(Long Article) Why We Are Not Catholic: The Case for Mere Protestantism
Why We are Not Catholic
A Historical, Theological, and Biblical Assessment of Rome’s Claims
By Jeff Kennedy, Ph.D.
February 2, 2026
Abstract
This paper challenges Rome's claim to unbroken apostolic antiquity and authority by examining eight critical areas where Roman Catholicism diverges from Scripture and early church practice. While affirming Rome's preservation of essential Christian orthodoxy, I argue that the recognizable papal system emerged only after Rome's fall in AD 476, that papal supremacy finds no support in Scripture or consistent patristic witness, and that Rome's defining doctrines—Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, purgatory, sacramental justification—are medieval accretions lacking apostolic warrant. Contrary to popular YouTube caricatures today, the Reformers were not innovators but Catholic churchmen recovering apostolic foundations Rome had obscured. Furthermore, modern Catholicism has quietly adopted many Reformation principles while still anathematizing the Reformers who championed them. The Protestant position is not anti-Catholic but truly catholic grounded in Scripture, accountable to the apostolic gospel, and resting in Christ alone as sole mediator and finished sacrifice.
The Question of Roman Catholic Authority
In recent years, a small but not insignificant number of young evangelicals have converted to Roman Catholicism. These young converts often cite the same reasons for the switch: Rome's perceived antiquity over against the novelty of modern evangelicalism, its liturgical richness over against contemporary informality, and its claims to unbroken apostolic succession over against the fragmentation of Protestantism. A common refrain heard among these converts is the relief of no longer having to navigate endless debates over biblical interpretation. The Church simply pronounces what is to be taught on every matter, and this, we are told, silences endlessly fragmenting debates.
But what happens when that Church misinterprets Scripture, or reads its own traditions into the text so as to obscure rather than illuminate its meaning? Likewise, what happens when this alleged authoritative church contradicts itself from one era to the next? Where does the believer turn for the final and authoritative voice on these matters?
I understand the appeal. The above narrative and reasons seem initially compelling: Rome is ancient, Protestantism is modern and divided therefore, Rome possesses the authentic apostolic faith. But this simplistic perception deserves serious examination, both because I believe it rests on a misreading of history and a misunderstanding of the gospel. Apart from the fact that there are far more conversions from Rome into Protestantism than the reverse, Rome’s claim to antiquity and apostolicity must be examined (ironically) on it’s own merit.[1] A handful of popular YouTuber conversions, however visible, cannot offset these realities.
To be clear I want to say at the outset that Roman Catholicism preserves many essential Christian truths and remains a valuable ally in defending historic orthodoxy such as theism, the Nicene Creed, and biblical morality to name a few vital areas of agreement. That said, in what follows I will argue that Rome’s defining claims not only diverge from the apostolic pattern in key ways, but also tend to obscure the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work and the authority of Scripture. In some cases, these doctrinal accretions do more than obscure; they do violence to the apostolic witness as received by the earliest Christian communities.
My second aim is to dispel the myth that the choice is between Catholicism (ancient, unchanged, unreformable) and Protestantism (a novel departure from the true faith). Rome itself has undergone significant reform, Vatican II being only the most recent example—and modern Catholicism differs markedly from its medieval predecessor. Likewise, the Reformers were not innovators conjuring a new religion but instead were Catholic churchmen who affirmed Scripture's authority, the ecumenical creeds, and the witness of the Patristic Fathers. The Reformation was not a break from catholicity but a recovery of it. It as an attempt to return the church to its most ancient and apostolic expression through needed reforms.
What Is Roman Catholicism?
“Roman Catholic” refers to a particular denomination marked by papal supremacy (the belief that the Pope holds supreme authority over all Christians), a centralized magisterium (a teaching office that decides what all Catholics must believe), sacramental soteriology (the idea that salvation comes primarily through participation in church rituals like baptism, confession, last rites and Mass), and dogmatic definitions that extend well beyond the apostolic era (official teachings that the church declared binding centuries after the apostles died). Roman Catholicism is therefore a mixture of genuine early Christianity, fused with medieval philosophy and aesthetics and political structures.
While the third and fourth century church was episcopal and sacramental in a broad sense, it was also conciliar, plural, and governed by Scripture as the final authority. This distinction is vital to our understanding of Rome’s claims: appeals to antiquity often conflate early catholicity (universality) with later Roman centralization, collapsing the former into the latter with selective historical justification. We present eight theses regarding their central claims.
Thesis 1: The Claim of an Unbroken Line is a Myth
Roman Catholicism frequently appeals to antiquity as evidence of legitimacy. The argument runs something like this: “We are the original church; Protestants broke away from us and therefore have departed from established apostolic roots.” However, while Christianity itself is apostolic, the Roman Catholic Church in its recognizable feudal and post-Tridentine form does not meaningfully predate the late fifth and early sixth centuries. The consolidation of papal supremacy, canon law, sacerdotal mediation (being administered by a priesthood), and ecclesiastical monarchy coincides with the political vacuum left by the fall of Rome in AD 476.[2] The jurisdictional, monarchical form of papal supremacy becomes markedly defined in the post-imperial West.
