there bible they have made the change to and the Word was A God
- matronmedusa
  October 10, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  
  What bible hasn't been altered?
ragman
October 13, 2006
Edit | Reply

Catholicism and Protestantism?
But on what is the big deal between Catholicism and Protestantism? For me it is the fact that 1) Catholics believe they have to go to another man to have their sins forgiven. 2) That they believe that they can prey to Saints and to Mary the mother of Jesus. But I must admit that I don't know much more about Catholics these 2 things are very, very big red flags for me. Now on the subject of radical groups that attach Christianity to them it wasn't the Christianity that went so terribly wrong it was the people within these Groups.
Crusader318
October 13, 2006
Edit | Reply

Thank you
Thank you all for your input. I had heard from a Protestant I know that don't believe in Mary as the Mother of God, but perhaps I misinterpreted. Additionally, I do know of the stupidity of some Popes, but more recent ones seem to be good. My only real question is why is there such a strong disconnect between the two groups? We have the entire situation in Northern Ireland. . . . I myself, am Catholic, and I know this opinion can be easily, though not deliberately, biased. To tell the truth, I am rather sick as being looked down upon as a Catholic sometimes. I apologize for any offensive misgivings or anything of that nature. Perhaps the reason this post is foolish is because I am not well versed in philosophy, theology, religion, etc., as I am but a youth of 15 years.
- matronmedusa
  October 10, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  
  If you are not well versed in these areas, then how can you claim yourself a Catholilc? And why would you want to? Because your parents conditioned you that way? Shouldn't you know extensively about something before dedicating yourself to it, as opposed to taking someone else's word for it without question? That is exactly what society wants you to do. It's easier to control you when they have conditioned your parents to condition you. Age is no excuse. Knowledge is everywhere, pick up a book. Seek and ye shall find.
- Xelgaroth
  February 23
  Edit | Reply
  
  Crusader, I too am fifteen years old, and I contend as best I can with the tallest and the eldest, the wisest and the most naïve folk you'll ever come across, I should hope. Please, I beseech, friend, do not, please do not, let your age hold you down sir. I recognize the authority of elders, and I recognize that they do indeed have more life experience, and thus, quite frequently, more wisdom, but if I should have a greater Knowledge of a subject than they, I will not, must not, hesitate to speak up. As the commenter below me suggested, read a book, as Jesus said, ask and it shall be given you. If you ask for knowledge you shall receive it.
  
  I, however, am a Protestant. Well, really let me rephrase that, I suppose-- I am not a Protestant in its Conventional sense of the word. I am a member of the United Methodist church and attend on Sundays a United Methodist church, but do not, in fact, really consider myself a Methodist, a Calvinist, a Catholic, or anything else.
  I am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic/Rational, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Emergent, Unfinished *Christian*
  
  Indeed, I wish that the two "groups" and the innumerable splinters of the Protestants, could reconverge, under one banner! However, there are numerous qualms that I have with the Catholic Church's doctrine. What I seek is for all denominations to reassert their communion with our brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church, and to dissolve their separations with them. THEN, however, I believe it would be of the most exceeding importance that the church reassessed the doctrine, and sought reform. I am not a Lutheran, and in truth am not entirely fond of Luther's ideas, at least many of his anti-intellectual ones. But nonetheless as I view History I see that Luther, in fact, had absolutely no intentions in the beginning of starting a new Church; he merely wanted to reform the present one. This, I think, was a wise choice. I do in fact think that christianity was shattered at the Reformation. That ideas that were more Christ-centered were forming, was good. But that the Church splintered into hundreds of shards of cults and denominations and sectum, a grave, grave error.
  
  All the same, I believe that, once the Church was reconsolidated into a single, unified Body in Christ, then, of course, there would be no need for the term "Catholic." We would be, as we once were so many centuries ago, simply and only "The Church." There was one Church, with one Mission, doing the work of one Christ. In truth, it is arguable that all denominations in the Faith are doing this now. But not as a single church. And what folly this must seem to nonbelievers, no? That we are so split? No wonder such moral decay exists!
  
