Long Answer: What is the Difference Between Catholics and "Protestants" ?

A few months ago during the high school Bible Study we had a guest come from another Christian congregation.  Late in the meeting she innocently asked one of the most complicated questions possible:  “What is the difference between Catholics and Protestants?”

Where does one begin?


An Impossible Task:

Well, one ought to begin with those things we share in common… and we certainly did.   But there comes a point where one must discuss differences.   Unfortunately, one quickly finds that summarizing the differences between Catholicism and “Protestantism” is an impossible task.

Why?  Because Catholicism is a single identifiable thing with defined boundaries.  Any person can go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read a comprehensive, articulate, and authoritative expression of what the Catholic Church teaches and why.

“Protestantism”, on the other hand, is an umbrella term for many different confessions and creeds.  This diversity makes cataloging the differences between Catholics and “Protestants” something which can only be done on a case-by-case basis.

It would be like asking for the difference between a 2013 Ford Escape and a Toyota.

There is almost nothing that serves as an absolute dividing line… except one.  And it’s a doozy. 


A Fundamental Difference:

That dividing line is something called “Ecclesiology”.  A basic definition might be:

“What you mean when you say ‘the Church’ with a capital C.”

Most of the time when folks say the word “church” they just mean “that building down the street where we gather to pray”.  Everyone says that.  But that isn't the usage we're discussing here.

The difference is when we refer to “the Church” in a broader sense, with a capitalized ‘C’.  When a person does this, he has in mind something bigger than the building down the street.

And in this area there is a clear difference between Catholics and non-Catholics.

The Hallway / Umbrella View:

The most common understanding the Church in the culture of the United States is the non-Catholic one.  To borrow an analogy from CS Lewis, it imagines the Christian Church as a hallway with many doors.  Those doors may be labeled Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, and so on.   These are the “denominations” of Christianity.


Unity on the Essentials:

It is common for a person can travel from room to room.  Maybe a person will attend a Methodist congregation for a while, then try out a Baptist one, then visit the newest big-box Evangelical church.
Under this ecclesiological framework, all this experimentation is fine because what REALLY matters is that you’re in the hallway.  The hallway is the Church.

One could also imagine this concept as an umbrella called “Christianity”.

Underneath that umbrella you have the various denominations.  Any person residing beneath the umbrella is a properly part of “the Church”.  In fact, if a person becomes too enamored with his particular denomination, he may be viewed as harming the unity of the Church.  He might receive the question:

"Which is more important to you - being a Christian or being a Lutheran."

In any event, “The Church” is not identified to any particular institution. It is:

The invisible spiritual body of all those who adhere to the essentials of the Christian faith.

But... What are the Essentials?

However, this invites the question … what are the essentials?  What exactly constitutes the inner circle of those beliefs which all Christians must hold?  Who decides?

• For instance, the good folks at CARM.org would say a non-sacramental view of Baptism is essential.  They'd say believing Baptism is a saving sacrament - the way Lutherans, Catholics, and Orthodox do - actually imperils one's salvation.  

• If you asked Martin Luther, he'd insist the exact opposite.  He refused communion with those who denied the sacramentality of Baptism AND people who held to a symbolic view of the Lord's Supper.

• If you asked John Calvin, he'd tell you that a proper understanding of the Lord's Supper is essential for salvation... which, naturally, is his understanding.  

• If you asked a Oneness Pentecostal, he'd insist the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, but praying in tongues is.

• If you asked a Seventh Day Adventist, he's say worshiping on Saturday is essential. 

One could go on and on.  The point is this:  How does one know with certainty – under this model – what the “essentials” even are?  Moreover, as Christians groups continue to diversify over time, what becomes of the shrinking group of things deemed to be essential?

The Barque of Peter:

The Catholic ecclesiology is very different.  It begins with Jesus proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God which will unite all men in fellowship.  He then ordains twelve apostles to teach and govern this visible community and to pass their authority down to others in perpetuity.

The unifying principle of this Church is found in one particular apostle – Peter – whom Christ appointed as the royal steward who holds the keys of the Kingdom.  Through a process of linear succession, that unifying teaching position is perpetuated unto the present day.

So in the Catholic view, “the Church” is:

That visible community established by Jesus, governed by the bishops, led by the successor of Peter, and all those faithful who are in communion with it. 

And, in the words of the 2nd Vatican Council, this communion subsists as the Catholic Church.  So when a Catholic refers to “the Church”, he is referring to the Catholic Church.