With the Reformers, we maintain that these later additions called “accretions” cannot be traced back to Jesus or the apostles and therefore have no claim of authority on any era of Christianity.[3] The Reformers repeatedly accused Rome of introducing novae doctrinae (novel doctrines) unknown to the apostles and the early church. As informed students of the earlier patristic writings, the Reformers’ arguments were irrefutable. Medieval Catholic apologists were forced to shift from appeals to antiquity toward appeals to papal authority and doctrinal development—a tacit concession that Rome’s distinctive doctrines were indeed novae doctrinae—novel teachings unknown to the apostles and the early church.
Prior to Rome’s fifth century ascendency, the church is better described by regional episcopacy, conciliar decision making, and real theological diversity on non-essential matters. The five great patriarchates, including Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, functioned as coordinate centers of authority rather than a single Roman command structure. Appeals to antiquity therefore often commit a category error: they assume that because Christianity is ancient, Roman Catholicism as an institutional system must be equally ancient. That assumption cannot survive careful historical examination. The earliest pastors and patristic writers offer abundant examples of divergence, any number of which are sufficient to falsify Rome’s claim. The Reformers were sixteenth century Roman Catholics who knew this literature well, and on those grounds their arguments were unassailable.[4]
Biblical Response
Scripture never grounds the church’s authority in institutional continuity or unbroken succession but in fidelity to the apostolic gospel. Paul warned the Galatians that even if “we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). The test of legitimacy is not longevity of a particular institution but faithfulness to the gospel once delivered to the saints. Jesus Himself warned that traditions of men can nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:13). The church’s foundation is not an institution but “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20). Longstanding church tradition that is not faithful to the apostolic deposit of Scripture should be closely scrutinized through the lens of Scripture.
Thesis 2: Papal Authority Is Neither Apostolic nor Historical
Roman Catholic theology grounds papal supremacy in Petrine texts such as Matthew 16:18–19 and John 21:15–17. The argument is that Christ established Peter with a foundational role in the Church—often interpreted as involving a unique charism of leadership and unity—and that this role evolves through apostolic succession to the bishops of Rome, maturing into the defined primacy of Vatican I. While patristic interpretations of these passages were diverse and not uniformly “papal” in the later sense of universal jurisdiction, they often affirmed Peter as a symbol of ecclesial unity or the apostolic confession, with some early witnesses suggesting an embryonic primacy that could develop into a transferable office of service and stability.[5]
Others in the patristic era contested exaggerated claims of Roman supremacy, reflecting ongoing debates over its scope rather than outright denial of any special role.[6] Cyprian of Carthage, for example, famously rejected the notion that Peter possessed unilateral authority over the church, insisting on the essential equality of bishops. In his De unitate ecclesiae, Cyprian affirmed that each bishop holds the fullness of his office directly from Christ, not derivatively from Rome.[7] Eastern Fathers acknowledged Rome’s honor but denied its jurisdictional supremacy. Ecumenical councils resolved disputes through appeal to Scripture and conciliar consensus, not papal decree.[8] It goes without saying that before Vatican I (AD 1870), not a single ecumenical creed was decided by a Petrine successor, and that includes the Council of Trent (which was a council). The papal system, as it came to be defined at Vatican I, would have been unrecognizable to the earliest apostolic church, and arguably unfamiliar to the earliest Roman Catholic Church.
Biblical Response
The New Testament portrays Peter as a prominent apostle—first among equals—but never as a monarchical ruler over the church. However, Vatican I explicitly anathematizes those who hold the view that the pope's role is merely supervisory. They maintain that the Pope has “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church,” and this authority is “ordinary and immediate” over all churches, pastors, and faithful Christians. This claim is far higher than any such claim made in Scripture concerning Peter’s authority in the Church.
One example should suffice to falsify Rome’s doctrine on the matter. At the Jerusalem Council, it was James, not Peter, who rendered the decisive verdict (Acts 15:13–21) in consultation with the all the apostles and elders, as well as the congregation itself. In fact, Peter felt the need to report on God’s dealing with the Roman household of Cornelius (Acts 10) and Peter was expected to defend this action before the council. In no way does he sit as a supreme judge over that group of pastors and apostles or even the congregation. Later, Paul would publicly oppose him “to his face” when he acted hypocritically (Gal 2:11), an unthinkable act if Peter possessed supreme jurisdictional authority. Peter himself referred to pastors as “fellow elders” (1 Pet 5:1), making no personal claim to supreme authority.
