I'm wondering what's the difference between Catholicism and other denominations, I know the main things are the pipe and the virgin Mary actually being respected, but I like to hear from someone whose passionate.
Also it's really funny to think someone going like "She's Jesus adjacent but she had an epidural from god so it's not that big a deal"
(I say godly epidural because how else is childbirth a silent night)
yoooo hello friend thank you for your message :))) assuming this is continuing in some sense from earlier things said whilst reblogging so I'm gonna approach it with that in mind
So there's two good ways of visualising the difference between various flavours of Christianity:
Firstly, as three paradigms, rather than specific Church Groups per se.
Catholicism is a unity-in-truth-variety-in-practice paradigm: we all believe the same things, united under one leader and a centralised way of forming beliefs. How exactly those beliefs are put into practice (eg in different liturgy styles) is more flexible, leading to a range of "rites".
Orthodoxy is a unity-in-practice-variety-in-beliefs paradigm: the liturgy and iconography and expression of the faith is critically important as practical modes of theology (much less written teaching than catholics!), and they have a sort of nebula of hierarchies that have variable relationships with each other and variable theological approaches to a given topic. Important to note that despite the slightly chaotic organisational structure, they have maintained almost exactly the same beliefs as Catholics, but verbalised differently, which leads people to think they're different beliefs (eg. Filioque, Dormition vs Assumption).
Protestantism is a non-unity-total-variety paradigm, wherein beliefs and practice are both determined on a micro-level, leading to a rather volatile structure where schism is common and somewhat expected-- practically speaking the laity get on with things without paying much attention to the schisms, forming what I affectionately call "the Protestant soup".
This paradigm problem broadly boils down to a problem of authority-- when there is a disagreement between two arguments (which may both be reasonably proven from scripture), who decides? and how can you trust the decision? We'd say that the Catholic Church continues to be guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, just as the Church of the early centuries was guided to correct belief on 1) the trinity 2) the canon of scripture and 3) whether gentile converts should be circumcised. Protestants reject this but imho never came up with a convincing alternative, leading to the chaotic nature of the paradigm as a whole.
Secondly, and this is a biased opinion as someone who converted to Catholicism from a historically Protestant culture, it seems to me useful to consider how Protestant theology (paradigmatically) developed from Catholicism. I know it doesn't necessarily occur to people from Prot-majority countries that Catholicism is actually the default Christianity, and that they're the innovation, but it's a really elucidating realisation. You have to see Protestantism as inherently a reaction to Catholicism, and something that has to define itself in relation to Catholicism.
To summarise: the various strains of the Reformation (Calvinism, Lutheranism, Zwingliism, Anglicanism, etc) are all based off the assumption that Catholicism somehow had "too many" beliefs, that needed to be reduced to reveal a "purer" form of Christianity.
The truth is that while Catholicism seems very maximalist, and like it has a lot of "extra" things (saints, Marian devotion, feast days, confession, bigger bible, fasting practices, monastic charisms, etc etc etc), the truth is that all of these things form a very rich, interlocking system of theology, where every belief is dependent on every other belief. How you understand Mary's role as Theotokos is dependent on a correct understanding of Christ's dual nature, which depends on a rejection of Gnostic dualism, which then gives you a proper sexual ethic and an understanding of the Incarnation, which then links back to the Immaculate Conception, which gives you the Assumption, which explains why you need to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist, etc etc. It sounds a bit overwhelming but when it starts to fall into place you see that every single thing works in this tightly symbiotic ecosystem of doctrine, all of which works to magnify God. The "extra" things are enriching, not distracting.
So when you get the Reformation, and Protestants start subtracting things willy-nilly, the ecosystem starts to fall apart and mutate in strange ways. Protestant groups then separate and keep mutating based on what each one wants to subtract. The Anglican church is a good example of this-- they started by having Catholicism, but subtracting the idea that marriage is an unbreakable covenant (Henry VIII wanted a divorce). This leads to mutation in the understanding of marriage as a sacrament, leading to 2 sacraments rather than the traditional 7, which then nukes confession, holy orders, anointing of the sick, and confirmation. If you don't have holy orders, you lose the theology of the eucharist, which in a lot of Anglican churches is now seen as symbolic (or near enough). if you lose the real presence in the eucharist, your incarnation theology is now buggered. Similarly, as we were discussing in the other reblogs-- Calvinism and Lutheranism both lose the idea of indulgences, when then loses the idea of purgatory, which means you lose a proper understanding of sanctification (theosis), leading to once-saved-always-saved, meaning the Crucifixion, instead of being this great act of Love, is now a legal transaction of salvation, which reconfigures how guilt and contrition work, and which once again buggers your eucharistic theology because the emphasis on it as a one-time event means you've lost the mystical and constant resonance of calvary through all time. All of this then knocks onto how you build churches-- the altar is now no longer front and centre, because the Old Testament sacrifice is not present anymore, so you have a big-ass pulpit and the service is centred around preaching, not around the sacrifice of the Mass. Ironically, though the Reformers aimed to have a more Christ-centric Christianity, the change in how they fundamentally do church services illustrates exactly how you actually end up with a man-centric church that puts Christ off to the side. And that's not even getting into how Luther removed books from the Bible to support his own theology.
