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

Ultimately this is just more RC bullying and deflection...

ABSOLUTELY.

And it's more than a LITTLE mystifying that so few of them seem to have any insight into that fact. And, perhaps worse, that they seem indignant that we don't enjoy their bullying and aren't kowtowing in abject submission to THEIR heretical labels etc. The whole edifice seems to be rife with a god-complex. No wonder the multiply so plentifully within the edifice.

I think your? below is quite apt, as well:

Dogma, in any tradition, is just institutional opinion that demands adherence. All creeds, traditions, pronouncements of Councils, church fathers, or dogma are man's interpretation and understanding of the truths of scripture. None of them save or have the authority of the inspired scriptures and ultimately, it will only be whether the individual has trusted Christ alone for salvation that has eternal significance.

I don't know that none of them have the authority of Scripture. I don't know what percentage give proper weight to Scripture. Some do. However, you could be right about the finger frother's cliques hereon.

Of course, in the extremer cases, it (excommunication) is done to protect the Church by making very clear that the behavior or teaching in question is a grave wrong

Ah, yes. Like in the case of, say, Roman Catholic Adolph Hitler.

Oh, wait. My bad. He wasn't excommunicated. Apparently the RCC didn't consider his "behaviour in question" to be "a grave wrong."

In that case "the church" didn't need "protecting." Only the Jews.

Nothing Gnostic about the doctrine of the Assumption. In fact, quite the contrary. Gnostics taught, basically, that spirit is good and matter is evil. So why on earth would a doctrine of the Assumption be pushed by Gnostics?

Gnostics tended also to dismiss the idea of the humanity of Jesus, and stumbled over the idea of transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. They also resisted the idea of a bodily resurrection at the Last Judgment, as promised by Jesus.

The Assumption was not declared a dogma until very late, but its history goes back a long way.

In the eighth century, the Life of one of the Anglo-Saxon missionaries to Germany (in a book of that name published by Sheed & Ward) describes making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, where among other things the saint in question not only visited the places of Jesus’ Birth, Last Supper, Crucifixion, burial, and Resurrection, but also the cave where Mary was said to have been laid before she was assumed into Heaven. Mary’s Assumption was evidently already an old tradition in the Holy Land during that period, one of many oral traditions.

The Assumption was NEVER condemned officially. That simply is not true. It may be true that a condemned heretic mentioned it, but that proves nothing. And clearly no Protestant can say that bodily assumption is impossible to God, since several of the ancient Hebrew prophets were taken up and assumed into Heaven, according to the Bible.

The assumption was an early oral tradition. If heretics picked up the idea and mentioned it, that would hardly indicate that it was untrue. Heretics played with other Christian ideas all the time, and not all that they said was necessarily false—although they were not to be trusted because of their errors and distortions, and so were best avoided. But a man could be a heretic in one thing, or many, yet not necessarily in all.

It seems peculiar (maybe not) that you're encouraging Protestants (even in jest) to call Roman Catholics a pejorative like "filthy" which is clearly against the rules of the FR religion forum.

"Filthy" seems like small potatoes next to painting us as Nazi sympathizers, lunatics, or child molesters, all of which seem to be in vogue here, and completely permissable under "the rules of the FR religion forum".

As far as I've been able to determine, you can call groups of people anything you want as long, as you don't specify individual FReepers.

I'll tell you what seems peculiar to me. When I say "I prefer 'feelthy papist'," SOME Calvinists, the ones who don't answer a simple question without turning it into an attack (I still don't know what the WCF says about lay people baptizing), have to change what I wrote so that that they can make it an excuse to criticize.

So I'm going to contrinue to live with the thinly-veiled insults, attacks and implausibly denied hatred of people who do that kind of thing, and continue to pray for them.

God bless you.

painting us as Nazi sympathizers, lunatics, or child molestersI

I haven't seen anyone here called a "lunatic" nor a "child molester." Please provide some substantiation for that outlandish claim.

