Catholic vs. Presbyterian

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[Gamecock]

Catholic vs. Presbyterian

Question:

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

Answer:

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)

About Q&A

[blue-duncan]

“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.”

Ah, the “mustard seed” principle. Your profound observation “grace of faith” I think answers some of your question. It is not us holding onto God but His holding onto us that saves. Faith is His gift, not of our making or we would muck it up royally.

You don’t have the animals now do you? Allergies can build up, especially with nosey goats and sheep.
You

[verdadjusticia]

The main punishment for heretics is in the afterlife. The new Testament tells us to separate yourself from them, and that God will condemn them according to how many they sent to perdition for their false teachings.

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their riotousness, through whom the
way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment: 5 And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. 6 And reducing the cities of the Sodomites
and of the Gomorrhites into ashes.... 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. 22 For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2Peter 2)

Here is a decree from the Church saying basically the same as 2 Peter 2):

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

[Dr. Eckleburg]

He was born, baptized and raised as a Roman Catholic. He was an altar boy. He never renounced his Roman Catholicism. Most of his henchmen were Roman Catholics. His girlfriend/niece was a Roman Catholic. And he gave a pass to the Roman Catholic church leading up to and during during the war.

And he was never excommunicated.

Is it so difficult for Rome to say it made a mistake?

[Titanites]

He was born, baptized and raised as a Roman Catholic. He was an altar boy. He never renounced his Roman Catholicism.

Hitler abandoned the Catholic faith in his youth. By your reasoning, the Catholic Church is responsible for excommunicating women pastors in the Presbyterian churches.

If Hitler was still Catholic, he was excommunicated ipso facto under 2 provisions in the Canon Law of the Church. Additionally in February 1931, the German bishops meeting in conferences in Fulda and Freising excommunicated Nazi leaders and activists. That includes Hitler.

[Mad Dawg]

It is the custom of some to verbigerate and perseverate around fantastic and baseless charges. These people neither speak nor seek the truth. What they want is the reaction and control over the flow of the conversation.

Verb. sap.

[wagglebee]

And do not forget that His Holiness, Pope Pius XII explicitely supported this excommunication.

[GCC Catholic]

Seem like more RC usurpation of the language.

Hardly, though I did give justification for my terms. Besides, I can't force you to use it.

How about "christian" for Roman Catholics" and "Christian" for Protestants?

On what grounds? Catholics and Protestants consider each other to be Christian.

[Titanites]

I'm not sure verbigerate is correct, because I don't think there's any effort expended to cease the repetition, but I understand what you are saying.

The more they repeat the untruths, the more opportunity we have to set the facts straight and post the truth for all to see.

[Mad Dawg]

True enough. I didn’t know about Fulda and Freising, so </i>I</i> learned from it.

[GCC Catholic]

Same here. That’s a nice little fact to keep in one’s pocket.

[Petronski]

The Repulsive Calvinist Cult likes to repeat lies about the Catholic Church and Ven. Pope Pius XII because they need to distract us from the Calvinist roots of fascism (and globalism).

[Petronski]

You are doubly false.

[wagglebee]

Catholics and Protestants consider each other to be Christian.

This is true; HOWEVER, there is a small group of anti-Catholic FReepers who claim to be Christian whose actions makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to consider them Christians.

And lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am NOT referring to Protestants who simply oppose Catholic teachings. I am speaking of a small group of bigots who persist in the spreading of what they know to be lies or, in some cases, falsehoods that they themselves have fabricated. These people are, despite their knowledge of Scripture, minions of Satan.

[wagglebee]

Don’t forget segregationism.

[verdadjusticia]

From: Radio Replies Fathers Rumble and Carty 2nd Volume

361. What assurance did Christ give that His Church would be preserved from error?
When He said, “I will build my Church,” He also said that “the gates of hell
would never prevail against it.” Matt. XVI., 18, But the forces of evil and errror would have prevailed against the Church had she not been rendered infallible. Again, He commanded men to hear the Church under pain of damnation. He sent the Church to teach in His name, and said, “He who hears you hears me.” Lk. X., 16. And again, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not, shall he condemned.” Mk. XVI., 16. He could not order us to believe the Church, with our very salvation at stake, yet not guarantee His Church against the possibility of leading us into disastrous errors quite opposed to His teachings. Moreover when He commissioned the Church to go and to teach all nations, He promised to be with her all days till the end of the world (Matt. XXVIII., 20), and He sent the Holy Spirit to keep her as the “pillar and ground of truth.” All this forbids the possibility of a departure from the revealed truth; or, in other words, constitutes pledge of perpetual infallibility.

Radio Replies Fathers Rumble and Carty 3rd Volume

230. QUESTION: It is the Catholic claim to infallibility that is the trouble. That makes her hard on others as noninfallible Churches need never be.

ANSWER: The Catholic Church is not hard on others. She is uncompromising. With this reservation, I admit that her exclusiveness is due to her infallibility. She denies that men have the right to dispute any truth revealed by Christ. That necessarily follows from her doctrine that Christ is God. Sabatier, a French Protestant, admitted straight out that an indisputable religious truth supposes an infallible Church. He proved that no Church could maintain any definite doctrines unless it were infallible, and accepted as infallible. And he showed that psychologically, socially, and in actual fact, doctrinal chaos and unbelief must result without the safeguard of a final living authority. He himself refused to accept any infallible Church, so gave up believing that any indisputable truth can be known. In other words, he gave up Protestantism for Modernism. deriving all real value to statements of belief issued by any Church, whether Catholic or Protestant.

[Petronski]

Let's see: the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was a racist segregationist, and one of their followers hereon mocks Rabbi Dalin as a "house Jew" and in general expresses a distaste for Joooo history. Seems like a good fit.

At the same time, their focus on KGB lies about Ven. Pius XII only serves to exonerate by omission Hitler’s Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who thought the Holocaust was too slow and inefficient.

[Petronski]

You have a lot of chutzpah mocking someone else’s education.

You’re the one who dismissed the preeminent WWII historian in the world, Sir Martin Gilbert, as some Joooooo who agrees with Rome.

[wagglebee]

At the same time, their focus on KGB lies about Ven. Pius XII only serves to exonerate by omission Hitler’s Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who thought the Holocaust was too slow and inefficient.

Exactly, whatever their protestations to the contrary, they are nothing more than apologists for Nazism, communism and Islamofascism.

[wagglebee]

In addition to his scholarship of World War II and the Holocaust in specific, Sir Martin Gilbert is the world’s undisputed expert on Sir Winston Churchill.

[verdadjusticia]

RnMomof7 WROTE:
The belief that the Holy Spirit speaks through the RC Church magisterium is found no where in scripture

verdadjusticia RESPONDS:

I showed you where it is in scripture by a separate posting. Now I bounce it back to you; your belief in “bible only” is found no where in scripture!

1) Sola scripture is not taught in the Sacred Scriptures.

2) Sola scriptura is an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question, in as much as the canonical scriptures never identify what is and what is not Scripture.

3) Sola scriptura was not believed by anybody until the Reformation, and is thus a tradition of man, condemned by our Divine Lord Jesus Christ.

4) The Sacred Scriptures teach that oral tradition is a source of revelation.

5) The Sacred Scriptures show the Catholic system of authority.

6) The writings of the earliest Christians show the Catholic system of authority.