I bet blue-duncan can read every word on your G.E.D.
Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
Could you tell me the difference between the Presbyterian church and the Catholic Church.
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)
I bet blue-duncan can read every word on your G.E.D.
Amen!
"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I
No. Both denominations believe in the Triune God; both hold the Scriptures as their rule of faith and practice; and as esquirette pointed out, both subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Lol. I know what you mean. But they make it fairly easy, so I nap between comments. 8~)
An just who exactly considers it a slur?
Perhaps the ROMAN Catholic Dioceses of Great Britan?
And then there is the ROMAN Catholic Diocese of Albany! By all means stay away from Albany if you think the term Roman Catholic is a slur!
Or maybe you should contact the The ROMAN Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. (scroll all the way to the bottom) Maybe he doesn't know that the name Roman Catholic is a slur!
Of course, being in Missouri you may want to start your crusade a bit closer to home, perhaps with the the priest at All Saints ROMAN Catholic Church or even at the Saint Ferdinand ROMAN Catholic Church.
I know! All of these self described Roman Catholics didn't get the memo from Rome telling them that that the term Roman Catholic is a slur! May you should go right to the top and address the issue with the Pope himself!
The belief that the Holy Spirit speaks through the RC Church magisterium is found no where in scripture, there is no infallible source for that belief but the mouths of those claiming it for themselves. It is a dogma made up of whole cloth (or should that be hole cloth?) where men declare it so.
To take that belief seriously is your version of faith alone (in men alone) or Sola Ecclesia Romanus
I prefer to set my belief on the Rock that is Christ..
Darn. I'm not sure that's what I did.
I think sometimes one can get clues from the most astonishing places. In Rudyard Kipling's Kim the protagonist is taken under the care of a Catholic priest for a while. It's been a long time since I read the book, but something happens, like Kim has to go to school and the priest wants to maintain his religious affiliation. He says something like "he's a Catholic, no, better say 'Roman Catholic' or ... [the Anglicans will try to fudge it somehow]" As I say, it's been a long time, and it's an assumption that Kipling knew what he was talking about. But I think we can take it as reliable because it doesn't move the plot, it's a detail added to give plausibility and atmosphere.
If that line of thought is right, then we can see "Roman Catholic" as something we grudgingly accept but don't think is correct.
And here's another aspect of this: Most of what Protestants and other adversaries get on our case and in our face about are not ROMAN (or "Latin Rite") things, specifically. The contentions are about matters common to all in communion with the Holy See. It's not the "Latin Rite" but the Catholic teaching that is the problem - because there is no "Latin Rite" teaching.)
I also note that there are some who find the idea of calling us "Catholic" somehow offensive. And the other day one of our adversaries told me he found "protestant" offensive!
I'm thinking it might be good to lighten up, and, as I said, personally I prefer "feelthy papist." It's easy to say, and it doesn't require a theological concession of any kind, unless you count silliness a concession.
I am not competent to give an official answer. But I'll bet a dime no official would call me on it.
I'm thinking maybe you are thinking of the whole heretic barbecue thing. I don't know what to say about that except to say we tend to discourage that these days. And usually it was done by the secular folks, with admittedly varying levels of support from the ecclesiastical folks.
Then there's excommunication, as Bishop Tobin of the Church of Providence recently did to that Kennedy thug, and as many of us wish would be done to Stretch Pelousy. Excommunication is, I believe, usually thought of as "medicinal." Of course, in the extremer cases, it is done to protect the Church by making very clear that the behavior or teaching in question is a grave wrong.
But also, we hold that to receive the Blessed Sacrament while on is in a state of mortal sin is perilous. So IF somebody like Stretch has been told by competent authority more than once that she is misrepresenting Catholic thought and doing and supporting stuff that is REALLY bad,
AND
IF she persists, now advisedly, in the doing and the teaching,
THEN for HER good, somebody, some bishop somewhere with something resembling a spine (but, it would have to be HER bishop, really, and I suppose she "belongs" to San Francisco) has got to say, "Stretch, honey, no sacrament for you until you straighten up and show me you've straightened up.
I think part of the problem with actually doing this is that there are priests who wouldn't mind defying their bishop and supporting Stretch. So it comes down to how big a fight the bishop is ready to have.
IMHO the longer the bishops dither, the more they seem to say to the moral heretics that it's really okay. That's unfair to them and IMHO bad pastoring.
But it's not my job so I don't know all the issues.
You just made my day!
Hey, and back at you.
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.
