Are Catholics and Protestants that different?

If this is the case, it is a very significant difference in Catholicism and other groups such as the thousands of fundamentalist evangelical churches church groups/denominations regarding baptism.

Evangelicals are a very large segment of Christianity, likely the majority, but not sure about that. They do not hold the same views and sacraments regarding Baptism. Most of these do not sprinkle or baptize babies. "Protestant" is a relative word so far as doctrine goes. The two major divisions are liberals/conservatives or evangelical/nonevangelical. Most evangelicals are also fundamentalist. These are the ones who differ the most with RCC on Baptism and they are a very significant percentage of Christians

I'm not sure, jar, that I'd agree that Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans and other liturgical Protestants constitute "the vast majority" of Protestants. There are 40 million Baptists in the United States, and I think there's 6 to 10 million Assembly of God, besides Presbyterian churches that may be liturgical but have extreme doctrinal differences with the Roman Catholics on some pretty major issues.

Obviously, there's not much difference in theology between the Anglicans and Episcopalians and the RCC, because the Anglicans only separated from the RCC over papal authority. The Lutherans, however, while being very liturgical and sacramental, but Luther's doctrines of predestination and salvation by faith definitely don't jive with the Roman Catholics.

Were not talking about mere symbology here, we are speaking about these relics giving some sort of mystical power to the possessors. Aside from the three I mentioned, Constantine's army was reputed to have in its possession a piece of the original crucifixion that Christ died on. They believed that having this piece of wood, just because it may or may not have once had Jesus body on it, would give them power to subdue the Muslim horde. Little do they realize that its not about trinkets and treasures of an ordinary kind, but rather of the spiritual kind.Now, if I had a piece of the original cross in my possession, I would certainly be elated at its historical significance. But lets not delude ourselves in thinking that mystical powers can be found on it because Jesus' mojo rubbed off on it. Its a piece of wood and nothing more. The substance of a man is found within him in relation to his Maker. It completely misses the point.

Maybe that is the simplest explanation, but simple is not always best. I believe as far as the OP goes, it is clear that Catholicism does not officially embrace pluralism, and that actually many sects are very my-way-or-the highway.

mjfloresta writes:1. the first, natural birth
2. being washed with the word of God
3. being washed (or born of) by the Holy Spirit
4. baptism

What do any of those have to do with infant baptism? To reiterate, again, I understand how the ritual works. I'm merely saying that this interpretation of how baptism works isn't supported by the Bible.

Suffice to say this new birth verse has been central to a large segment of non-Catholic evangelism whereas not so with RCs.