  The Church, it seems, looks out beyond its stain-glass windows and mourns for the world's decay, and cries of how it corrupts the Church. But as for me, I look into the Church, and cry at it's Corruption, and how it is decaying the world! When we see moral decay, what do we do? We say, "It is because morals have fallen away." But do we stop to consider why? Perhaps the decline of morals in the world is directly resultive of the decline of morals in the Church, no? Were we not by our Lord charged to be a light to the world? And what happens, then, when it is put out? What happens when the bulb, as in the Reformation, is shattered? The light goes out, and the darkness comes-- and how can we possibly lead the nonbelievers anywhere, when we ourselves are in darkness?
  
  Jesus said, "can the blind lead the blind? No, they together will fall into a pit." In the same way, the Church is blind; she has gouged her own eyes out-- and lo! the Bridegroom approaches! But how can we see His arrival if we are blind? Therefore, we must come together again as one body.
  
  This, I think, must be the main priority of the Church; the Reunification of the Church. Essentially, we shall all be of one Denomination, and thus, be of no denomination, but of merely the Church; mere Christianity. After this goal is reached, THEN I think we can debate, with Christian love, what we ought to do with doctrine.
  
  As far as doctrine is concerned, I do think we should always, ever consider how it will further the message of Christ. We always seem to be changing what we want rather than what we need to do to get what we want; we always seem to change our vision, rather than changing the world to fit the vision. Our vision is the Kingdom of God, to bring its message to the world.
  
  Sorry, I didn't mean to rant-- I simply wish we were one church again, and it pains me that the church in its blindness still thinks it can lead the blind nonbelievers. We need the light of Christ again, that we might be a light.
ragman
October 14, 2006
Edit | Reply

only 15
Hey you need to start now trying to figure out what you believe and why. The day is going to come, when a non Christian, will come to you, and ask and what are you going to tell him? Well I don’t really know? Keep it up, ask your questions and continue to search for the Truth. But I do want to warn you that most of the people on this site don’t have any theology education and you need to start talking to your priest about this and start reading books. And most important, search the bible for your answers.
- Crusader318
  December 11, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Thank you.
  I shall follow your advice to the letter. You have already bested many repliers to my ideas.
asgrey
October 15, 2006
Edit | Reply

Agreement with "ragman"
I'm a Protestant but would like to agree with what ragman says towards the end. People are commenting here as if they have studied Christian doctrine for years and years. Most haven't. The wisest theologian/philosopher of all begins by realising he knows nothing. We ought to accept that before we start commenting like we're well up to date on Christian Theology. P.S I, too, know of no protestant denomination that does not accept Mary was the mother of Jesus? (agreeing with previous)
Energizer Bunny
October 15, 2006
Edit | Reply

I agree
Weydon
October 15, 2006
Edit | Reply

How dare you proclaim that you know of no protestant dominations that doesn't accept Mary as the mother of Christ! What are you, some kind of theological expert! We all know nothing, so let's not share our "knowledge" in discussions on such topics, otherwise we're just going to be arrogant! PS Going out of your way to show just how humble you are defeats the purpose of humility.
- Crusader318
  December 11, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  I am not an expert
  There, I have stated it in its entirety. What more do you ask of me?
- - Weydon
    December 12, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    
    I ask you relax.
TeChNoWC
October 16, 2006
Edit | Reply

*"The wisest theologian/philosopher of all begins by realising he knows nothing"* Please, don't flatter me. Your making me blush b)
TeChNoWC
October 16, 2006
Edit | Reply

