Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
Could you tell me the difference between the Presbyterian church and the Catholic Church.
Short question, potentially very long answer.
I'll try to focus briefly on some basics, beginning with the foundational matter of authority.
The Roman Catholic Church understands the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, as do we, but alongside the Bible, stands the authority of the tradition of the church, the decrees of its councils, and the ex cathedra pronouncements of its popes. Tradition, councils, and popes tell the faithful what the Scriptures teach and can add dogma to what the Scriptures teach (for example, the immaculate conception of Mary). We regard this as man exercising authority over the Word of God rather than sitting in humble submission before it.
In contrast, this is what we confess to the world in our Confession of Faith (a statement which we believe faithfully summarizes what the Bible teaches, but which is wholly derived from the Bible, subordinate to it, and may be corrected by it):
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God....
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men....
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them....
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scripture")
With particular reference to the Church, we hold that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there are no princely rulers in the church, but elders and preachers gifted by the Spirit and called to rule and teach in local churches in subordination to the Word of God. Again, our Confession:
6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof." (WCF, Chapter 25, "Of the Church"; see Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22, 1 Peter 5:2-4)
Christ is the King and only Lord of the church. He rules us by His Word, the Holy Spirit who first inspired it continuing to work now by enabling us to understand, believe, and obey the Scriptures. Elders and preachers are gifts He gives to the church to guide and help us understand and obey the Word, but they are not infallible.
Our Confession again,
1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. (WCF, Chapter 30, "Of Church Censures"; see Acts 14:23, 20:17,28, Heb.13:7,17, Eph.4:11,12, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:17-21, etc.)
2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures, and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures as occasion shall require. (WCF, 30.2)
1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as a commonly called synods or councils, and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. (WCF, Chapter 31, "Of Synods and Councils")
2. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church, to receive complaints in cases of maladministratiion, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. (WCF, 31.2)
3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both. (WCF, 31.3)
4. Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs ... [exceptions stated]" (WCF, 31.4)
A key point here is our understanding that church authorities are to act "ministerially" and based always on the Word of God. They cannot make laws in addition to God's revealed Word, but must labor to understand that Word properly and then declare it to the church and base their governing and disciplining actions upon it. We do not claim for any merely human governors of the church a magisterial authority.
From this fundamental difference in regard to authority and to the relative roles of the Bible, tradition, decrees of councils, and edicts of popes, flow the other differences. Why do Presbyterians not pray to Mary and the saints? Because the Bible nowhere tells us to do so; it is an invention by gradual accretion in the tradition of the church. And because, on the other hand, the Bible tells us that "there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," who is our Great High Priest, through whom we have boldness to come to God's throne of grace (1 Tim.2:5, Hebrews 4:14-16). Christ is all the intercessor we need (Heb.7:23-28).
There are fundamentally different approaches to worship, which might be summed up this way:
Roman Catholic:
Whatever the tradition and councils have given us is what we do in public worship.
Presbyterian:
We give to God in worship only what is revealed in His Word as pleasing to Him (see Lev.10:1-3, Exodus 20:4-6, Mark 7:1-8).
While we are looking at worship, we observe that Presbyterians differ fundamentally with Roman Catholics in regard to the Lord's Supper. We both agree that Christ Himself ordained the observance of communion by His church and that this involves bread and wine. From that point on we agree on almost nothing. But let me try to summarize:
Roman Catholics:
By the grace received in his ordination the priest has power to utter the words of consecration by which mere bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ for sacrifice on the altar, and by receiving this mystical body (and blood) of Christ the faithful receive Christ Himself bodily and His grace to wash them clean of all their sins.
Presbyterians:
(a). The minister is not a priest; Christ alone is our priest in the sense of interceding for us before God by sacrifice. The minister is a servant, who declares the Word so that the faithful may understand what is taking place.
(b). The power of the minister is to declare what the Scriptures teach, not to say words that change bread into Christ's body.
(c). The bread and wine symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ. When Jesus at the Last Supper said to His disciples (of the bread), "This is My body which is broken for you", He was standing before them in His body, whole and intact. He meant this bread symbolizes My body. (When He said, "I am the door to the sheepfold," He was similarly speaking symbolically, or "I am the light of the world").
(d). There is no sacrifice of Christ on any altar, for He offered Himself once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26-28, 10:10). So perfect and acceptable was the sacrifice of the God-Man of Himself for sinners that no other sacrifice is required. When on the cross He said, "It is finished," He meant not only his suffering of death, but also His making atonement by His suffering. By that "one sacrifice for sins for all time," that "one offering." "He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb.10:12,14). We hold it to be a great dishonor to Christ's once-for-all atoning work on Calvary to claim that His body and blood continue to be offered as sacrifice for sin. This is why we speak of the communion "table", not altar.