And it was Pius XII who was a "Nazi-sympathizer" and he's long dead. As for your current bishop of Rome, Ratzinger was a Hitler Youth. The jury's still out.

Your complaint seems like more defensive, Roman Catholic hyperbole.

None of them save or have the authority of the inspired scriptures and ultimately, it will only be whether the individual has trusted Christ alone for salvation that has eternal significance.

Okay, serious question: What if someone does not believe the statement above?

Note, the question is NOT about the person's trust in Christ alone, but about his thinking about his relationship with Christ, salvation,etc.

” but about his thinking about his relationship with Christ, salvation,etc.”

If he is trusting Christ alone for salvation, that is what eternally matters. In a poor paraphrase of rabbi Hillel, “all else is commentary”. Right now I am wrestling with N.T. Wright’s “new perspective” on justification but it does not affect my standing in Christ.

I did a double take with your “Okay, serious question”. I had to make sure it was really you. How have you been and are you surviving the cold?

re: Read the long posting from the 400’s A.D. from St. Vincent of Lerins, if you can read.”

I appreciate your concern for my eyes. I have found that the thickness of my glass lenses is directly related to my age; but then, when I have trouble reading Kay is gracious enough to read to me.

I should have written "if you can read it", that is, if you have the time. It's from the year 400’s A.D., really amazing what he says. I don't bother reading very long things on my screen, I just copy and paste it to Word and re-size it and print it. Then i can sit back and read it with my yellow highlighter.

Thanks for asking. I have basically been coughing since around November 10th. I finally ordered a vaporizer thingy, since they don't think I have consumption, whooping cough, or anything else. It's kind of tiring and my cough muscles hurt.

Tra la.

My question is one that interests me. The grace of faith seems to, what, infect us slowly. I mean we have moments of complete trust, and then moments of doubt and worry and all the rest. And our thinking so easily goes off the rails.

So I guess it's good to pray for more or deeper or somehow mo' better faith. That itself is an act of faith.

It was an error the way that I wrote it. The person that i sent it to didn't take it as you did. I didn't send it to you, you just happened to be a cc. on the other persons quote and I didn't notice it.

I assume that your GED quote is meant as a joke. Maybe you should come up with other picture to show lack of intelligence, since I know quite a few entrepreneurs that only had a GED or not even that, and they are now worth millions. I personally knew one, that had a ton of PHd’s working for him.

I differentiate "Catholic" from "Roman Catholic" ...

First, thank you for making an honest attempt at trying to make linguistic distinctions and be non-offensive about it. Discussion is not possible without it.

I would like to comment on your terms, with the hope that we can begin to come to some sort of consensus on what to use.

"Catholic" refers to the Church Universal -- i.e., all those who place their faith in Christ whom the Lord has saved.

Catholics (i.e. "Roman Catholics" - I'll get to that term in a moment) would agree that speaking of the Catholic Church refers to the Church Universal, but there is a disagreement as to what that "Church Universal" is.

To summarize the matter (though we could continue to discuss it in depth if it seems useful) the Catholics would consider members of the Orthodox, Coptic, Protestant and other separated churches to be part of the "catholic church" - that is, they are baptized believers (most of whom even hold to the theological judgments of at least the first several Ecumenical Councils), but not part of the Catholic Church, because they do not hold to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.

To refer to the Catholic Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" is usually understood in context, but is not always an accurate description for the Catholic Church, which contains numerous Eastern Rites as well as the Latin (Roman) Rite. And the term "Roman Catholic" itself was a term of derision used in post-reformation England (so that Anglicans, considering themselves "English Catholics" could distinguish themselves from the "Roman" or "Romish" Catholics) - obviously the term no longer has that stigma in most cases.

To speak of the Roman Pontiff is accurate, because he is the Bishop of Rome, even though he is the head of the entire Catholic Church, not only the Latin Rite.

I would propose that the most accurate differentiations would be to use "catholic" and "Catholic" as opposed to "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" as you described.

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