Now to your statement; “Protestants just have their own opinions. Any unlearned person no matter his ignorance and lack of education, even if he can't read, is still his own authority and above all of those Church Fathers, above even their own Protestant denominations founders.” That is true for all faiths as you pointed out in the examples of Augustine and Aquinas. 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.
Don’t you have to show (or did you and I missed it) that the book (brief and exotic - I just skimmed “The Assumption of the Virgin — Latin Narrative of Pseudo-Melito”) was condemend BECAUSE of its teaching on the assumption? There’s plenty to condemn in that book even if one believes the Assumption.
Pretty smart guy!
I suppose it's because so many RC's are unfamiliar with Evangelical churches that it's hard for them to imagine that Spirit filled Christians don't blindly follow their clergy. Instead, what you will find is Christians searching the Scriptures making sure what their pastors say is found in them. They call this a heresy of personal interpretation. I'm sure part of that is because independent thinking is not smiled on.
My wife was RC. She was surprised Baptists bring Bibles to church. Now she understands, and yes I'm going to have to get her a new one soon. Her Bible is getting worn out.
As far as the RCC goes at best it is a co-belligerant on some social issues, but not an ally. It is to autocratic and liberal in it's structure and beliefs. Look at how upset RC posters get with Christians who say the Bible should be the rule of our faith. FWIW, I think where they really fell apart was when they decided it was better to kill the Donatists then recognize the validity of their disgust with traitors to the faith.
Um, while celibacy and chastity are different, celibacy includes chastity. Celibacy includes renouncing both marriage and sex (including sexual thoughts).
A married person who has sex with his or her spouse is chaste, but not celibate. An unmarried person (e.g., priest) who has sex with anyone is neither chaste nor celibate.
"Catholic" refers to the Church Universal -- i.e., all those who place their faith in Christ whom the Lord has saved. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I believe in "the holy catholic church," for example.
"Roman Catholic" refers to those who find doctrinal clarity with the Vatican.
Neither term is offensive; it just brings clarity to use the more specific terms.
As I've written before here, the Vatican itself refers to "The Roman Pontiff" and the "Roman Church." The Vatican itself. If it's good enough for the Vatican, why would it not be good enough for those who follow its leadership?
When was that?
The Church Herself refers to Herself as the Catholic Church.
Oh Jeez! They call the Pope that because he is the bishop of Rome, for crying out loud. He is not MY bishop, he is my Pope. MY bishop is the Bishop of Richmond.
The history of the pontiff thing has been gone over before. I think before Xty became legal there was a sort of Chief Mojo Guy in Rome who was the pontifex maximus. So when the successor to the emperors made Xty the official religion, the Bishop of Rome got the title.
This is just to show that what they call the POPE doesn't really show anything.
I'd have to know the context of their saying "the Roman Church" before I could assess it one way or another.
"Roman Catholic" refers to those who find doctrinal clarity with the Vatican.
Well, it doesn't bother me, but it would bother some Maronite and Byzantine Catholics who "find doctrinal clarity with the Vatican" but consider themselves NOT ROMAN in anyway.
I used to be an Episcopalian. I grew up on the sort of vaguely visible maybe kind of Church. I get the "Catholic but not Roman Catholic" thinking. In fact one my Church history profs said, "We think we're Catholic and the Pope isn't!"
And we teach that all the Baptized are members of the Church. That's why while we loosely talk about "conversion" and such, the technically appropriate way to talk about a baptized person "becoming a Catholic" is "entering full communion." The Baptized are, in our view, already in incomplete communion.
why would it not be good enough for those who follow its leadership?It only bugs me because it does not reflect our thinking about what we are. Yeah I'm Latin Rite. Big woop. What matters to me is that I am in Full Communion with the (what we call) Catholic Church.
The ONLY value I can see in all this back and forth is that maybe just maybe somebody will get that we have a definite ecclesiology which differs importantly from that of most Protestants.
Amen!
If RC's understood that they'd be Protestants.
de Transitu may be the earliest source for the Assumption in Latin, but what difference should that make?
As you probably know, it only takes one heresy for a document to be condemned. Scanning quickly through de Transitu (at the link), I can spot at least two.
One is that the document has Jesus saying that Mary is worthy to be assumed bodily because she never had sexual intercourse. That's absolutely false and heretical.
Another is that the document speaks of Mary's soul and body being taken to heaven separately, while Mary's body is animated and able to speak while her soul is separated from it. That's not possible either.
So, yes, de Transitu appears to have been justly condemned, not because it taught the Assumption, but in spite of it.
Apparently outside FR, most people didn't get the memo. Ultimately this is just more RC bullying and deflection...
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.