Why is there a constant debate between Catholics and Protestant? Does it genuinely matter who’s right?

Theology
1

As a newer Christian , I’ve been looking into different Christian denominations and trying to understand the differences between their beliefs. One of the main things I’ve been stuck on is the difference between Catholics and Protestants.

I’ve had a couple of conversations with Catholics, and many Catholics believe that they are the one true Church, established by Jesus Christ through Peter (Matthew 16:18). I’ve also watched a few debates where Catholics claim that Protestants are “lost” and need to return to Catholicism. Some argue that Protestants are wrong because they believe in Scripture alone or have “zero tradition.”

Even more Catholics argue that protestants are lost because many of us do not believe Mary was sinless and continued to live as a virgin after giving birth to Jesus plus the fact that we don’t believe in purgatory and all have different interpretation of what communion actually is.

I’ve also had people insinuate that if you aren’t Catholic, you won’t be saved, or that you aren’t saved in the same way. I’m honestly confused by this debate because much of what Protestants believe is based on Scripture. At the same time, people still try to convince me to leave Protestantism and become Catholic.

Why is this such a major debate when Jesus Himself never said that someone had to belong to a particular denomination in order to be saved? Is one denomination genuinely more correct than the others? Are Protestants actually wrong or “lost,” as some Catholics claim?

2 Likes
2

This topic is made complicated because we are talking about debates that have been going on for 500 years now; and the debates are often changing because there really is no such thing as “Protestantism”. The term “Protestant” is an incredibly large umbrella term that is used to describe the various movements that emerged in the 16th century (which were not all the same thing) that we often broadly call The Protestant Reformation (it’s actually accurate to describe 3 or 4 distinct “reformations”) as well as all the various religious movements that emerged subsequent and derived from the Reformation of 500 years ago. But, in reality, there can be as many (or more) differences between some Protestant traditions as between Protestants (broadly) and Catholics.

You mention the idea, for example, that Catholics believe Mary was sinless and remained a virgin. And that is true, those things are Roman Catholic dogma. However there are Protestants who do believe in some of these things too–many Lutherans believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, in fact the Lutheran Confessions even call her “semper virginis”, “forever virgin”.

In this way it is actually more accurate to speak of different “Protestantisms” rather than a singular Protestantism. Further, the official position of Rome, since Vatican II is that Protestants are fellow Christians, but are regarded as “separated brethren”. Rome does not consider Protestants as heretics any longer, but does consider the form and shape of our Christianity to be lacking in the fullness of the truth which is found exclusively in Rome.

To unpack all the complexities of these debates, arguments, and issues involves not only unpacking the last 500 years of Western Christian history, but actually involves unpacking the last 2000 years, as it really is that complicated.

It’s true, Jesus didn’t say “belong to this denomination”, but that’s usually not the argument; the argument is what does it mean when we say “the Church”. Is the Church purely invisible, consisting of everyone who calls themselves a Christian? Are there certain doctrines which are necessary, which doctrines are necessary and which are not necessary? Who gets to decide which is which? Is the Church a visible communion of Christians in mutual confession, faith, and fellowship, and how do we maintain visible communion even when there are some Christians who (for example) baptize infants and then other Christians say the baptism of infants is invalid? Or those Christians who teach that the Lord’s Supper is the real and literal flesh and blood of Jesus, and others who say the Lord’s Supper is only symbolic? Or what about Christians who say that pastors must stand in visible continuity from the apostles, and those Christians who say there are no ordained pastors at all?

Do these things actually matter? Well, yes, they matter a lot actually.

Do they ultimately determine who is and who isn’t saved? No. And these debates are almost never about who is and isn’t saved–generally speaking the majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, acknowledge one another as Christians, and therefore, trusting in the same Jesus and looking forward to the same hope of eternal life. But these are things that still matter, for lots of reasons.

