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

I find it very interesting that of the over 40 posts, only about 1.5 actually are a discussion about the article. Almost all others are just to launch attacks for what they perceive to be someone’s motives or beliefs without ever addressing the article. Really, only one does. The other quotes a line but uses it to launch a mini attack. Very telling. Very..

I think it speaks a lot of each individual as to what/who they choose to spend their energies defending —an organization, or the person of Christ Jesus and His Truth, He who is the Word made flesh.

Didn't Martin Luther "change things" when he put the little word "alone" after faith which has caused an enormous amount of bickering and confusion (however, he eliminated the Eucharistic power of Christ, so maybe ML's actions were based partly on that -- works became too tough without being "fed" by the literal Jesus -- so dump them?).

In regard to Mary as The Immaculate Conception, please read about St. Catherine Laboure and St. Bernadette at Lourdes. Is there any better proof than Mary herself saying, "I am the Immaculate Conception"?

And as far as Christ being symbolic in the Eucharist, please see the Miracle of Lanciano. Christ said "This is my body," not "This is a symbol of my body." And Lanciano backs up His words nicely. The Word takes you just so far; then His Flesh must be included if you are going to win any fierce battles in life ... in an effort to become a betterment to the world, and not bitter.

Matchett-PI wrote:
Each Catholic has his own beliefs, each Catholic is his own church of one:

Monday, November 10, 2008
Biden’s bishop

On Nov. 4, one of Bishop William Francis Malooly’s parishioners, Joe Biden, was elected the nation’s first Catholic vice president. With Biden’s support for some legalization of abortion, U.S. Catholics.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Verdadjusticia ANSWERS:

Joe Biden, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, child molesting clerics are/were Catholic in name only. They have lost the Faith, just like all other falset Catholics who do as they please with their morals. They have become Protestants picking and choosing what they like and disregarding what they don't like.

The difference is that the Catholic Church has doctrines which are unchangeable, and thus, false Catholics like those have never been able to change the Church in 2000 years. False Catholics, reprobates like those above, come and go, but the Church has not changed it's doctrines.

The difference with Protestants is that Protestant people just like the above, started to daily change their church the day after Luther revolted, they revolted against Luther, and kept doing it over and over, till today there are no doctrines in Protestantism, each Protestant is his own church of one.

The difference is in adherence the doctrines, it is not about the people that you see around you that call themselves Catholic. Anyone that was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant can “call” themselves Catholic. Calling oneself Catholic means nothing.

Gamecock wrote:
I think it speaks a lot of each individual as to what/who they choose to spend their energies defending —an organization, or the person of Christ Jesus and His Truth, He who is the Word made flesh.

verdadjusticia ANSWERS:
That is your personal opinion of one. Christ Jesus and His truth NOT! You are giving your own opinions and calling them truth.

The Catholic Church in 2000 years has confronted and decided pretty much every question that one could come up with.

So-called Protestantism (which is not a religion or an organization)has not decided on an definitive answer to ONE SINGLE QUESTION! In almost 500 years it still has not even decided if Jesus Christ is God, or if you must be baptized to be saved.

CORRECTION:

Lupe wrote:
I think it speaks a lot of each individual as to what/who they choose to spend their energies defending —an organization, or the person of Christ Jesus and His Truth, He who is the Word made flesh.

verdadjusticia ANSWERS:
That is your personal opinion of one. Christ Jesus and His truth NOT! You are giving your own opinions and calling them truth.

The Catholic Church in 2000 years has confronted and decided pretty much every question that one could come up with.

Actually the comment was quite relevant.

When Jesus responded to the authorities who questioned His diety, He was answering them by using their own words (”Thou has said it.”), though they did not believe in the truth of what they had said.

When I quoted Jesus words, it was in the same context and meaning. The poster had essentially quoted an older version of the Westminster Confession which acknowledges that Christ is the only head of the Church, and the papacy is antichrist.

When the poster stated that I had borne false witness, I succinctly explained the context, which was entirely on point.

I no more bore false witness than did Matthew.

The AP article above discusses the raw numbers from three companies that insure the majority of Protestant Churches in America (Church Mutual, Guide One, and Brotherhood Mutual), and typically receive 260 reports/yr of people under 18 being sexually abused. Compare that with ~ 228 accusations/yr against Catholic clerics since 1950 (documented abuse records).

The Roman church has a long history of pedophilia.
It is called castrati
In Constantinople around 400 AD the empress Aelia Eudoxia had a eunuch choir-master,

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

“The truth can be disappointing to some and seem like insults. See the chart above, by Presbyterians, demonstrating the fractured nature of Presbyterianism.”
_________________________________________________

All of those Presbyterian groups respect and adhere to the Westminster Confession, just as all the RC groups adhere to and respect the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There is no truth value in epithets, stating simply that a group is ‘fractured,’ particularly when it is not the whole truth to so state.

yet your posts are directed exclusively at just one of them.

Wrong.

I have posted about the other denominations in the past. It's just that the Roman Catholic church tends to have more headlines.

As far a my "title", posting rules on FR require when posting from other sources that we maintain the original title.

“Well, “the Church” is not going to be judged collectively,nor is Israel, not at least according to the Bible. Rather, it is we who shall be judged.”
___________________________________________________

This is precisely my point. As has been said of the legal business:

“A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.”

We are to stand and give an account on our own, not with the church giving account for us. We must know where we stand with the ultimate Judge.

I find it very interesting that of the over 40 posts, only about 1.5 actually are a discussion about the article.

And this surprises you?

Do you actually think what's in the article is more important than the oh so provacative title? The article could be about different styles of pews in Catholic and Presbyterian churches and it wouldn't change the content of the thread one bit.

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