I ask because the RCC has its own approved edition of the NT, while protestants have another version.
Clearly, there are important differences in what each group accpts-on what points to the both agree?
That’s somewhat like asking what the US and all of the other nations of the world agree upon. There isn’t a “protestant” denomination. There are hundreds of different groups that fall under the protestant heading, each with beliefs as widely varied from each other as from the Catholic church. The only point that any of them agree with is that they have some intention of following the teachings of this guy who may have been named Jesus, who may or may not have had spiritual knowledge that transcends basic human philosophy.
As Sage Rat points out, this is not a simple factual question. Since it’s about religion and will undoubtedly involve considerable discussion it’s probably better suited for GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Never mind.
Ok, sorry about that.
If you’re limiting it to the New Testament, the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and almost all Protestant denominations have the same canon. New Testament.
The traditional Lutheran bible has the same books, but have been rearranged somewhat to reflect Martin Luther’s opinion as to the canonicity of a few of the books.
The Roman Catholics also recognize the books of the Apocrypha, which are Old Testament books (or parts of books) that are not recognized as canonical by most Protestant denominations.
That’s if you’re referring to differences in the canon. You might mean differences in translation, which is a whole 'nother thing. But there are many popular English translations and their use varies widely between denominations and churches. And the differences between modern translations are relatively minor.
Another thought related to the OP question:
If you want to know what separates Catholicism from Protestantism, it’s a lot easier to speak in general about what they disagree on than what they agree on. Because, as I said, they have the same New Testament, worship the same God, say the same creeds (more or less), etc. There are important doctrinal differences but these are easier to enumerate.
Arrrgh. Thank you. My girlfriend of several years is Presbyterian, and refuses to concede that she is Protestant. Protestants are non-Catholic Christians. End of story. At least that’s what my RCC upbringing taught me.
My guess is that some folks just don’t like being identified with the term “Protestant,” as though it makes them sound liberal.
To the OP, focusing on the Bible isn’t, as some have pointed out, going to get you very far. There are minorly different translations (see www.biblegateway.com) but I can’t offhand think of any translation differences that are doctrinally significant.
Where Catholics and Protestants differ much more is in (a) the interpretation of the Bible (for instance, Jesus telling Peter that he was the rock on which he would build the Church, or telling the Apostles that whatever they declared bound on Earth would be bound in heaven, which Catholics take as authority for the Papal-based episcopacy and Protestants . . . don’t), (b) the role of the clergy in interpreting the Bible (Protestants say limited, Catholics say extensive, to vastly oversimplify), and (c) the primacy of the Bible text itself (many Protestants believe it’s the beginning and end of religion).
Catholics, obviously, don’t call those books the Apocrypha, but instead Deuterocanonical (meaning “of the second canon”), because the books were considered canonical later than the other canonical books. The Deuterocanonical books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther and Daniel.
The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes the books I listed above as canonical, and also 3 Maccabees and 1 Edras.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes, in addition to the above books, the Book of Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and 1,2, and 3 Makabian.
Oops, thanks CA, I meant to refer to them as Deuterocanonical but I got interrupted in the middle of my post.
I recently read the whole section front-to-back for the first time and enjoyed them – especially the Daniel stories, Tobit and 2 Maccabees.
Not so fast.
I agree that your girlfriend doesn’t have much wriggle room, since Presbyterians can directly trace the origin of their church to John Calvin, and is part of the European protest movement against the Roman Church.
But certainly Anglicans can at least make a claim that their split with Rome was not part of the same general notions that fueled Calvin and Luther. And where do groups like the Mormons then get classified? Baptists, too, arose from Anglicans as a sort of mini-protestant movement against the Church of England, but that doesn’t make them capital-P Protestants. And others that sprung from the CoE, like Quakers, have the same ambiguity. Clearly they are Christian, clearly they are not Catholic. But they’re not unambiguously Protestant.
There are non-Protestant, non-Catholic churches.
There are some branches of Christianity older than Catholicism, and the Eastern Orthodox churches aren’t “Roman” Catholic.
Strictly speaking, Protestants are from the sects that came out of the Protestant Reformation. Neither the Orthodox, who split off long before that, nor more modern sects like the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are Protestant. Technically, the whole Anglican/Episcopalian family aren’t Protestant, either, since although they split off at the same time as the Reformation, they weren’t really part of it. Presbyterians are still Protestants by absolutely any standard, though.
And on another note, when Catholics use the term “apocrypha”, it’s in reference to books like the Gospel of Thomas, which may be interesting reading material, but which aren’t regarded as canon by pretty much anyone.
That’s depressing, as traditionally the Presbyterian church is very focused on quality education.
There are some people who use the term “Protestant” in an extremely restrictive way, to only refer to the churches that trace themselves back to Luther. Churches that derive from Calvin and his teachings get the label “Reformed” instead.
That’s certainly not common, and almost everybody includes the Reformed churches under the umbrella of Protestant, but I’ve seen it done before.
Methodists are another offshoot of Anglicanism that could, arguably, be considered non-Protestant.
Anglicans are kind of an odd duck (in many ways, and this is one of them). Some Anglicans are very Catholic, although not in communion with Rome, and often refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic. They would quite irritated to be lumped together with the Protestant movement (Luther and Calvin). Some Anglicans consider themselves Reformed and embrace Calvinism; these tend to be more evangelical and have no problems self-identifying as Protestant (and may even carry an anti-Catholic streak within them).
Others reject both Catholicsim and Calvinism, and (at least in the US) comprise the majority of the denomination we think of as mainline, liberal Protestant.
That at least isn’t true. There was no distinct Catholic “founding” apart from the orthodox or Coptic or Assyrian churches - they neccessarily formed at the same time period.
I’ll concede that at the top the Henrican split with the Church of Rome was not part of the same dispute, but most of the early leading Anglican theologians such as Thomas Cranmer were somewhat allied to Calvin, if not to Luther. In 1552, for example, Cranmer invited Calvin to England to serve on an ecumenical council (Calvin didn’t attend, but not because he didn’t want to) and he spoke highly of Calvin’s theology. Cranmer also wanted to ally with European Protestant churches to counter the Council of Trent.
So I’d argue that the foundation of the Church of England was not a church apart from Calvinism or Lutheranism; from the very beginning its religious leaders were looking for commonalities with European Protestant movements. Although it’s true that this action was muted at first because of Henry VIII’s continuing interest in “Catholicism without Rome”, everything that came after was essentially Protestantism with an English flavor.
Not necessarily. The traits that made Roman Catholicism distinct could have developed after the Coptic or Assyrian split.
Before the Coptic split, there’s no meaning in saying “the traits that make Roman Catholicism distinct”, because there was nothing to be distinct from. And such traits had to be present immediately upon the split, because if they weren’t, then there wasn’t a split.