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

From the noted sage Emo Philips--"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off."

The venom surprises me--we have far more in common than not--why can't we rejoice where we are alike, seek common ground where possible and not worry about the minutiae?...I had a co-worker today tell me that I was heretic because I prayed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and HE prayed to Jesus Christ...Again, minutiae--a difference without meaning.

Mad Dawg wrote: Will you at least grant that your position tends to the more rigorist side?

verdadjusticia responds: I’m afraid that any position other than “all who are nice are saved” is rigorist today. That is why no one is too worried about their standing as far as salvation is concerned, everyone but Adolph Hitler is in Heaven, and to some, even he is in heaven.

Mad Dawg wrote:
I think a lot of ignorance is a good deal more invincible than people consider,

verdadjusticia responds:

“Invincible ignorance” has no dogmatic status. I would not bank my salvation on it. I would not even bank my salvation
on so-called “baptism of desire”. God can keep anyone alive long enough to convert them. God can get the water to anyone. No one dies by “accident”. Catholics need to teach dogma, not un-infallible theories.

Mad Dawg wrote:
re: and that some of the resistance to the Church is because of our failings.

verdadjusticia:
True. However, anyone of good will get’s past that, and becomes a better Catholic than those bad examples. Any baby can get baptized and be called a Catholic in adulthood. That means nothing. Hitler was a baptized Catholic.

Mad Dawg wrote:
re: my childhood best friend was thoroughly indoctrinated against the Catholic Church, to the point where I would think it would take therapy before he would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively.

Of myy greater family, like 300 people, all cradle Catholics, I doubt that 20 go to mass every Sunday.I too “would think it would take therapy before they would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively”.

We should forget non-Catholics till you convert Catholics. In order of priority:

1) convert ourself (pornography, fornication, no contraceptives, divorce, sins. Go to mass and confession.)

2)convert our children and wives to behave as #1

3) convert our parents nad close relatives

4) convert our greater family

Do the above and the world will convert to our good VISIBLE example.

Forget about making excuses for why others don’t convert and how they’ll be saved outside of the Church. If I not not gamble my salvation on fallible theories like invincible ignorance and baptism of desire, why would I teach that to anyone else? Till Invincible ignorance and baptism of desire become infallible defined, I’ll stick with dogma.

The left side of your mouth said ...just as the Catholic definition states. The right side of your mouth said I have yet to hear what the Catholic Church has to say. There's a rather severe consistency problem there.

Hmmmmm....I guess my statement should have read "I have yet to hear what the Catholics have to say.

I believe that somewhere way back (#385) someone pointed out the Catholic Church's definition of the inspired works of God from New Advent. That definition gave inspiration as ...Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term. This encyclopedia goes on to explain:

inspiration is nothing else but the biblical text itself

Without it a book, even if it had been inspired by God, could not become canonical;

In other words, if we recognized right now an inspired work of God, it can't be considered inspired because the Church says its not. So yes, I have heard what the Catholic Church has to say on inspiration; without the Church whatever God has to say is rubbish. It also makes one wonder if the Church can deem something as inspired that God has not deemed.

Care to comment on the nuiances of the logic of the Catholic encyclopedia than on my terms?

I do not know if this will be satisfactory, but rather than debating our way through the Catholic Encyclopedia's explanations and/or logic, I would direct your attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which provided by the Church to explain Catholic Teaching on all matters of faith. Specifically,

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."⁴⁰ Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".⁴¹
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."⁴²
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."⁴³
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."⁴⁴

I sincerely hope this advances your understanding of Catholic teaching on the topic.

The entire segment of the Catechism excerpted here can be found at this link.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

According to your Catechism, #82 states rather clearly that not all revealed truths come from the holy Scriptures. This, of course, negates anything special about the scriptures. It also raises the question of how you can determine "tradition" to be inspired. As I stated earlier, this isn't any different than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses who uses extra-biblical material to boaster their claims.

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

A ) It does not say the Roman Catholic church , there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church there was simply the catholic church.

B) What does that scripture REALLY mean, (as opposed to the Vatican reading of it?)

GATES are not an OFFENSIVE weapon, one puts up GATES to keep people OUT or IN
You do not bring gates to FIGHT a battle, you put up gates TO KEEP THE WAR OUTSIDE YOUR PROPERTY.

Reading this verse with the correct definition of gates,this verse means that believers will storm Hell with the real weapons of our warfare

2Cr 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds (Gates) 1) a castle, stronghold, fortress, fastness
2) anything on which one reliesand every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The elect / the saved are to storm the gates of hell with the weapons that God has given us AND WE WILL PREVAIL

Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

One more time, there is no supportive scripture to the very foundational doctrines of the Roman church

There is no scripture support for the priesthood in the new testament church, no apostolic succession, no papacy , no transfer of the infallibility of God to the church or any man .

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