If Rome is correct that the bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) is the successor of St. Peter and that St. Peter had a unique calling among the Apostles, and therefore St. Peter’s successor is uniquely called to be the universal earthly head of the Church, then it would be sinful for a Christian to not be in communion with Rome. On the other hand, if St. Peter’s and his successors are not uniquely called to be the earthly head of the Church, and all the apostles were equal, and all bishops equal, then for any man to call himself the bishop of the entire Church on earth would be sinful.

So these things still very much matter.

3

I think @TheologyNerd did a pretty good job answering your question. To answer her underlying core question first: No, Protestants are not inherently “lost,” nor does salvation depend on a denominational label. Both Catholic and Protestant traditions agree on the absolute essentials—that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, His death, and His resurrection.

Here is the biggest difference. According to the Catholic perspective, authority rests on a “three-legged stool.” Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Pope and bishops). Catholics trace an unbroken line of apostolic succession back to St. Peter, viewing the Catholic Church as the original institutional church founded by Christ. Some, including me, see this as incorrect. Why? Peter was sent to the Jews. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, so if we were to say anyone was the first “Pope,” it really should be him.

The Protestant perspective. The core principle is Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Protestants hold that the Bible is the ultimate, infallible authority for faith and practice. While history and tradition are respected, any teaching that cannot be clearly backed up by Scripture is not considered binding.

Are Protestants “lost”? Official Catholic teaching today (since Vatican II) actually does not say Protestants are automatically damned. The Catholic Catechism refers to non-Catholic Christians as “separated brethren” who share a real, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church through baptism and faith in Christ.

While some aggressive online apologists might claim non-Catholics aren’t saved, mainstream theology on both sides affirms that salvation is grounded in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not membership in a specific earthly institution.

I hope this helps some,

Be blessed, be a blessing,

Peter

4

This might help;

5

I think my main issue with Catholicism is things like praying to Mary. I don’t understand how that’s viewed as OK. Isn’t one of the 10 Commandments to have no other gods before me? Isn’t praying to Mary or saints considered having other gods?

2 Likes
6

There are many debates between Protestants and Protestants, and for that matter, I think there is a good deal of debate between Catholics and Catholics.

1 Like
7

Look up Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. He was a Catholic priest and spoke out against those in power over the Church for adding men’s traditions not written of nor commanded in God’s Word. One of the doctrines the Catholic leaders had created was you could pay money to the Church to get your dead loved ones out of Purgatory. The Catholic Church at that time was trying to raise funds for building Vatican City. Thus began the Protestant rebellion against the Catholic Church leaders. The word Protestant comes from the word ‘protest’, and is what the Catholic leaders assigned to those like Luther. And the Catholic Church pretty much controls ‘popular’ Church history.

Yet there is another Church history, and it originates in Britain. The early Church, even before the Catholic Church in Rome, had already existed in Great Britain when Rome was still pagan and they killed Christians. The office of a pope didn’t even begin until the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church bishops began arguing over who should be prime leader for both. So they agree to create the office of the Pope, and just assigned Apostle Peter as having created it, which is not true.

The early Church in Britain (or Breton), the Culdees, were the first group of Christians to organize in early Europe. Their traditions involved actually keeping what the written Word of God says. And thus the Catholic Church ever since has been trying to bring them under their Roman fold, but God has not allowed that to happen.

For example, my ancestors came to the Americas in the 1600’s to Virginia Colony having fled France because of the Protestant rebellion. They were French Huguenots, the first French Protestants. The fled to England and signed up as indentured servants. They eventually migrated to South Carolina where many Huguenots wound up.These migrations from Europe of Protestants was God’s Plan in order to form one nation indivisible, under God. All the early founders of the United States of America were Protestant Christians. The original Ivy League universities were Protestant. The Plymouth Brethren were Protestants. The Pilgrims were Protestants. King James who commissioned the 1611 King James Bible was a Protestant, as all the British royals are.

The big lesson in all this can be found in Judges 2 & 3 where God had commanded the children of Israel to literally wipe out certain pagan nations in the land of Canaan, and Israel failed in doing that. And because they failed to fulfill His commandment, God said He would not drive those pagans out from among the children of Israel, but instead let them be a thorn in the side, to test Israel with to see if they would follow Him, or not. This is still in effect for today, and is why Christ Jesus and His Apostles warned His Church about those who creep in that are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing. Test the spirits, John said.