*"How dare you proclaim that you know of no protestant dominations that doesn’t accept Mary as the mother of Christ! What are you, some kind of theological expert!"* Weydon, if I were to say 'I know of no ice-cream trucks in my neighbourhood', would I be worthy of being snarled at so viciously? He never claimed it as a truth, he just displayed his lack of observation on the matter. Maybe if you were to show him wrong, his forth-rightness would be denied, and he would express his lack of understanding. But, as a simple statement "I, too, know of no protestant denomination that does not accept Mary was the mother of Jesus?" especially with a question mark to indicate unassurity, is a simple statement of lack of observation, and is only stated to beg refutation, not invoke hypocrisy. It is not an incorrect surmise. Inexperienced yes, arrogant no. *"What are you, some kind of theological expert!"* He never said that, neither did he imply it. He simply expressed his view and current standing. Anyway, in answer to the whole Mary issue, it depends on what is implied when one is to say that she is the 'Mother of God'. If this implies that one can worship her as a divine being and spiritual conciever of the Almighty, then this would seem false in regards to most Protestant claims. If it is purely linguistical, as in, Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was God, and in that respect could be called and referred to as the mother of God, and is credited for raising the child - then this is fine Protestant protocol, from what I am aware of.
- asgrey
  October 21, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Thank you "TeChNoWC". You have saved me the job of pointing out to this guy his error in his criticism of my comment. Let him continue to wet his pants if he wants to though. I won't stop him.
- - Weydon
    October 22, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    
    Oh yeah? Well you're a poopoohead! Does the wisest philosopher also accuse people of wetting themselves whenever they disagree with them?
  - - asgrey
      October 22, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      
      Why yes, I believe he does.
- Crusader318
  December 11, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Thank you
  You have delivered much insight and have noticed my weaknesses and have defended me in great amounts. Thank you.
Weydon
October 16, 2006
Edit | Reply

He claimed you had to be an expert in order to make any claims anyone who posted here on theology and history. Then he went on to say the wisest man knows he knows nothing...and won't do that. So where the hell do the experts come from? Know that you know nothing means not becoming arrogant and having an open mind. Not refusing to explain things to people that you do know.
SoldierOfTheCross
March 3, 2007
Edit | Reply

Your understanding of Calvinism
Not every Protestant religion is Calvinist. This is important to note a Pentacostal church is going to have very different views then the Lutheran church on this issue.

What I want to say is you said "no matter if you are the best Christian on Earth, you may not be on the list for salvation" which, to my understanding, is not true. The Calvinist views is wheather or not you become saved. This does make sence when you look at it as a societal issue. Sometimes you know no matter how hard you witness to someone, they will not come to Jesus. That is Calvinism.
matronmedusa
October 10, 2007
Edit | Reply

You say, "back to the beginning of christianity," as if it were a loooong time ago. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Civilization as we know it is at least 45,000 years old and counting. That's a big gap for religion to fill. People think that Jesus was a christian, or that Jesus begat christianity, but this indeed is not the case. Everything Jesus taught was against the religions; wether they be catholic, christianity, or whatever. He wanted to bring down the control of the churches. If you read his words, he was actually gnostic. And yet, isn't it funny that the term "christian" is a derivitive of "christ?"
- Carpool
  November 16, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  
  what are you talking about???
  Jesus was Jewish, but he was also the Messiah, the CHRIST. How can you say he was Gnostic when the Gnostics gospels weren't written until the 2nd century AD. Jesus was Jewish, but he, being the Savior, fullfilled the Jewish prophesy. He was no Christian religion, His life, death, and resurrection is the base for ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. I don't understand what you are trying to say about him being Gnostic.
- - matronmedusa
    November 29, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    
    What I'm saying is that Jesus never spoke from a christian view, but from more of a gnostic one.
    
    The word "gnostic" is derived from "gnosis," which simply means "knowledge," or "seeker of knowledge."
  - - Carpool
      December 4, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      
      ???Never spoke from a christian view???

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

Personal Choice

I have always felt that Catholics and Protestants look at the same religion in slightly different ways. As someone who has attended both Catholic and Protestant services of worship, I would say that the main difference is not in what is believed but in the manner in which worship occurs. Neither is better, but a person may prefer one to another.

Voted for by Mairi-Alannah.

Add a comment

None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →

Sign up for FREE

A free allpoetry.com account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free!

Already a member?

Online: 48

All online members
D-Town-Lover Poet
SecularProgressive

46 visitors ↓

Advertising Supported

Logout Help Terms of Use Contact Us Content Complaint
Our other sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Stories, Quotations. © Social Design

There are 3 choices, 5 votes for Crusader318's debate

Catholicism vs. Protestantism

Adding your comment:

helps 4 seekers

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

impression

"A"

Catholicism and Protestantism?

Thank you

only 15

Thank you.

Agreement with "ragman"

I am not an expert

Thank you

Your understanding of Calvinism

what are you talking about???

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

Adding your reply:

None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →

Sign up for FREE

Already a member?

Online: 48

Profanity Filter

Advertising Supported