(e). The faithful receive Christ by faith, not physically. The elements are signs. They point to Christ and what He has done to atone for our sins. They point to Him also as our risen and living Savior and Lord who is present in His Church by the Holy Spirit, continuously offering Himself to believers. The bread and wine call us to draw near to Christ by faith, to receive forgiving and sanctifying grace from Him, to grow in our union with Him. But it is all spiritual and by faith.
I could go on listing differences, but two very important ones remain. I will deal with the most important last.
Presbyterians believe that God's Word is a sufficient revelation of His will for our lives (see above, Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1, especilly Sections 6 and 7, and read 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
We think it is an arrogant usurpation of Christ's authority for church rulers to presume to have authority to add to His word rules and commands. Where does the Bible require ministers in Christ's church to be celibate? It doesn't, but rather teaches the opposite (1 Tim.3:2-5,12, see 1 Cor.9:5). But Catholic authority requires Catholic priests to take vows of celibacy, which are contrary to human nature and create terrible stumbling blocks leading to sin (which is now being plastered shamefully all over the public media). For centuries the Catholic Church told its people they must refrain from eating meat on Fridays; to do otherwise was sin. Now it's okay. It was a sin. Now it's not. The church says so. But the Bible does not say one word, except Colossians 2:20-23 (and 1 Timothy 4:1-5).
Appeal may be made to Matthew 16:19 (and 18:18), which read this way: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (and vice versa). There! The church officers make a binding decision on earth, and heaven will ratify it. But the passage actually says exactly the opposite. The second verbs in each case ("shall be bound" / "loosed"), are future perfect tenses, properly translated: "shall have been bound / loosed". So that the correct reading is: "Whatever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in heaven". That is, officers of the church on earth must base their decisions on what heaven has already determined. And what would that be? That would be what "Heaven," that is, God, has revealed by the Spirit in His Word, the Scriptures.
But the most important issue concerns salvation. We believe the Bible teaches that the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ and the perfect obedience of Christ, offered to His Father in our behalf and given to us as God's gift in the declaration of justification is all the basis for salvation that a sinner needs. See Romans 3:19-30, Philippians 3:2-9, Galatians 3:10-13, Romans 8:1-3. We believe that we receive this gift only by faith, Ephesians 2:8,9. Good works enter in as the fruit of saving faith, as its outworking in our lives. But the moment I throw myself on the mercy of God trusting in Christ's saving work for me, I am then and there and once and for all justified in God's sight and nothing I do after that in the way of good works can add to what Christ has done or to God's justification.
This has gone on quite long. As I noted at the beginning, your question is very short. Maybe you were looking for something other than what I have given you. But I do want to close with a few clarifications.
"Presbyterian": This is from the Greek word in the NT, presbyter, meaning elder. Presbyterian churches are churches which believe that Christ governs his church through the work of elders, a plurality of elders in each local church, and councils of the elders of the churches in a region or a nation.
Historically the "Presbyterian" churches were churches of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland and England that shared with other Protestant churches on the Continent a common understanding of Bible doctrine that is often referred to as "Reformed" (and historically associated with John Calvin in Geneva, Switzerland). In the 1640s the pastors and teachers of the Church of England met to officially reform the English church in the light of Scripture. Among other things they spent several years writing the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. These have since been the defining documents of Presbyterian churches.
Unfortunately, in the last 100 years or so, many Presbyterian churches have wandered away from their Confession because, at bottom, they were accepting man-made philosophies and ideas as being more true than the Bible. So not all "Presbyterians" believe what I have given you above. But those who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and who still believe - as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does, by God's grace - the summary of its doctrines in the Westminster Confession, would agree with what I have told you.
I hope this is helpful to you. I have not meant in any way to offend, though sometimes stating things starkly can have that effect. I have tried to be clear about the differences, which is what you asked, and I cannot pretend that I do not think truth is on one side and not on the other. You, of course, may speak with equal frankness and I welcome a reply or further questions.
The Lord guide you in His paths of truth and righteousness. (DK)
And?
The old Baltimore catechism question was” Why did God makes us? Ans:: To know him, love him and serve him in this world so we will be happy in the next.