8

As a disclaimer, I actually disagree with the practice of the invocation of the saints (including the Blessed Virgin Mary). However for the sake of clarity, when Catholics (and Orthodox) “pray” to the saints it is not viewed as a form of worship (in Catholic semantics, latria or adoration) but as a form of veneration (dulia) which is honor, rather than worship; further the invocation of the saints is understood as a petition for the saints to pray for us. In a similar vein as if you were to go and ask a fellow Christian to pray for you. One of the difficult issues here is that in English “worship” historically conveyed a range of meaning. One “worshiped” the king or queen of their country, not by regarding them as divine, but in that such a person was worthy of being honored as the monarch, this is why archaic titles like “Your Worship” existed. However “worship” has, largely, come to be understood in English as the particular honor that is reserved for the Divine. This is why in Catholic semantics there is a distinction made between veneration and adoration.

In some ways this distinction between veneration and adoration is understood in a Protestant context as well. Children are to honor their parents. We venerate the Holy Scriptures. Lutherans, such as myself, also recognize that the saints are deserving of veneration (and Mary does hold a unique place in Lutheranism as especially deserving of honor because she is the Lord’s mother).

The issue actually ends up far more nuanced. A Lutheran critique of the invocation of the saints is that in ordinary practice the invocation of the saints can replace healthy prayer to God. It is not explicit idolatry; but there is a danger of implicit idolatry and, historically, lines have been crossed (even if in official Catholic teaching there is a firm line made that should never be crossed).

The chief reason given, in the Lutheran Confessions, against the practice is actually that there is no promise to be found that the saints in heaven can hear our petitions, so we cannot have confidence that the saints, when we ask for their prayers, can hear and respond. At the same time, the Lutheran Confessions explicitly do mention that both the saints and angels DO pray for us, not because of our petitions/invocations, but because Scripture does in fact teach this. In Zechariah an angel prays for the prophet, and in the Revelation the saints before the heavenly altar pray for the saints suffering on earth. In this way, the Lutheran position is that it is unnecessary to ask the saints to pray for us, because 1) We cannot know whether they can hear us or not and 2) Scripture teaches they already do pray for us.

For this reason it is unnecessary to ask the Holy Virgin mother of God to pray for us. And if we truly desire to honor the mother of God, then we do so not by invoking her, but primarily by directing our attention to her Son. For Mary, at Cana, said “Do whatever He says” and so when we hear, believe, confess, and adore Jesus Christ, we honor His mother who, with us, also hears, believes, confesses, and adores her Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

As such the issue becomes a far more nuanced one. As no Roman Catholic actively, explicitly, and knowingly worships Mary as though she were divine–Catholic teaching explicitly condemns this.

9

Historical clarity: The word “Protestant” was coined in reference to a very specific event. At the Second Imperial Diet at Speyer when the Emperor went back on his word at the First Diet, giving the Elector-Princes of the Holy Roman Empire the authority to choose which form of religion would exist in their territories, the Evangelical (Lutheran) and Reformed Princes formally protested this turn-around. The Emperor, under pressure from Rome, demanded the Princes allow only the Roman forms be practiced, and the Evangelical and Reformed Princes refused. This event was known as the Protestation at Speyer, and the Princes who protested were called “The Protestants”.

The term “Protestant”, would eventually expand to cover more ground.

Luther’s 95 Theses were not a protest. They were an invitation for academic debate at the University of Wittenberg over the controversy erupting throughout Saxony, where Indulgences were being sold in order to raise funds for the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The most notorious of these preachers was Johann Tetzel, who indulged in great theatrics in order to get people to hand over coin for an Indulgence. Officially, the selling of Indulgences was prohibited, but authorities were turning a blind eye to the practice, including Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz.

Luther therefore wrote the 95 Theses as an invitation for academic debate, in addition he sent a copy to Archbishop Albrecht with a letter warning him of what was going on, and dedicated the 95 Theses to the Pope–as Luther believed the Pope’s honor was being sullied by the indulgence sellers.