Moreover, the “rock” upon which Christ builds His church is best understood as Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” not Peter’s person or office. The fact that the responsibility of “binding and loosing” believers to the community of faith is given to all believers in the local church just two chapters later (Matt 18) demonstrates that it was the rock of Peter’s confession, not his person, that the Church is built upon. Christ alone is the head of the church (Eph 1:22; Col 1:18). This is the way those passages were largely interpreted by the eastern and western churches before the fall of Rome when the Roman church stepped into the vacuum.
Thesis 3: Papal Authority Is Internally Contested
Even within Roman Catholic history, papal supremacy has been repeatedly contested. Conciliarism (the view that an ecumenical council holds supreme authority over the pope in matters of faith, reform, and governance) in the late medieval period explicitly subordinated papal authority to ecumenical councils. The Council of Constance (1414–1418) deposed rival popes and asserted conciliar supremacy in the decree Haec Sancta. Gallicanism in France denied papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction well into the modern era.[9]
Catholic apologists tend to avoid the history of Rome’s “Western Schism” (1378–1417) for obvious reasons. Far from a monolithic and unified Church, this schism in Roman Catholic history is damning to the case for an unbroken infallible papal line. During this period, multiple claimants to the papacy simultaneously anathematized one another, each claiming to be the true Vicar of Christ.[10] If the papacy is the divinely instituted guarantor of ecclesial unity, how could such a catastrophic rupture occur? The schism was prior to the Reformation era and exposes the instability of claims to uninterrupted Petrine authority and raises serious questions about whether the papal office functions as Rome claims it does.
Biblical Response
No one could deny Peter’s central role of leadership within the order of disciples, or among the church. He is clearly the central figure and chief spokesman among the apostles up until Paul’s introduction in Acts 9. The issue of Spirit-anointed “point” leadership is biblically uncontested.[11]
Yet, Scripture does not explicitly depict an infallible human office akin to Vatican I's definition of papal primacy. Rather, New Testament unity is grounded in the Spirit’s work through the Word of Christ, embodied in the gospel proclaimed by the apostles and preserved in the canonical texts (John 16:13), not primarily in later institutional structures (though it is fair to say that Catholics view such developments as organic extensions under the Spirit’s guidance). Jesus prayed that His followers would be one “even as we are one” (John 17:22)—a unity rooted in Trinitarian fellowship and mutual love, not exclusively in hierarchical submission to a single human leader. The apostles exercised authority collegially, with the Church’s doctrinal decisions often reached through Spirit-led consensus, as in the Jerusalem Council’s declaration: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). While patristic witnesses show early deference to Rome in some contexts, the notion of one man as the singular, irreformable arbiter of Christian truth, independent of conciliar or communal discernment, finds limited direct support in the New Testament and remains contested in the immediate post-apostolic centuries, where authority appears more distributed and situational.
Thesis 4: Moral Failure Undermines Claims of Papal Indefectibility
Roman Catholicism maintains that the papacy enjoys a unique protection from doctrinal error—a charism (spiritual gift) of “indefectibility” that preserves the church from teaching falsehood in matters of faith and morals. Yet history records numerous popes whose lives were marked by corruption, violence, nepotism, indulgence, atheism, and immorality. While personal sin does not automatically invalidate office, the sustained moral decay of the papacy in certain eras (the pornocracy of the tenth century, the depraved Renaissance papacy, the Borgia pontificates) challenges claims that the office itself functions as a uniquely preserved vessel of apostolic faithfulness.[12] History says otherwise.
More troubling still are instances where popes promulgated or endorsed teachings later recognized as heretical. Pope Honorius I, for example, was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 681) for his handling of the Monothelite controversy. Pope Liberius signed an Arian or semi-Arian formula under pressure. These cases invalidate the claim that the papal office carries an intrinsic guarantee against doctrinal error.[13]
Biblical Response
The New Testament locates doctrinal fidelity not in office but in conformity to Christ and His Word. Jesus warned that false teachers would arise even from within the church (Matt 7:15; 24:24). Paul told the Ephesian elders that “fierce wolves” would emerge “from among your own selves” (Acts 20:29–30). The safeguard against error is not an infallible human office but the Spirit-illuminated Word of God, which alone is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). Claims of indefectibility grounded in institutional succession rather than fidelity to Scripture invert the biblical pattern of accountability. Moreover, this claim misreads Paul’s reference to “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15, ESV). Paul does not present the church as the source or substance of infallible truth, but as its servant and steward, given a ministerial charge to protect and guard the truth against the very doctrinal accretions of human tradition that, historically, have intruded even into the Roman Church.