It is the mission of the Church to preach the Gospel to all nations. that they will “know” him. The issue between us is “What exactly is the Gospel?” You say, “what the Bible says it it?” That raises two issues: what is the Bible and who is to say what it means? In “Acts” Luke relates the dialogue between Phillip and the Eunuch from Ethiopia. who Phillip encountered as he was reading Isaiah. Phillip asks:” Do you understand what you are reading?” The Eunuch replies: “ How can I unless I have someone to guide me?” Phillip, starting with the text, then began to tell the Eunuch about the “Good News” of Jesus. But how did Phillip know? Because someone—perhaps the Lord Himself, if he was among the “500” that Paul talks about—more likely the Apostles—had told him.
verdadjusticia, it is good to see that there is at least one among those on this forum who knows everything. And btw, answers to questions does not assure correctness, or the “Truth” in those answers. Then, of course, the Inquisitors were right, because they had the blessings of the Pope and the Bishops.
My New Years resolution is to try to not be creeped out by FReepers who call others “dear” in a condescending, smarmy way.
I’m thinking I will just return the favor by calling that FReeper “Sugarpie HoneyBunches Whooshie Bear”.
What do you think?
Interesting. I did not know that the OPC was officially Zwinglian on the Lord's Supper. This does NOT discribe John Calvin's view, nor that of traditional Presbyterianism.
John Murray described the sacrament of holy Communion as the Holy Spirit removing all distance between us and the Lord Christ. John Calvin insisted the Holy Spirit lifted us up into Christ' presence in Heaven using the bread and wine. This is how certain Calvinists can maintain the doctrine of the "real presence" of Christ, even while calling it the "spiritual presence," not mere barren Zwinglian symbolism & memorial.
I think a Presbyterian who believes Zwingli on this really ought to become a non-denominational evangelical or a Baptist--who are definitely with Zwingli on the Lord's Supper.
An apt reply to “yes dear” might very well be “thanks a lot sweet juicy hot pants!”
As this article admits toward the end, the Presbyterian Church is not what it once was. It was the Reform Church in England and Scotland. Mainly in Scotland, as a matter of fact, since the Presbyterian Church in England (or Chapel, as the Anglicans referred to it) started to decay pretty early, and never really came back in any great numbers.
And in modern times, even the Presbyterian Church in Scotland is a pale shadow of its former self.
The Catholic Church has been going through hard times, too, but nothing like the Presbyterians, especially in England and America. Because the Catholic Church has a sheet anchor to windward, and can use it to recover, but the various Protestant churches lack anything of that kind, so they get pulled in whatever direction their Elders or Pastors choose to take them.
I notice that your ONLY interest seems to be bashing the Catholic Church. Too bad, because it would be more useful if Christians agreed to disagree on some points but agreed to work together to support causes on which we agree, such as right to life, family, and marriage.
I know, strict Calvinists don’t like to DO anything, because God will do it all. Au contraire, God wants us to roll up our sleeves and lend a hand, as far as we are able. Through his saving grace He enables us to to contribute at least a little to His providential plans.
P.S. By a curious coincidence, one of my ancestors on my father’s side was Elder William Brewster. Nothing to do with this thread directly, but I do know what an Elder is.
I willingly, boldly, proudly, and loudly declare that I am a heretic in the view of the Catholic religion...And I wouldn't have it any other way...
It is based on a handful of scattered scriptures taken completely out of context...Your religion is built on religion, not Christianity...
Your argument is non-sensical, as, every group claiming to be Christian also claims to have the best (or only) understanding of truth.
To say Protestant groups haven't agreed on everything, therefore that makes them all false, is like an atheist saying, "All religions for thousands of years have not decided on an definitive answer to ONE SINGLE QUESTION! Therefore they must ALL be false!" That's a statement which I know you'll agree, is ridiculous (even though that's what your typical agnostic/atheist will say...).
I think what gets lost in the whole "Protestantism causes divisions" argument is the plain fact that RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (as most vividly illustrated in the American experience) 'causes' divisions--and the only times and places in history without divisions among Christians, is when and where there was no religious liberty--and heretics were subject to burning at the stake.
Is it a coincidence that most of the world's major cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science, etc.) started in the USA where full religious liberty was finally realized? Until coming to America, most of the larger Protestant Churches were, like the Roman Catholic Church before them, state churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican) and the free churches here(in early America, Methodists and typically various baptistic sects) were persecuted minorities back in Europe.
Historically the only proven alternative to divided Christian groups--is a state enforced official religion (which until the 1500s was Roman Catholicism in western Europe) something which no true American lover of liberty will endorse.
Perhaps we shall just have to disagree. I need not make a convert.
Merciful God has made it clear enough - the plan of redemption is clear, “perspicuous,” if you will.
We are bold to come before the throne (Hebrews) because He has made the way open without the need for the intervention of any other man but Christ. He rent the curtain in the Temple for us to enter the Holy of Holies without another priest.