Some of Luther’s students took the 95 Theses (nailed to the church door at Wittenberg, which functioned as a kind of community post-board), translated the Theses from Latin to German, and disseminated it–which resulted in the 95 Theses becoming read in wider circles than Luther originally intended.

The 95 Theses are, indeed, a list of reasons for why the sales of indulgences is offensive to Christian sensibilities. But to really get to the start of Luther’s theological revolution it’s not the 95 Theses, it’s the Heidelberg Disputations from a year later in 1518. It is at Heidelberg that Luther’s emerging Evangelical theology starts to show itself, and is arguably a more accurate birthdate for the Evangelical (i.e. Lutheran) Reformation.

The early Lutheran fathers never saw themselves as acting contray to the Church Catholic, but indeed argued that they were maintaining the historic Catholic faith of the Church. This is made explicitly clear in the Augsburg Confession, that what the Evangelical reformers were saying was not at odds with the last 1500 years of Catholic teaching. In this, the early Lutherans viewed themselves as continuing the faithful tradition of the Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, it was Rome (especially manifest in the Papacy) that had departed and betrayed the Catholic Church, not the Reformers.

1 Like
10

Long before Luther wrote his 95 Theses, he had put his theology in written form for the public to read. Thus the rebellion which later became known as the Protestant rebellion, had already been a planted seed, and obviously initiated by our Heavenly Father Himself, if… one understands Bible prophecy of how the Christian nations were manifest in the West.

11

Elaborate. There was no Protestant rebellion. The Evangelical Reformation was a reformation of the Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

12

Hi Willow,

I’ve read most responses here and would like to embrace a more practical stance. Rather embracing the theological stance.
I have a Catholic friend who has become a more devote “Christian” with age.

Let me explain, when I first met Mary, she simply believed in God, scripture, purgatory, praying to saints, transubstantiation of communion, that Mary will always be a virgin, etc. Her beliefs did not impact her life. She prayed the Lord’s Prayer when she prayed. She did not seem to have a Relationship with her Creator, but with her church.

The Mary I know now is very different. While her knowledge of Scripture is still that of a new believer, she holds fast to SOME of the beliefs, like Transubstantiation.

Her prayers indicate a relationship with her Creator and she participates in the extra activities of her church. She has thrown herself, her time and money, into standing against abortion. Not just because her church is against it but she personally is.

I’ve noticed she no longer speaks of Mary as some god to revere and worship. Her prayers are filled with Father: adopted daughter relationship with God. She no longer believes it’s a sin to not attend church. She does not attend confessional.

Her life has been changed. And I see a relationship with God, her Creator, as more important to her than being a good Catholic.

I, on the other hand, have told her, in the beginning of our relationship, that she was not a Christian, and would not be going to heaven because she did not accept Jesus into her life. She did not have what seemed to me a relationship with God. I was judgmental towards her and her faith as my Protestant beliefs were to convert her out of the traditions of Catholicism.

But latter in our relationship I realized my judgementalism was wrong and I was required to live my relationship with my God in front of her and others. I call it “trust and obey.”

I go with her to church when I visit.

Her priest’s “sermons” remain shallow, my POV, I do prefer a Voddie Baucham sermon, I don’t partake in communion but I do like some of the tradition of the Catholic Church service. I’m not into how some of the Protestant church’s try to have a mini rock n roll concert before the sermon. I enjoy the traditional Protestant service.

I once debated with Mary regarding her faith, altho it usually was one sided and along the way we both changed.

The Angican’s have a high church service, those that lean toward Pentecostalism (that I attended in England), which I would be grateful for.

As a new believer, I would strongly suggest you get an apologetics book and begin to read it alongside your Bible or a good Study Bible that explains what you are reading and has a good preface to each book of the Bible. Understanding where each book enters into history, who it speaks to, what the purpose is of the book, etc is very important to one’s understanding of God in history and how the Bible relates to us today.

Don’t worry about the debate on Protestantism and Catholicism join a Bible study group and learn. Pray as if speaking to your Father in heaven, He longs to hear you.

