The two major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism

Every Protestant denomination is a cell of the Church, even if it came from another cell and that cell came from some other cell, and so on and so forth, to the Reformation. Every domination, therefore, has as its founder a man, not the God-Man, Who had founded the Church. Some believe Jesus founded te denomination through their founder, but this belief has no basis in Scripture, wherein God’s Word clearly states He Himself will build His Church. So Jesus is the Founder of the Church, and man is the founder of every other church and denomination. God founded His Church, and men, thinking themselves His Equal, founded theirs. Only God could found the Church, too, because only God could die on the Cross and establish a new Covenant between Himself and His creatures; no man could ever do this, so to found a new people of God is to attempt to take the Lord’s Throne. To reiterate, Christ founded the Church, and waywards founded every other one.

The other major difference is that the Church has not changed, while every denomination and church has since its founding. This is not significent until you remember Scriptures: The Church is Christ’s Body. Those who disbelief the Eucharist, disbelieve also these words, calling them metaphorical, just as they call the Eucharist a symbol, but those who have studed the Scriptures know otherwise. The Church is His Body, and Christ is God and Man. God cannot change. So the Church cannot change in faith, worship, or communion, though she can lose some members to Hell and adopt new displines and traditions to better serve God and man. The Church preserves, though some of her members are lost and she sometimes gets new ornaments and clothing to please her Spouse. But every other church and denomination has changed over the years, whether its the Calvinists - who no longer believe Jesus is St. Michael - or the Sola Scripturists - who now have their own form of sacred tradition - or any other group of Christian pilgrims.

Source, please.

“I embrace the opinion of those who refer this (Michael) to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” - John Calvin

But I could be wrong. I found it on a JW site. So, you know, correct me if I’m wrong.

Funny, it took me all of about fifteen seconds to do a Google search and find out that you took Calvin’s quote out of context.

“Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people…The angel…calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people” (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65).

He’s not saying that Jesus is the Archangel Michael, but that Michael, who is never identified as the Archangel Michael, shows characteristics that pre-figure Christ.

(Edited)

Pray tell where you found the quote?

Also, fallacy of generation dosen’t help your case against Catholicism.

And thank you for the quote.

In the same source I cited in the previous post.

Also, fallacy of generation dosen’t help your case against Catholicism.

Edited

And that website would be?
(Edited)

Claiming that all other denominations have changed is painting with too broad a brush. Certainly some have, but quite a few hold to their founders’ visions.

Take for example, the Seventh Day Adventists. Though I am not an expert on them, they do seem to hold closely to the writings of Ellen G. White. I am certain there are countless examples, especially considering that many are, in historical terms, fairly new.

Good call! I didn’t realize I had used the fallacy of generalization.

(Edited)

But besides all of that, let’s take even more context from Calvin. This is from Calvin’s Commentaries on The Prophet Daniel, Vol. II, Baker reprint, vol. XIII, pp. 369, 370, and I pulled the quote from here.

The twelfth chapter commenced, as we stated in yesterday’s Lecture, with the angel’s prediction as to the future state of the Church after the manifestation of Christ It was to be subject to many miseries, and hence this passage would soothe the sorrow of Daniel, and of all the pious, as he still promises safety to the Church through the help of God. Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (ver. 28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, **Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people, **he should exercise immense power, and he alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. **Christ confirms the same assertion, **as we just; now saw, in the 10th chapter of John. He says all his elect were given him by his father, and none of them should perish, because his father was greater than all; no one, says he, shall pluck my sheep out of my hand. My father, who gave them me, is greater than all; meaning, God possesses infinite power, and displays it for the safety of those whom he has chosen before the creation of the world, and he has committed it to me, or has deposited it in my hands. We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates Michael as the great prince.

So rather than saying that Michael foreshadows Christ, he says that Daniel foreshadows Michael/Christ, and points to a number of prophesies which he says that Michael and Christ fulfill. The same link I provided above has a pretty clear passage where Jonathan Edwards calls Jesus “the glorious Michael.” So Calvin’s writing this at a time when it’s sort of in vogue to think that maybe Jesus Christ and St. Michael the Archangel are the same person. And Calvin’s conclusion, “We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates Michael as the great prince,” seems very much to be, “because Michael and Christ are the same person, the great Prince.”