Again, we will all give an account on an individual basis - no hierarchy will stand with us when our eternity is decided.
Oooo, I think I like yours better!
Some questions Gamecock, what does the Presbyterian variety of belief teach about:
Divorce?
Contraception?
Women in the Ministry?
Homosexual conduct?
Homosexual ‘marriages’?
Don’t forget abortion.
Patience.
Overture 04-66. On Urging the FDA to Make Emergency Contraception Available Over the Counter—From the Presbytery of Baltimore.
The Presbytery of Baltimore overtures the 216th General Assembly (2004) to approve the following resolution (in accordance with General Assembly guidelines “Forming Social Policy” paragraph 4):
Whereas, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its predecessor denominations have frequently and consistently supported the availability of the means of contraception by adopting policy statements of which the following are key:
1959 (UPCUSA): “Urges the repeal of laws prohibiting the availability of contraceptives. ...” (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1959, Part I, p. 385].
1970 (UPCUSA): “Calls for repeal of laws hampering access to contraceptive help and equipment, recognizing the need to maintain proper professional control over the prescription and use of dangerous substances” (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1970, Part I, p. 891).
1971 (PCUS): “Calls for more vigorous, better coordinated and more adequately funded efforts to make available both the information and the means of birth control to all persons in this country” (Minutes, PCUS, 1971, Part I, p. 150).
1992 (PC(USA)): “Churches must ... support full and equal access to contraceptive methods” (Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 371]; and
Whereas, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has similarly urged measures that would reduce the number of abortions:
1983: “We call upon Presbyterians to works for a decrease in the number of problem pregnancies, thereby reducing the number of abortions” (Minutes, 1983, Part I, p. 368); and “[The General Assembly] Affirms the church’s commitment to minimize the incidence of abortion and encourages sexual education and the use of contraception to avoid unintended pregnancies” (Minutes, 1983, Part I, p. 367).
1992: “Our denomination and its member congregations must commit themselves to reduce the overwhelming number of situations in which women choose to abort” (Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 371); and
Whereas, emergency contraception (Plan B, levonorgestrel, manufactured by Women’s Capitol Corporation and to be marketed by Barr Laboratories) and Preven (ethinyl estadiol, manufactured by Gynetics Medical Products, N.V. of Belgium) is presently only available by prescription thus limiting its availability and the timeliness of its use, contrary to the principle of availability as enunciated by previous General Assemblies; and
Whereas, the timely use of emergency contraception can reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, consistent with clearly stated General Assembly policy; and
Whereas, emergency contraception has proven to be safe and reliable and, in December 2003, was recommended for over-the-counter sales by the Nonprescription Drugs and the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and
Whereas, the FDA has announced that it has delayed its decision as to whether it will follow the recommendations of its advisory committees and make emergency contraception available over the counter; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the 216th General Assembly (2004) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) supports the availability of emergency contraception over the counter, without prescription, and does the following:
1. Directs the Stated Clerk to communicate the foregoing position to the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with copies to the chair and ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; the chairs and ranking minority members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Health; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the president.
2. Authorizes and encourages the Presbyterian Washington Office, Health Ministries USA, Women’s Ministries, and Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options, to advocate for over-the-counter availability of emergency contraception, and encourages these entities to educate and inform Presbyterian women, and the society at large, about the availability, safety, and effectiveness of emergency contraception.
3. Encourages middle governing bodies to take appropriate measures to further these goals.
4. Directs that when educational curricula of the PC(USA) that deal with sexuality, reproduction, and contraception are revised, that the then current availability of emergency contraception and the moral and medical implications of its use and possible abuse be included in the revised materials.
Rationale
Women’s health advocates and other supporters of the over-the-counter availability of emergency contraception have feared the politicization of the FDA’s decision on this issue, and the delay recently announced by the FDA suggests that this fear is valid. If, in fact, political factors are likely to be determinative in the matter, then public policy advocacy is appropriate on an issue that should otherwise be resolved on its medical and public health merits.
The overwhelming support by the two advisory committees to the FDA makes it clear that from a medical and public health standpoint, emergency contraception should be more readily available.
The issue is not just the availability of emergency contraception, though that is the immediate concern, but also the education of women, especially young women, regarding its availability, use, and possible abuse. Therefore, the resolution addresses this issue and encourages agencies of the church to address it as well.
http://www.pcusa.org/ga216/business/overtures/ovt0466.htm
Fact is that the pope is NOT nor does he claim to be the final authority on the meaning of the Scripture. Joseph Ratzinger knows his personal limitation, and Benedict XVI knows the limitation of his office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.