Thesis 5: Doctrinal Accretions Can be Heretical
Roman Catholicism has formally codified a number of doctrines that lack clear apostolic warrant and, in several cases, not only stand in tension with Scripture, but do violence to its claims. These include Marian dogmas including: the Immaculate Conception (as late as 1854), the Assumption (created in 1950), the perpetual virginity of Mary (AD 553), and her expanding theological roles as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix (1891).[14] They also include transubstantiation, sacerdotal mediation through an ordained priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, and the treasury of merit. It is interesting that the present pope has rejected the language of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, affirming Christ alone as the sole agent and merit of redemption. The resulting doctrinal instability raises a fundamental question of coherence. Such reversals are difficult to reconcile with claims of a divinely preserved and doctrinally indefectible magisterium.[15]
More to the point, these doctrines are not only accretions, they are potentially heretical as they even deny established biblical teachings. The Marian dogmas, in particular, represent a trajectory of theological speculation that finds little grounding in the New Testament which presents Mary as a faithful disciple but never as sinless, perpetually virginal after Christ’s birth, or assumed bodily into heaven. One wonders what could possibly falsify such a view. Surely if the NT authors spoke to these matters then it would be enough to falsify these Marian additions.
Biblical Response
In fact, the NT authors do address some of these matters directly and explicitly. Christ alone is our sole mediator for redemption (Rom 3:25; Hebrew 4). The Gospels explicitly claim that Jesus had many brothers and sisters who visited him on occasion (Matt 13). The natural and untortured reading of these passages is that these siblings were the offspring of Mary, Jesus’ younger brothers and sisters.
Equally baffling and troubling, the doctrine of transubstantiation appears to import Aristotelian metaphysical categories foreign to biblical thought, common within Anselmian and Thomistic medieval philosophy. The notion that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ ignores Jesus’ own interpretation of that metaphor in John 6—a metaphor that communicates what is means to partake is to believe on the Son, not to literally ingest his body and blood (which is absurd). Not to mention that John 6 says nothing about the Eucharist or “bread and wine.” Rome is guilty of the exact overly wooden literalism that Jesus constantly chastised the Pharisees for, and at times the disciples themselves.[16] It seems far less plausible that these dogmas are apostolic in origin and more likely they are historic accumulations over time.
Scripture presents itself as sufficient for faith and practice. Paul commended Timothy to “the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). Jesus’ younger brother Jude urged believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), a faith already delivered, not progressively augmented by ongoing church tradition. The apostles warned repeatedly against adding to their teaching (Gal 1:8; Rev 22:18–19). While legitimate theological development clarifies and applies apostolic teaching, it does not introduce novel doctrines unknown to the apostles themselves. When a doctrine cannot be demonstrated from Scripture, it lacks apostolic warrant and should not bind the conscience of believers.
Thesis 6: The Medieval Church Was Already in Crisis and Reform
A common Roman Catholic narrative portrays the Protestant Reformation as an unprecedented rupture of Christian unity. Luther and the Reformers are painted with the same broad brush: rebels who shattered a unified Christendom for personal or political reasons. This narrative obscures the reality that the medieval church was already in profound crisis long before 1517 (as demonstrated above by the Western Schism). Figures such as John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Savonarola, and Erasmus of Rotterdam identified corruption, doctrinal excess, and clerical abuse well before Luther posted his theses. Far from being a sudden and abrupt rupture, the Reformation was a long, slow fuse that eventually reached its powder in Luther’s day. Many primary and secondary sources establish and document longstanding institutional and moral crises within the medieval church before the “big bang” of the Lutheran movement.[17]
The Reformers did not reject catholicity. They rejected Roman absolutism and corruption. They were not guilty of novelty but attempted to conform church doctrine and practice back to a faithful scriptural standard. Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers saw themselves as reforming the church, not abandoning it. They stood within an existing trajectory of internal critique that Rome had repeatedly suppressed rather than addressed. It was the papacy, not the Reformers, who were guilty of doctrinal and ecclesiastical novelty.[18]
Biblical Response
A commitment to internal reform is explicitly the biblical pattern on display in the book of Acts. We see the church over a period of decades responding and clarifying its doctrines and practices, reforming them to Christ’s known Word rather than an unheard of extra-biblical tradition. The Apostles’ preaching and teaching was an extension and illumination of the gospel that was already revealed, not obscuring it and changing it fundamentally. Scripture establishes a pattern of reform through return to God's Word. Josiah's reorganization came through the rediscovery of the Book of the Law (2 Kings 22–23). Ezra led Israel back to covenant faithfulness by reading and explaining the Scriptures (Neh 8). Jesus Himself called Israel back to the true meaning of Torah against the accumulated traditions of the Pharisees (Matt 15:1–9). The prophetic pattern is consistent: when the people of God drift from His Word, reform comes through recovery of that Word, not through institutional loyalty to structures that have departed from it. If the Reformers were guilty of anything it was in following this prophetic pattern.
Thesis 7: The Modern Catholic Church is Reformed
In practice, modern Catholic life often doesn’t reflect medieval realities that condemned those who were pro-reform. Today, Catholics commonly own a Bible in their own language without fearing the pyre.[19] Vernacular liturgy is common these days but rare and off limits in the Medieval era. Likewise, congregational response and singing are expected today, and lay participation in reading and ministry is commonplace. The church no longer traffics in the public sale of indulgences the way it once did, and it openly affirms religious liberty and engages Protestants with a posture that would have been unthinkable in the age of coerced uniformity and anathematizing polemics. Even the entire administrative ecosystem has changed: standardized seminaries, modern accountability structures, and parish life shaped by liberal education, universal literacy, and access to Scripture for all. All of these changes are reforms.
