Aiming this at the theolgical differences, not the structural differences. (i.e. Papal/Patrichal systems)
201532
Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics separated from one another in 1054. There are very few theological differences. The main difference is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches follow the Byzantine Rite and the Roman Catholic Church follows the Roman or Latin Rite.\n\nPope John Paul II said of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in Orientale Lumen, "A particularly close link already binds us. We have almost everything in common."
62746
Too many double negative for al old guy like me, but .... \nAnglicans generally, and officially, attribute no special divine powers to the Pope. Remember, Anglicans broke with Rome when Henry was having his lady-problems way back when.\n\nEven in Catholicism, papal infallibility is relatively new - it was ordained in the 19th century. (BTW, it was opposed vigorously by many American bishops).
114805
It's not a weird notion.  There is no evidence of a lot of things that transpired during the times of Christ.   Sure the Bible talks about it and is the ONLY accepted history of that time.   I'm inclined to think that the apostles did run with their interpretation of Christ's teachings.   I'm not so sure it was to create an alternate Jewish religion, but an alternate politically correct on of the time.   Jesus didn't come to Earth to have people worship him as God.  That was furthest from his teachings.  His teachings were to show people the way to the Father through his teachings.  Even the perverstion of "The only way to heaven is through Christ."   It simply means that to get to heaven is to be like Christ and follow his teachings.   It does not mean to worship him as God.   Never has, never did, never will.
164885
The Vatican have their own web site you might want to look at it.  or check  --- http://thevatican.com  --- although at the moment this site is not avaliable.
277428
it's not based on truth
576636
I looked for the statement by Cardinal Castrillon but couldn't find it. So I can't state an opinion.\n\nPlease add a link next time. \n\nThank you.
159765
I agree with Maimonides, who basically also sees eye to eye with classical (i.e. pre-evangelical fundamentalist) Christian theology: the same views were essentially held by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in the 4th century.
3024
I dont really see a difference. Surely there is differences . Like most of the time judges marry in court houses or their preferred spot. I'm not sure what the judge says, but i'm guessing its pretty similar to what a priest says in his church.
136464
I think santaria is a very interesting example of religious syncretism between west african beliefs and catholicism.  I am not Catholic but I think if someone is true to Catholicism and the legitimacy of the pope then they would have to reject Santaria.  That is just my opinion though.  I find it very interesting how much variation there is in catholicism despite the authority of the vatican.
374694
It isn't different.  It is mind control for the masses/\nPlus this religious leaders are getting rich.\nWhile telling people to vote for big business and they take from the poor to give to the rich.  But that's ok because they don't allow gays to get married.  Like who cares?
525044
Wow! I never linked them together but these similarities are uncanny. The Mormons believe that God use to be a man, I don't think that the restoration movement teaches this.
160745
You can do Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard.  Big difference.
676530
in virgin mary rather than jesus
406221
I don't follow an organized religion - I follow Jesus - there is a big difference.
71734
This is a logical fallacy, appeal to novelty, that states that because something is newer it is better.  There is nothing, per se, wrong with following customs that are centuries old just because they are old.  It's just as wrong as the "Give me that old time religion" argument, which states that because it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for "me".  That's an appeal to tradition.  People should follow what actually works, regardless of when it was developed.  I guess this isn't really an answer to the question, though.
456364
Common sense would dictate that the Church of Christ, the one He personally founded for all mankind, would be the one which can show a 2,000 year history. For example, there is no mention of an "Orthodox Church" in any historical writing before the 10th Century.  No historical record of any Protestant church before the 16th Century.  But there are written historical documents by the Holy Catholic Church and about the Holy Catholic Church, by that name, dating back to bishops of the Church who knew the Apostles personally.  It's really an open and shut case.  Many people have many reasons for not wanting to accept the historical truth.  But that doesn't make it any less true.
265455
Different protestant churches may have different views on biblical topics from each other and from the Catholic Church. One of the main things about the Catholic Church is that they put their church tradition at a higher place than the Bible. This is a very dangerous thing to do because it allows the church to hold views that even go plainly against the Bible. Example: if you read 1 Tim 4:1-5 you will read in the Bible (even the Catholic Bible) that men who forbid people to marry are following a doctrine of demons. The Catholic church disregards the Bible there and insists on promoting a doctrine that is not from God. The rampant homosexuality in the priesthood is a by-product of following that demonic teaching. Being single is actualy better for those who want to be more devoted to the Lord but that should never be forced on anyone. \n\nAnother area where there is great danger, is where the Catholic church makes a Pope to be in charge of the church. He is actually called the vicar of Christ which means that he is the representative of Christ here on earth. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the head of the church and the believers are His body. A Pope is said to be able to speak "excathedera" (I think I mispelled it) which means that when he speaks on matters of doctrine and faith, he is "infallible" Obviously throughout the Catolic Church's history it has been wrong in many of its actions and beliefs as in the example I already gave. \n\nProtestants may have differing views but rarely are they as serious as undermining the scriptures and worshiping a man as supreme leader of the church.    \n\nYour average catholic does not know much of the Catholic official teachings which include "transubstantiation", progatory, outright idolatry, not beliving that Jesus died once for all sins as evidenced in the sacrifice of the "Mass", not being able to clain assurance of salvation (one of the worst beliefs of all), adding several books to the old testament about 1500 yrs after the fact to try to defend some of their unbiblical beliefs and the sale of indulgences ect.....Today when I meet a catholic who is open to the Bible, I don't try to bring up most of the above. I try to talk about having a personal relation with Christ and knowing that to get to heaven is a choice that depends on one's own decision not belonging to such and such a church.