13

This is excellent advice @Dogmum. I have believed and taught that religion is not salvation. Religion is not going to save you. Being a good little “Insert religion here” is not going to save you. Sorry. It is just the simple truth. Religion is a man-made concept and most of the time has nothing to do with the true God and/or His plan of salvation.

Simply put, Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6: Jesus is the key to Salvation. It is simply, accepted by you or not, a fact that without Him, you can not enter into Heaven. It is simply a fact, again, accepted by you or not, that “neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

God made His plan of salvation simple and easy for all to obtain.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:16-18

First, notice this. Jesus does not say, "If you eat meat on Friday, or don’t eat meat at all, or walk half a mile on the Sabbath day, or if you say ten ’ Hail Marys’. No, He says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Whoever. This means? Whoever. Anyone. Everyone. All you have to do is accept Jesus and believe He rose from the dead, and you shall be saved. Romans 10:9.

It also says this. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Does it say, “If you murder someone, or if you do not follow this or that tenet of said religion, or if you do all sorts of evil?” No. It says, “but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Whoever? Whoever. Anyone. Everyone. That simply? “has not believed” is? “Condemned already.” There is nothing you need to do except not believe in Jesus, and you are condemned already because He is the only true way to Heaven. He is the Door, the Gate, the Shepard. He and the Father are one. John 10 and Romans 10:13 say, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

So any religion that does not have this simple truth- Jesus IS Lord, and He is God- is a false religion. However,

This. This is a great reminder not to be too judgmental of others’ beliefs as long as they have this foundation. A brother is a brother, and a sister is a sister. Being vegan or eating a steak changes nothing. Muslim? Of course. Buddist? Of course. Hinduism? Of course. We need to tell the lost that there is a better way.

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” 1 Peter 3:15

Children of God are that. Children of God. I may not speak in tongues; you may not believe in prophecy, etc., but we both call Jesus the Christ, the LORD; we are both on that straight and narrow path. We may just dine in different restaurants along the way.

Be blessed, be a blessing,

Peter

2 Likes
14

You want me to elaborate on European history back in the 16th century with the Catholic Church actually attacking and killing Protestants??!!??

Why do you think so many Protestants LEFT Europe and came to the Americas?

My ancestors were French Huguenots, the first French Protestants. They fled France because of the RCC attacks trying to literally wipe them out. They wound up in Britain where they signed on to become indentured servants in the early American colonies, Virginia colony to be exact.

15

No, I’m asking you to elaborate on the specific claim you made.

When did Luther put his theology in written form for the public to read before the publication of the 95 Theses?

I would like you to back up this claim.

16
17

My disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church boils down to the Popes’ establishment of a separate tradition that is apparently considered as authoritative as the Bible.

I was a pastor in a creedal church, but those creeds were always subordinate to the Scriptures and when they disagreed with the Bible, have been changed.

The beliefs about Mary’s sinlessness and intercession for those who pray to her, purgatory, and other ideas are apart from biblical support. Therefore, I disagree with them.

For example, I don’t see how Catholics can be instructed to pray to Mary. After all, she is not God, who is everywhere. Being a human soul now, she is located in one place and therefore can’t listen and respond to everyone’s prayers.

1 Like
18

For those who may care:

In the Political writings section, the article claims:

“The pamphlets entitled On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras and David’s lineage all written in 1534…”

This date is incorrect: On the Jews and Their Lies (Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) and Vom Schem Hamphoras were both published in 1543, toward the end of Luther’s life (he died in 1546), not in 1534.

Be blessed, be a blessing.

Peter

19

One of many. One of many.

Peter

20

The Roman Church has had centuries in order for Satan’s host to creep in and distort Bible doctrine and add false traditions of men. But alas, the Protestant Church today has almost caught up to the RCC in that also. The stage is set for the coming false-Messiah when many brethren who rely on their preachers and priests word instead of directly what God’s Word says, will be deceived, and become apostates from the Faith, worshiping the wrong Messiah instead of waiting on Lord Jesus to come later.