The irony is hard to ignore here. Rome has quietly adopted many of the very reforms these alleged “rebels” died for while maintaining that those same Reformers were schismatics and heretics.[20] Yet the Council of Trent continues to anathematize Protestants, creating an unresolved tension between Rome’s past and present. If the Reformers were wrong to insist on these reforms, why has Rome embraced so many of them? If they were right, why does Trent’s condemnation still stand as official dogma? Trent needs to be rewritten and reformed instead of upheld and defended. Consistency and integrity demand that if Rome’s changes are good, the men who originally championed them should be vindicated and the Catholic church should offer a public and official apology to these great men of God.
Biblical Response
Jesus consistently condemned religious hypocrisy, the gap between what leaders say and what they do. In his famous diatribe against the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 23:3, Christ said, “So do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” He also insisted that God’s Word must never be subordinated to human tradition, “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do” (Mark 7:13). Scripture repeatedly binds the church to self-examination and repentance, not simply to self-preservation at all costs. When Paul told the Thessalonians to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess 5:21) he expected church leaders to go first and model it by example. When John stated, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1) this was to be a check on those claiming apostolic authority who obscure or change God’s written truth in Scripture. The Bereans, for example, were praised because they took it upon themselves to cross-examine the Apostles’ claims against the Bible, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Even apostolic authority was to be assessed by the standard of the Word, not received as immune from scrutiny. And the apostles took no offense at this.
Scripture is explicit that error can arise from within the church’s own leadership structures, which means the office cannot function as a guarantee of doctrinal purity. Even God-ordained offices must be held to an objective, written standard of truth.
We see this in Paul’s warning to the God-ordained elders overseeing the Ephesian Church: “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30). Catholics are quick to point out that Paul gives this instruction against false teachers to the elders in Ephesus, not regarding the Bible. But the irony is that later Paul must send Timothy to that very church in order to instruct the them and to equip a new generation of leaders to raise up leaders with “the Word” which he is to preach faithfully, the Scriptures which alone are the infallible inspired breathing of God for the Church (1 Tim 3:16–17).
In fact, Paul insists that anyone who presumes to teach the church must be held to the standard of the gospel which has been already received by the church, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). The decisive criterion for truthfulness or trustworthiness is not the rank or the person, or the institution, it’s the Word—whether or not that message comports to the revealed apostolic gospel already preached. It is not controversial to say that we have that apostolic word already given to the church and established in Scripture.
Self-correction then, is a praiseworthy practice, and institutional reforms can be strong evidence of God working in and through the church. Integrity necessitates that we make adjustments when we get it wrong and that we maintain a spirit of semper reformanda (ever reforming) through sanctification and spiritual growth. Paul said as much to the Ephesians, “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph 4:15). Reform is not about rebellion, it’s about purifying and ridding ourselves of all moral and institutional corruption.
Thesis 8: Roman Catholic Justification isn’t Pauline
The greatest historic disagreement with Roman Catholicism is the doctrine of justification. Much has been written on this, so it simply bears repeating: to accept Rome’s mature dogmatic account would require us to soften, and in places effectively reverse, Paul’s controlling antithesis between grace and works in the article by which the church stands or falls. Paul does not merely say that works are an unhelpful add-on; he says justification is by faith “apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28), and even more starkly, that God “justifies the ungodly” and counts faith as righteousness precisely in the case of “the one who does not work” (Rom 4:5).
Rome, however, defines justification not chiefly as God’s once-for-all forensic verdict on the ungodly, grounded wholly in Christ and received through faith, but as an infused, transforming righteousness within the believer that includes renewal and sanctification as belonging to justification itself. Trent explicitly describes justification as “not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man,” and it goes on to treat justification as something that can be increased as believers “increase in that justice which they have received … and are still further justified.”[21] The Catechism reiterates this framework by describing justification as both forgiveness and interior renewal, and by treating grace-enabled obedience as belonging intrinsically to the justified state rather than as the fruit of a completed verdict.
Biblical Response
A good interpretational rule of thumb is that the Bible means what it meant to say, not what it can be made to say. After hundreds of years of detailed, thorough exegesis on Pauline texts in their Greco-Roman contexts, it is well established that the term dikaiōsis (and the dikai family of words) means “a forensic change of status; a declaration of right standing.” This is a judicial metaphor pulled from Paul’s day that meant a legal justification before the bar of a high court. The person receiving this justification is not infused with merit. Justification is therefore not a change of state but status.