Now, it’s possible that he’s *not *saying that Christ and St. Michael are the same person, but it’s very oblique from the text, even with the context which Eucharisted admitted to not having. A person could easily walk away from that passage with that understanding without perverting context or outright lying. Perhaps you should try and be more charitable to other posters on here if you’re going to show Christ to them.

And perhaps Catholics might try not to pass on falsehoods, just because they think it discredits their opponents.

Has this thread been created to make a statement. Or, can we discuss and debate your OP?

I take a different tack on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and boil it down to one difference:

Either one accepts Tradition (Big T) and Magesterial authority that flows from it or not. Seems pretty simple distinction as all other differences flow from that.

Thee major essential difference which divides us is the doctrine of justification. It is the doctrine that is considered to be the heart of the gospel. Our major differences in our view of justification was the heart of the Protestant Reformation, and has not changed 500 years later.

I apologize if I sound preachy but I’m stumped, limited, and I can find no other good way to express myself that doesn’t come across that way. I can’t say that I’ve ever come to believe in anything with my heart by being clubbed over the head with it.

Just my opinion, but I think its a self-fulfilling prophecy to present anything in a hostile way, then appear confounded that another refuses to buy into it. Terms like “wayward” and “Papist” do not heal wounds, they re-open them and put everyone on the defensive. It also strikes me as odd that in one argument we claim the straying of any individual has no impact on the Truth of the Church, then turn right around and try to use the straying of an individual as a way to imply that Truth has been violated in some way.

I try to keep in mind that God gave us all a free will, that is, the power to choose and accept the consequences of our choices. We all know that in a matter of which doctrine to follow the stakes are ultimate; we each are betting our eternal life on making our right choice. It’s one thing to enlighten someone who has not seen information by providing it, or wishes to learn more, or perhaps test the strength of each viewpoint by discussing it. It’s something else, though, to predicate a discussion from the aspect of one is more or less “right” than the other. “Right” to whom? Either that will is free, or it isn’t.

So how do you respect that God-given freedom to choose while still engaging in robust discussion and exchange of ideas? Thoughts to ponder.

That may be true, but that flows from refusal to accept what the Magisterium has to say about Justification.

Eucharisted said he had gotten the information from a JW site. He said the infromation could be wrong. He welcomed correction.

Your accusation of him being a liar is disgusting. I suppose you are a reader of hearts. There is a big difference between a mistake and a lie, and we neither need or like those accusations being thrown around by ANYONE. Have you never made a mistake or a mis-statement? Were you a liar because of it? Certainly not! Well neither is Eucharisted! Grow up!!!

That’s the heart of it right? Do I go with the book of Romans and Galatians over the official teaching of the Magiserium on justification. BTW… what do you think about my signature verse in regards to a forensic justification? It’s funny words like imputed and infused can divide the body of Christ. I believe the Bible teaches both imputed and infused grace.

The differences between Catholicism and Protestantism begins with their founders;

The Catholic Church has historical secular and Jewish religious confirming Jesus founded the Catholic Church not to mention the biblical text from Matthew 16:17-19 when Jesus built his church upon Peter who’s office remains in his successors since the first century to today in the Pope and Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant church or separated (brethern) faith denomination does not come on the scene until 1500 years later who seperated from the One Church, One faith, One baptism, One Lord body of Christ his Catholic Church. This separation began by men, not by God. Man cannot separate what God has joined together.

So the difference begins the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, and the Protestant faith’s began by men who came from the Catholic Church.

Fixing this separation from the beginning solves all the other differences that have compounded throught out the years.

Maybe one aspect of unity maybe to ordain those truth’s protestants have gained that are not of heresey, but of revelation to begin new branches of Holy Orders. But to separate oneself from the Body Of Jesus Christ is a downward spiral of unending separations which is a proven fact of what has transpired of Protestantism.

Peace be with you

The chorus of Paul Simon’s song, “The Boxer” comes to mind.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.