Identity Theft:

The phrase "catholic church" is used differently in some quarters.  Some people insist that since the word "catholic" means "universal", the "catholic church" is really synonymous with the invisible union in the umbrella analogy.

However, this anachronism would be foreign to those who first used the term "Catholic Church".  When Ignatius of Antioch used it in 110AD, he envisioned as a visible community marked by loyalty to the local bishop:

“Let no man do anything without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be.  Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” – Letter to the Smyrnians

Outside the Church:

Now let’s look at a surprising area of agreement between Catholics and non-Catholics.


The Necessity of Being in the Church:

Both Catholics and non-Catholics will look at the Church (however they conceive of it) and say the Church is the body of Christ.  That is part of the Scriptural data:

"He has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." - Eph 1:22-23

Both groups would also assert that Christ is the only Savior – and the way to be saved is to be incorporated into Christ.  Again, that is also part of the Scriptural data:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

Thus, all would conclude that those persons who are outside the Church (whatever the Church is) are disconnected from the only source of salvation.


Wait a Minute...

But now think about what Catholics mean when they say “the Church”.  They are not referring to a nebulous, invisible union of all believers.  Rather, they are referencing the concrete, visible community which is governed by the bishops in union with the Pope.

So from the Catholic perspective, the people who are outside the Church are those who are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

At this point the non-Catholics might do the math, look at the Catholics and ask:

“Wait, I’m not a Catholic.  So are you saying I’m damned?”

The answer requires a bit of thought... and a bit of history.


Secret Identities:

Back in the year 256AD there was a big controversy about whether the Catholic Church would recognize as valid the baptisms performed by groups which had broken away.

Pope Stephen - in a move that upset some people - answered "yes".  He determined that those Baptisms were indeed valid.  Seventeen hundred years later, that is still the case.

[You can read about this in Saint Cyprian of Carthage’s epistle to Firmilian (Epistle 74)]

Now, the Church's theology of Baptism states the sacrament as the way a person is incorporated into the body of Christ.  This comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

"For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body--whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." - 1 Cor 12:13

So, follow me through a little logical syllogism:

1. The Church is the body of Christ.
2. Everyone who is baptized is a member of that body.
3. In the Catholic ecclessiology, the Catholic Church is the Church.
4. Therefore: All the baptized are members of the Catholic Church.

This is not meant in the ahistorical sense mentioned above in which people try to coopt the word “catholic”.  Rather all the Baptized are actually a part of the visible community governed by the bishops and the Pope… they just don’t know it.

None of this is meant to whitewash the tragedy of the disagreements which exist among Christian believers.  After all, Jesus prayed for perfect unity. [John 17:20-23].  Likewise, Saint Paul insisted that Christians agree on everything:

"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." - 1 Cor 1:10

Degrees of Communion:

So in practice we may still refer to “Catholics” and “non-Catholics”, but this is just because you need words for these things.  In the Catholic ecclesiology, the true state of "non-Catholics" is that they are members of the Church who are in "partial communion".  

This is why a "non-Catholic Christian" who is received fully into the Catholic Church does not need to be re-baptized.  They already were part of the body.  It's just that now the person is - to use the official phrase - "coming into full communion”.

Drawn Inwards and Upwards:

So I would conclude with this summary.

The non-Catholic ecclesiology is intended to acknowledge the sincere belief of all who call themselves Christian in a landscape of theological diversity.  Since no one can really pin down exactly what "the Church" is and what its boundaries are - the only option left is to say it is an invisible fellowship.  One might say this model is more of a reaction to disunity than something thought out in advance.

This points us to the core problem:  Without some authoritative arbiter of what is and is not an essential Christian doctrine, it is impossible to define what shared ideas constitute belonging to this umbrella group.  And the closer one looks, the less convincing it sounds when someone says, "We agree on the essentials."

Under the Catholic ecclessiology, everyone's sincere belief is still recognized.  However, now you do have an authority which can define the boundaries of what the Christian faith actually is.

The downside - as some would see it - is that you cannot just accept the Catholic ecclesiology on its own.  If one chooses to hold that "the Church" subsists as the visible community governed by the bishops in union with the Pope... you've got to accept the whole packaged deal.

It is a big pill to swallow.  And it makes immediate demands on how you will live your life.  However, the reason why I personally adhere to the Catholic view of ecclesiology is not because it is the most comfortable or popular one...

...but because it is true.