Sanctification is the term that Paul used to describe the believer’s transformation into Christ’s likeness from one degree of glory to the next. Paul insists that God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:5)—not the godly. Moreover, Paul treats this justification as if it is thoroughly past tense: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). The work to us is done. But the work in us being done. Sanctification flows naturally out of and follows our justification but must not be confused with it. On this point, the Reformers did not innovate but recovered apostolic teaching that Rome had obscured through centuries of sacramental and penitential accretions. These works obscure the biblical teaching that is at the very heart of the Christian faith.
The Gospel proclaims that sinners are declared righteous before God not on the basis of their own works or inherent transformation but solely on the basis of Christ's finished work received through faith. One wonders how Paul could have said it clearer when he wrote: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8–9). The thief on the cross entered paradise that very day (Luke 23:43)—not after purgatorial purification, but immediately, on the basis of Christ’s word and work alone. This is the Gospel, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). Rome's conflation of justification and sanctification undermines the assurance Scripture offers and redirects the believer's hope from Christ's finished work to their own ongoing transformation through works.
Conclusion
To the young people who feel the pull of Rome because it seems older and long-established, its attraction is in some ways understandable. In a seemingly fragmented evangelical landscape, longevity feels like security. But do not mistake old stones for a sure foundation. Rust can be ancient too. A church may adorn itself with relics and phylacteries, may hang medieval history on every wall and polish the brass until it shines, but a gilded cage is a cage nonetheless. Seek stability and treasure tradition, yes, but stay alive in the power of the living Spirit, never trading the clarity of Scripture for the comfort of institutionalism. And do not trade the security of being justified by grace through faith in Christ alone for a system that keeps you always climbing, always measuring, yet always coming up short. Keep the center where the apostles kept it: Christ finished, Christ sufficient, Christ received by faith, and the Word of God as the final court of appeal over every human word, no matter how venerable it may seem.
[1] Today, Pew Research reports that for every convert Rome receives, more than eight depart, either into atheism or Protestant faith. See the 2023–24 “Religious Landscape Study,” which found that for every one person who joins the Catholic Church, 8.4 leave—the worst retention ratio of any major religious group in America. Fully 43 percent of those raised Catholic no longer identify as such, and 13 percent of all U.S. adults are former Catholics. Fourteen percent of Americans raised Catholic are now Protestant. Meanwhile, the traditionally Catholic nations of Western Europe are experiencing dramatic demographic decline: Poland (over 90 percent Catholic) has a fertility rate of 1.3; Spain (75 percent Catholic) sits at 1.2; Italy has hit historic lows. All fall well below the 2.1 replacement rate. Roman Catholicism historically relied on intergenerational transmission, that is children raised in the faith—but this pipeline is collapsing as birth rates plummet and retention rates decline. Pew Research Center, "Why Do Some Americans Leave Their Religion While Others Stay?" (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, December 15, 2025); Catholic News Agency, "Global Fertility Rates: Here's How Majority-Catholic Countries Rank Against Rest of World," May 7, 2024, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257577/global-fertility-rates-heres-how-majority-catholic-countries-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world.
[2] R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 101–134.
[3] The Reformers were not theological innovators but Catholic churchmen steeped in patristic scholarship who turned Rome's own appeal to antiquity against her. Luther, Calvin, and their colleagues had been trained in the church's theological tradition and knew the fathers intimately. Calvin's Institutes alone contains over 4,700 citations from patristic sources, with Augustine, Chrysostom, and Ambrose appearing most frequently. See R. J. Mooi, Het Kerk- en Dogmahistorisch Element in de Werken van Johannes Calvijn (Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1962), 396. Calvin explicitly challenged Rome's claim to patristic support: “We do not despise the Fathers; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.” John Calvin, Prefatory Address to King Francis I, in Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 18–19. The most dramatic demonstration of the Reformers' patristic mastery came in Bishop John Jewel's famous "Challenge Sermon" at St. Paul's Cross, London, on November 26, 1559. Jewel publicly challenged all comers to prove Rome's distinctive doctrines and practices from Scripture, the ecumenical councils, or the church fathers of the first six hundred years. “If any learned man of our adversaries,” Jewel declared, "be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor, or Father; or out of any old general Council; or out of the holy Scriptures of God; or any one example of the Primitive Church for the space of six hundred years after Christ," he would recant and submit. The challenge sparked sixty-four polemical exchanges over the following decade, yet Rome's apologists could not meet it. Jewel's subsequent Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae (1562) became the foundational defense of the English Reformation precisely because it demonstrated, point by point, that medieval Catholic innovations in the Mass, purgatory, papal supremacy, and sacerdotal mediation had no warrant in antiquity. See John Jewel, The Works of John Jewel, ed. John Ayre, 4 vols., Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1845–1850); Gary W. Jenkins, John Jewel and the English National Church (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006); Angela Ranson, André A. Gazal, and Sarah Bastow, eds., Defending the Faith: John Jewel and the Elizabethan Church (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2018). More broadly, see Matthew Barrett, The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), which demonstrates that the Reformers intended to be more catholic than Rome and largely succeeded by recovering the Augustinian tradition that late medieval Catholicism had abandoned.