I would say that the continuous nature of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, to a lesser extent) from a) the Judaism of the Old Testament and b) the church of the first few centuries is really very critical. John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine is the seminal work on this (very readable, 100/10 would recommend). The sacramental priesthood is a continuation of the Levitical priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass is the fulfilment of Temple sacrifice (SUPER important in the OT-- the Torah goes on for pages and pages and pages about it), the Pope is the continuation of figures such as Moses and David, who are also Christ-types. I've got a friend converting to Catholicism from Orthodox Judaism and she keeps pointing out to me similarities that I didn't even know existed. On the Early Church-- you'll see a lot of quote-mining from both sides, but the key points that are really indisputable are 1) the idea that the bread and wine literally transform in some mystical way and 2) that the Church is united in an episcopal structure, with an emphasis on Rome as primus inter pares (the first among equals). What exactly this second point entails is why the East and West split-- my view is that the current fiasco in Moscow proves that the Pope is necessary but that's another essay-length post.
Doctrinally of course there's a lot of haggling over specifics eg. the Virgin Mary, soteriology, eucharistic theology, etc etc etc and my impression is that Protestants generally try to justify their beliefs in two ways: 1) Rome is entirely wrong and we're not related to them in any way (really low church baptists, anabaptists, pentecostals, etc) or 2) Rome is wrong but also we believe the same things as Rome and are completely different to stereotypical Protestants (anglicans, lutherans, presbyterians). Both of these approaches IMO demonstrate the truth of Catholicism, because group 1 are just demonstrably so far away from OG christianity that they cannot reasonably argue that they're more authentically Christian than Catholics-- at best these two are equally bad and group 2 seem to implicitly know that Rome is right, because they justify themselves by disavowing anything that isn't ostensibly Catholic and allying themselves with Catholic beliefs as much as possible. The truth is that we can get really bogged down in the specific details of oh Calvin actually said this or maybe Augustine actually meant that, but it doesn't really matter when the overall paradigmatic approach is so far removed from the first 1500 years of Christianity. The idea that you can have multiple churches believing different things and all being equally authentically Christian is a total invention of the Reformation, and quite frankly, a disservice to the lay faithful who didn't ask to be bogged down in all of this anyway.
Finally, to round off this abhorrently long answer to your question (apologies!!!)-- sacramentality and the concrete motion of grace are really important concepts. For Catholics, the motion of God's grace and divine action are really concrete things. Grace comes through the sacraments, which are literally what they say they are. Mary appears sometimes and tells us things. Miracles literally happen. The saints are part of our community and you can talk to them and ask them for things. Their bones are pieces of that which is holy. The action of God is a very real and close part of the practice of the lay Catholic that can be studied and analysed in quite a scientific manner (look up how the Vatican approves miracles, for example!), and which the lay person interacts with in the same way they'd interact with any other part of their life. There's a quote from someone (Eamon Duffy??) that goes something like: for the mediaeval Catholic, Purgatory, Heaven, and Hell were places as real as Canterbury or Dover. Part of the Protestant paradigm involves spiritualising: Christ is not bodily present in the Eucharist, but spiritually, the saints are just any and all Christians, and heaven stays in heaven until you get there yourself. It's partly why Newman argues that this kind of spiritualised belief naturally tends towards atheism-- it's lost the sense of hard reality.
Hope that's at least somewhat helpful-- as I say, you can get bogged down in long lists of where beliefs differ, but I think given the rather broad and variable nature of Protestant beliefs, it's unhelpful to try to distill them down into A List. Similarly, because Catholic beliefs are so interdependent, it's really difficult to make the case for one belief without bringing in other parts of the network, which is why Prot-Cath dialogue often ends up going in circles quoting scripture or the church fathers and nobody wins. Feel free to ask further about anything if you can face another long answer (probably won't be quite as long as this!), and god bless you. I'll say a Hail Mary for you to find whatever it is that you need to find.
