That's total nonsense!! The two religions could not be more diametrically opposed to one another in almost every way!!
By Catholicism, I assume you mean Roman Catholicism, which by definition is an oxymoron. The term catholic, merely means "universal", i.e. the universal church. Add a brand name like Roman to the term catholic/universal, it no longer makes sense.
The church at Rome was totally corrupt from inception, characterized by syncretism, i.e. the merging of Christianity beliefs with Paganism. The deification of the Virgin Mary, was merely re-branding of a Roman Goddess, who is a focus of worship for millions of Roman Catholics even to this day. It's a rather commonly known historical fact, that instead of never dying and rising to Heaven, as claimed by Romanists; Mary died and was buried in Ephesus, the place where the Church of Mary was built in her honor; and the very same church where the Council of Ephesus was hosted.
Protestantism has nothing whatsover in common with Romanism!!
The Roman Catholic Church, so-called, did not even exist until 1049 AD.; and it's agenda from the outset was to exterminate any and all who would not bow the knee to Rome! Millions upon millions died for refusing to bow to Rome!
Yes, that's right. It is a bit of an oxymoron. When Rome preached the Roman Catholic religion to indigenous populations in the third world, it did crossbreed their Christian religion with the indigenous religions to provide "ductuses". This enabled the local religions to access Rome, even if some of those in the populations were not yet converted.
But when I talked about the essence of Christian beliefs, the very core beliefs regarding Jesus at the heart of Christianity of the two faiths, namely Roman Catholicism (I mean all kinds of catholicism basically) and the Protestant religions, at the core are those same things I don't think I need to repeat here. Yes, there are variations. For example, the Roman Catholics emphasise the mother of Jesus, Mary because she provides an extra ductus to access the goddess of the assumed old religions of Rome, sort of like providing an extra symbolic figure to associate her with a "pagan goddess" once revered by Rome. But since the Christianisation of the Holy Roman Empire, worship of pagan gods and goddesses were subdued and could not be carried out in the open. And the new version fronted by Jesus and Mary, etc, provided the ductuses. So, I know exactly what you wanted to say. But these are only the extras. But what I was really talking about at the core of Christian beliefs is to do with Jesus, his death and the perceived relationship by Christians concerning his death and the absolution of sins, as claimed by both faiths. Also, transubstantiation and "the holy presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacraments" are really two ways of expressing the same thing -- just that it takes one word in the old way but more words in the Protestant way. So, I don't really find it convincing to say that one religion believes different things than another. BUT, the two, as I said, refer to different political allegiances, as I've mentioned. And in fact, since modern ecumenism started to take root in the past decades or so, both faiths have renounced (they always attempted to do so) that the "Christian Church" had been rent asunder since Reformation. Both wanted to say that they had always been unified in Christendom. Did you remember the hymn The Church's One Foundation? The British view is that it has been rent asunder, I guess. But even the overall verses in the song sound rather ambivalent. Hear the song recorded live here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sevx8cvqs5M (The organ is very Rodgersish, although the console doesn't look like one at all). If you ponder over those words, they are very profound and probably not what an ordinary Christian can appreciate. So I honestly think that for a period of time after Reformation, there was a breakup of Christian world, but some people have been trying to convince the world that they are now not what they were. Well, I actually agree that at the core there is unity. But politically, they are still fragmented somewhat.
Now, check out these words of The Church's One Foundaton here:
The Church's one foundation
is Jesus Christ her Lord;
she is his new creation,
by water and the word:
from heaven he came and sought her
to be his holy bride;
with his own blood he bought her,
and for her life he died.
Elect from every nation,
yet one o'er all the earth,
her charter of salvation,
one Lord, one faith, one birth;
one holy Name she blesses,
partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses,
with every grace endued.
Though with a scornful wonder
men see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed;
yet saints their watch are keeping,
their cry goes up, "How long?"
and soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.
Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war
she waits the consummation
of peace for evermore;
till with the vision glorious
her longing eyes are blessed,
and the great Church victorious
shall be the Church at rest.
Yet she on earth hath union
with God, the Three in one,
and mystic sweet communion
with those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
like them, the meek and lowly,
on high may dwell with thee.
Words: Samuel John Stone, 1868
Music: Aurelia
I also want to cite briefly an example of someone I know who left the Lutheran Church in Hong Kong about three years ago. Now, the Lutheran identity in Hong Kong is not anythng other than just the nominal title. If you study one of the schisms that took place during German Reformation, it was the Luther, who created his Protestant church. Now, one important thing about Lutheranism has been the use of German to study the Bible. So you MUST speak German to be properly labeled as a Lutheran in his point of view. He says his understanding of being a Lutheran is this: on a scale of 100, 51 marks should be alloted to the knowledge of the German language, 20 marks for getting to know the Augsburg Confession, and the rest of the marks for knowledge on the organ works of the three important German men who who wrote profusely choral and organ works, namely Buxtehude, Pachelbel and J S Bach. He said that not being able to name one title from each of the three men would result in deduction of all the remaining marks. So I agree with him that I honestly don't think the way the Lutherans are taught or raised in Hong Kong results in them being Lutherans at all. The man told me that he went to the Lutheran school and the church where German was not taught, Lutheran organ music not played, and he did not see a copy of Augsburg Confession at the time of baptism. But he speaks basic English, so he thinks he is more British, and not German because he holds a British passport as well. Ultimately, he thought his identity he had as a Lutheran is fake and false. And so he left the church by handing his pastor a membership withdrawal letter. And he told me he is very happy at the moment.
When I pondered over his words, I gradually recall all the schisms happening to the Roman Church. And I do honestly think that because Hong Kong was founded by the British, who built the 38th Victoria Diocese of the Church of England there,... So the only valid church with a valid identity to grant there has really been the English church and the related ones by the 1707 union, the Presbyterian churches, as well as the Wesleyan and Methodist churches. They seem the only ones that can give a justifiable identity to the British passport holders. Other than these, all the rest perhaps can't really give a true identity to the residents there.