[4] The Reformers charged Rome not with antiquity but with novitas (novelty), accusing the church of introducing doctrines unknown to the apostles. The humanist cry ad fontes ("to the sources") urged a return to Scripture and the earliest fathers over medieval accretion. The Reformers also invoked the Vincentian Canon against Rome: Vincent of Lérins (d. ca. 445) had proposed that authentic doctrine must be “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Papal supremacy, purgatory, and the Marian dogmas, the Reformers argued, failed this test. See Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 32–68.
[5] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017), 397–401.
[6] In the 3rd–5th centuries you do find major bishops and regional synods resisting the idea that Rome possessed ordinary, immediate jurisdiction over other bishops (especially in North Africa). Though in fairness, other church leaders did accept the notion of Rome having a privileged apostolic position, and even arbitration in certain disputes. All this to say it was a highly contested idea and a later accretion not original to earliest Christian communities or centers of authority in the church.
[7] Cyprian of Carthage, De unitate ecclesiae 4–5. Cyprian employs Petrine and “one chair” imagery as a symbol of ecclesial unity, yet his controlling claim is the collegial and undivided character of the episcopate: episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur (Unit. 5). The precise force of the Petrine language in Unit. 4–5 is complicated by the two-recension textual tradition. In any case, while not denying that Roman authority was a touchstone of unity for the church, Cyprian resists a “bishop of bishops” principle and treats each bishop as exercising real authority as a participant in the one episcopate. On the broader, recurring contest over Roman primacy in East–West sources and later reception, see A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate (Oxford: OUP, 2017); see also Philippe Levillain (ed.), The Papacy: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2002).
[8] Norman Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1–25. Vatican I (Pastor aeternus) explicitly anathematizes the view that the pope has merely a supervisory office rather than “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church,” and it specifies that this power is “ordinary and immediate” over all churches, pastors, and faithful. It is helpful to point out that Catholic tradition views the papal system, as defined at Vatican I, not as unrecognizable to the earliest Church but as a legitimate development from biblical seeds, clarifying Peter's foundational role amid historical needs. But this notion of Petrine supremacy in “seed” form seems to be an implicit admission that it was not the doctrine of Peter nor the apostles themselves, but a later accretion.
[9] See Francis Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church, 1300–1870 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Brian Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955); Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1 (London: Sheed and Ward; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 409–411; Richard Schenk, “Conciliarism,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). In this context, conciliarism refers to the view that the highest governing authority in the Church resides not in the pope alone, but in the Church assembled in a general (ecumenical) council. According to conciliarist theory, an ecumenical council derives its authority directly from Christ and therefore has the right to judge, correct, or even depose a pope if necessary for the good of the Church. This position came to the fore during the late medieval papal crises, especially at the Council of Constance, which ended the Western Schism by deposing rival claimants to the papacy. In its decree Haec Sancta, the council explicitly asserted that a general council stands above the Pope in matters of faith, reform, and church governance.
[10] Council of Constance. “Haec Sancta Synodus” [Decree on the Authority of the Council, Session 5, April 6, 1415]; See Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman P. Tanner, 1:409–10. 2 vols. London: Sheed & Ward; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990. The Cardinals [French Faction]. “Manifesto of the Cardinals” [Declaration Invalidating Urban VI's Election, August 2, 1378]. In Unity, Heresy, and Reform, 1378–1460: The Conciliar Response to the Great Schism, translated and edited by C. M. D. Crowder, 27–30. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1977;
[11] Jesus himself serves as the chief leader and spokesman of the disciples (e.g., as archegos or chief shepherd in Heb. 12:2; 1 Pet. 5:4; cf. Acts 3:15), guiding them authoritatively while fostering communal participation. Peter is prominently among the three in Jesus’ inner circle (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33), and he emerges as the primary apostle in Acts 1-10, preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41), performing miracles (Acts 3:1-10), and defending the faith (Acts 4:8-12; 5:29-32). Paul functions as the chief spokesman in his missionary groups (e.g., leading debates in Acts 13:46-47; 17:2-4; cf. his self-description as an apostle with authority in 1 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 11:5). Timothy and Titus are portrayed as senior level pastors or shepherds, entrusted with oversight (1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5), equipping believers (2 Tim. 2:2), and correcting doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6-16; Titus 1:9-13). Paul addresses Timothy and Titus directly as key leaders in their respective churches, emphasizing personal charges without primary mention of elders or congregations (2 Tim. 1:1-6; 4:1-5; Titus 1:1-5). In Revelation, Jesus’ messages to the Asia Minor churches are addressed to each's “angel” (likely the leading overseer; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), highlighting point leadership amid plurality.
