Catholic vs. Presbyterian

Could you tell me the difference between the Presbyterian church and the Catholic Church.

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.

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.

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:

Whatever the tradition and councils have given us is what we do in public worship.

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:

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.

(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.

About Q&A

What is taught in the book, De Transitu Virginia Mariae Liber?

Fact: The De Transitu Virginia Mariae Liber, written in the 3rd or 4th century, is the ORIGIN of the teaching of the assumption of Mary.

Fact: No one within the church taught this doctrine for six centuries, and those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by Pope Gelasius as heretical. As a fact of history, the Transitus writings are THE SOURCE of the teaching of the assumption of Mary.

Fact: AT THE TIME this Transitus teaching originated, the Church regarded it as heresy. Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary) and its author (in addition to the other writings listed and their authors, AND THEIR TEACHINGS, and THE ADHERENTS TO THOSE TEACHINGS) were condemned by Pope Gelasius as heretical. And lest you doubt the attribution of the decree to Pope Gelasius, the entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas.

A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES. ,
Author: Smith, William, Sir, 1813-1893
Volume: 2
Subject: Christian antiquities -- Dictionaries; Ecclesiastical history -- Dictionaries
Publisher: Boston, Little
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Call number: AFA-0217
Digitizing sponsor: MSN
Book contributor: Robarts - University of Toronto
Collection: toronto

pp 1142, 1143:

In the 3rd or 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of St. Mary, called De Transitu Virginia Mariae Liber. The book exists still, and may be found in the Dibliotheca Patrum Maxima (torn. ii. pt. ii. p. 212). The legend contained in it relates how St. Mary, after her Son's death, went and lived at Bethlehem for twenty-one years, after which time an angel appeared to her, and told her that her soul should be taken from her body. So she was wafted on a cloud to Jerusalem, and the apostles, who had been miraculously gathered together, carried her to Gethsemane, and there her soul was taken up into Paradise by Gabriel. Then the apostles bore her body to the Valley of Jehosha- phat, and laid it in a new tomb ; and suddenly by the side of the tomb appeared her son Christ, who raised up her body lest it should see cor- ruption, and reuniting it with her soul, which Michael brought back from Paradise, had her conveyed by angels to heaven.
It will be seen that the L&er de Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesias- ticis et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemo- rate it ? In the following manner :
In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the 0eoT(taos an unin- tended but very noticeable result of the Nes- torian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave a strong impulse to what became the Wor- ship of St. Mary. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later), (1) the Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions
d Charles the Great's Cupitulare, after recounting the festivals, says : "l)e Assumptions Sanctae Mariae intei- rogandum relinquimus." The treatise De Assumptitrne II. )/. Virginis, attributed to St. Augustine and bound up with his works (torn. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne) has been thought to have been a reply by one of Charles's bishops to his inquiry on the subject, as it begins, " Ad interro- gata de Virginis et. Matris Domini resolution temporal! et assumptione ptrenni quid intelligam responsurus."
MARY
of heretics came to be attributed by one (" otio- sus quispiam," says Baroiiius) to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle ; (2) a letter suggesting the possibility of the Assump- tion was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptions B. Virginis, Op. torn. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706); (3) a treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. torn. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne) ; (4) two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. torn. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed. Ben. Paris, 1698) ; (5) an insertion was made in Eusebius's Chronicle that " in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them." Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augus- tine, of Jerome, was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as here- tical. For the first person within the church who held and taught it was Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem (if a homily attributed to John Damascene containing a quotation from " the Euthymiac history" (Op. torn. ii. p. 880, Venice, 1748) be for the moment considered genuine), who (according to this statement) on Marcian and Pulcheria's sending to him for information as to St. Mary's sepulchre, replied to them by narrating a shortened version of the De Transitu legend as " a most ancient and true tradition." The second person within the church who taught it (or the first, if the homily attributed to John Damascene relating the above tale of Juvenal be spurious, as it almost certainly is) was Gre- gory of Tours, A.D. 590, who in his De Gloria Martyrum (lib. i. c. 4) writes as follows : " When Blessed Mary had finished the course of this life, and was now called away from the world, all the apostles were gathered together at her house from all parts of the world; and when they heard that she was to be taken away they watched with her, and behold ! the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and taking her soul, gave it to Michael the Archangel, and went away. In the morning the apostles took up her body with the bed, and placed it in a monument, and watched it, waiting for the coming of the Lord. And behold ! a second time the Lord appeared, and commanded her to be taken up and carried in a cloud to Paradise, where now, having re- sumed her soul, she enjoys the never-ending blessings of eternity, rejoicing with her elect." The Abbe' Migne points out in a note that " what Gregory here relates of the death of the Blessed Virgin and its attendant circumstances he un- doubtedly drew (procul dxbio hausit) from the Pseudo-Melito's Liber de Transitu B. Mariae, which is classed among apocryphal books bj pope Gelasius." He adds that this account, with the circumstances related by Gregory, were soon after introduced into the Gallican Liturgy. It is very seldom that we are able to
MARY
1143
trace a tale from its birth onwards so clearly and unmistakably as this. It is demonstrable that the Gnostic legend passed into the church through Gregory or Juvenal, and so became an ac- cepted tradition within it. The next writers on the subject are Andrew of Crete, who is sup- posed to have lived about A.D. 635 ; Hildephonsus of Toledo, A.D. 657 ; and John of Damascus, who lived about A.D. 730, if writings attributed to any of them are genuine, which is quite doubt- ful. Pope Benedict XIV. says naively that " the most ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church are silent as to the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin, but the fathers of the middle and latest ages, both Greeks and Latins, relate it in the distinctest terms " (De Fest. Assumpt. apud Migne, Thcol. Curs. Compl. torn. xxvi. p. 144, Paris, 1842). It was under the shadow of the names of Gregory of Tours and of these " fathers of the middle and latest ages, Greek and Latin," that the De Transitu legend became accepted as a catholic tradition (see Alban Butler, Lives of the Saints, Aug. 15).
The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows : It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary's death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on the part of accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus come to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century."
[emphasis mine]

The decree of Pope Gelasius Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis lists Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary) along with other listed apocryphal writings as heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble

Haec et omnia his similia, quae Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paulus etiam Samosatenus, Photinus, et Bonosus, et qui simili errore defecerunt; Montanus quoque cum suis obscenissimis sequacibus, Apollinaris, Valentinus, sive Manichaeus, Faustus, Africanus, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Callistus, Donatus, Eustathius, Jovinianus, Pelagius, Julianus Eclanensis, Coelestinus [al. Coelestius], Maximinus [al. Maximianus], Priscillianus ab Hispania, Nestorius Constantinopolitanus, Maximus Unicus, Lampetius [al. Lapicius], Dioscorus, Eutyches, Petrus, et alius Petrus, e quibus unus Alexandriam, alius Antiochiam maculavit; Acacius Constantinopolitanus cum consortibus [al. sociis] suis; nec non et omnes haeresiarchae, eorumque discipuli, sive schismatici, docuerunt vel conscripserunt quorum nomina minime retinentur; non solum repudiata, verum etiam ab omni Romana catholica et apostolica Ecclesia eliminata, atque cum suis auctoribus auctorumque sequacibus sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata.

This entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas around A.D. 520.

Cordially,

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.

Catholic vs. Presbyterian

Question:

Answer:

About Q&A