[12] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), §§890–892, which articulates the Church’s claim that the magisterium, under specific conditions, is preserved from error in matters of faith and morals. For a standard pre–Vatican II dogmatic formulation of papal indefectibility and infallibility; Avery Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2007), which explains the theological limits and claims surrounding papal teaching authority; Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 121–176.
[13] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners, esp. chapters on the tenth century and Renaissance papacy; Ferdinand Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 3 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1903), for detailed documentation of the so-called pornocracy; J. N. D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), entries on John XII, Alexander VI, and other Renaissance popes; Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (New York: Crown Publishers, 1988), which compiles primary historical material on corruption, nepotism, and immorality within the papal office.
[14] No doubt, there were early and medieval Patristics who held some of these views as part of their understanding of Mary as “Mother of God” though Nestorious preferred the term Christotokos (Christ-bearer). More recently Francis and the current Pope have issued clarifying statements that in no way is Mary a redeemer, and that title and work belongs only to Christ, as the NT teaches. But the subtle allusions to her as “co-redemptrix” even if only used in a devotional or non-magisterial sense are dangerous and unhelpful.
[15] In November 2025 the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by the pope, issued Mater Populi Fidelis, a doctrinal note clarifying that the title “Co-Redemptrix” is not an appropriate doctrinal title for Mary because it risks obscuring the unique and exclusive role of Christ as the sole mediator and redeemer of salvation. Earlier in his papacy, Pope Francis himself expressed similar opposition to the use of the term, affirming that Mary “never wanted to appropriate anything of her Son for herself…There is only one Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), §§490–493 (Immaculate Conception), §§499–507 (Perpetual Virginity), §§964–970 (Marian mediation), §§966 (Assumption); Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (December 8, 1854); Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (November 1, 1950).
[16] A few examples: Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD) emphasized a symbolic view in Against Marcion 4.40, stating that Christ “made the bread, which He took and distributed to His disciples, His body by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body,” which Protestants interpret as rejecting substantial change; cf. Augustine, Tractates on John 26.1, where he urges spiritual understanding: “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see.” See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 166–68; cf. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 AD): In his Demonstration of the Gospel (Book 8), he described the Eucharist as a “commemoration” and “symbol” of Christ's sacrifice, emphasizing its memorial and spiritual significance rather than a literal presence or change in the elements; Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–466 AD): In his Eranistes (Dialogues), he wrote that the “mystical symbols” of bread and wine “do not depart from their own nature; for they remain in their former substance, figure, and form,” while conveying grace spiritually; Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395 AD): In his Catechetical Oration (ch. 37), he portrayed the Eucharist as a “type” or antidote for spiritual nourishment, using allegorical language that focuses on mystical union rather than physical conversion, which some argue downplays literal presence.
[17] Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (New York: Viking, 2004), 42–78; Eamon Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, 1–52; Heiko A. Oberman, Dawn of the Reformation, 3–28; Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation, 1–67; R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church, 238–82; John Wycliffe, Truth of Holy Scripture, 17–45; Jan Hus, The Church, 1–36; Desiderius Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, 67–112; Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 193–215.
[18] Martin Luther, “Preface to the New Testament” (1522), in Luther’s Works, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament I, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 357–362 ; Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate” (1520), in Luther’s Works, vol. 44, The Christian in Society I, ed. James Atkinson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 115–217 ; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 ed., 1.7.1–2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960);
[19] With respect to the “Bible access” problem we should note that this was not a uniform, universally defined dogma against vernacular Scripture, but it was often a brutal and lethal disciplinary regime in certain regions where church and state joined hands to suppress dissent. In those places, the difference between possessing Bible contraband/religious tracts and being branded a heretic could be the difference between life and death.; See Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (November 18, 1965), no. 22; Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963), nos. 14, 30, 36, 54; Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio (November 21, 1964), nos. 1, 4, 9; Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae (December 7, 1965), no. 2. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Lollard,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (accessed January 19, 2026); The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “William Tyndale,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (accessed January 19, 2026); John Johnson, A Collection of the Laws and Canons of the Church of England, 2 vols. (Oxford: John Henry Parker; London: Francis and John Rivington, 1851), 2:457–474 (Constitutions of Oxford/Arundel measures on vernacular Scripture and related controls)\; Council of Trent, Session 25, “Decree Concerning Indulgences” (December 4, 1563), in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 (London: Sheed and Ward; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990); Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina (January 1, 1967); Apostolic Penitentiary, “The Gift of the Indulgence” (January 29, 2000); Council of Trent, Session 6, “Decree on Justification,” canons (1547), in Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (for the “anathema” formulations on justification).
[20] Proto-reformers such as Wycliffe and Hus are still treated as heretics today in formal pronouncements, though Pope John Paul II apologized and expressed deep regret over the way Hus was treated and executed.
[21] Council of Trent, Session VI (January 13, 1547), “Decree on Justification,” chap. 7; “Canons on Justification,” canon 24, in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London: Sheed & Ward; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2:671–81.