(Short Essay) Why We Are Not Catholic: The Case For Mere Protestantism
The Case for Mere Protestantism
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 critical areas where Roman Catholicism diverges from Scripture and early church practice. While affirming Rome's preservation of essential Christian orthodoxy, I argue 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. 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: Rome's perceived antiquity over against the novelty of modern evangelicalism, its liturgical richness, and its claims to unbroken apostolic succession over against the fragmentation of Protestantism. A common refrain is the relief of no longer having to navigate endless debates over biblical interpretation. The Church simply pronounces what is to be taught.
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? Where does the believer turn for the final and authoritative voice?
Roman Catholicism preserves many essential Christian truths and remains a valuable ally in defending core aspects of historic orthodoxy. That said, 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.
My aim is to dispel the myth that the choice is between Catholicism (ancient, unchanged, unreformable) and Protestantism (a novel departure). Rome itself has undergone significant reform. The Reformers were not innovators conjuring a new religion but Catholic churchmen who affirmed Scripture's authority, the historic ecumenical creeds, and the witness of the Patristic Fathers. The Reformation was a recovery of catholicity, an attempt to return the church to its most ancient and apostolic expression.
Question: Is the modern turn to Rome by a few notable Youtubers or a few young people largely a reaction to the modern evangelical push toward novelty either in doctrine or form?
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), and dogmatic definitions that extend well beyond the apostolic era. Roman Catholicism is therefore a mixture of genuine early Christianity, fused with medieval philosophy, aesthetics and political structures.
Thesis 1: The Claim of an Unbroken Line is a Myth
Roman Catholicism appeals to antiquity as evidence of legitimacy. However, the Roman Catholic Church in its recognizable feudal form does not meaningfully predate the late fifth and early sixth centuries. The consolidation of papal supremacy coincides with the political vacuum left by Rome's fall in AD 476. Prior to this, the church functioned through regional episcopacy, conciliar decision making, and real theological diversity. The five great patriarchates functioned as coordinate centers of authority rather than a single Roman command structure.
Question: What evidence is there that the modern and Medieval Catholic form of church (political/doctrinal/aesthetic), is prior to 1054 AD (Great Schism era)?
Biblical Response
Scripture never grounds the church's authority in institutional continuity but in fidelity to the apostolic gospel. Paul warned 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). Jesus warned that traditions of men can nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:13). The church's foundation is "the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20). The foundational historical reality of the church is the cross and resurrection of Christ, and we have this apostolic deposit in the Scriptures which are able to equip the believer and make them wise for all matters pertaining to salvation.
Thesis 2: Papal Authority Is Neither Apostolic nor Historical
Early Christians respected Peter but did not clearly teach the later doctrine of a pope with universal authority. Cyprian of Carthage rejected the notion that Peter possessed unilateral authority, insisting on the essential equality of bishops. Eastern Fathers acknowledged Rome's honor but denied its jurisdictional supremacy. Before Vatican I (AD 1870), not a single ecumenical creed was decided by an alleged Petrine successor.
Question: How do we help people understand that “old” does not automatically mean “apostolic,” and what example could we use that makes the point without sounding smug?
Biblical Response
The New Testament portrays Peter as first among equals—but never as a monarchical ruler. At the Jerusalem Council, it was James, not Peter, who articulated the decisive verdict (Acts 15:13–21) of the church body. Paul publicly opposed Peter "to his face" (Gal 2:11), an unthinkable act if Peter possessed supreme authority. Peter called himself a "fellow elder" (1 Pet 5:1). The "rock" in Matthew 16 must be Peter's confession: "You are the Christ." The responsibility of "binding and loosing" is given to all believers just two chapters later (Matt 18). Christ alone is the head of the church (Eph 1:22; Col 1:18).
Question: What was “test” of Apostolicity in Paul and Peter’s day?
Question: How do we train our people to test tradition by the apostolic gospel (Gal 1:8) without training them into cynicism toward every church tradition?
Thesis 3: Papal Authority Is Internally Contested
Even within Catholic history, papal supremacy has been contested. Conciliarism subordinated papal authority to ecumenical councils. The Council of Constance (1414–1418) deposed rival popes and asserted conciliar supremacy. The Western Schism (1378–1417), when multiple rival popes excommunicated one another, undermines Rome's claim to an unbroken, infallible papal line.
Biblical Response
Scripture does not depict an infallible human office akin to Vatican I's definition. New Testament unity is grounded in the Spirit's work through the Word, not hierarchical submission to a single human leader or a Bishopric The apostles exercised authority collegially saying, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28).
Question: What is the cleanest biblical argument we can give for why the New Testament shows real leadership but not a monarchical universal bishop? How do we make the case for elder led congregationalism without jettisoning the need for real leadership and authority within the church (has there been an unintended consequence within Protestantism of endless “popes”)?
Thesis 4: Moral Failure Undermines Claims of Papal Indefectibility
Roman Catholicism maintains that the papacy enjoys unique protection from doctrinal error. Yet history records popes marked by corruption, heresy, violence, and immorality. The sustained moral decay in certain eras (the infamous pornocracy of the tenth century, the depraved Renaissance papacy, the corrupted Borgia pontificates) defy any claims that the office itself functions as a uniquely preserved vessel of apostolic faithfulness. History simply says otherwise.
Biblical Response
The New Testament locates doctrinal fidelity in conformity to Christ and His Word, not in an office. Jesus warned that false teachers would arise from within the church (Matt 7:15). Paul told the Ephesian elders that "fierce wolves" would emerge "from among your own selves" (Acts 20:29–30). The safeguard against error is the Spirit-illuminated Word of God (2 Tim 3:16).
Question: What habits of discernment do we want to model and commend to our people so they aren’t dependent on personalities or institutions, but are stable in the Word?
Thesis 5: Doctrinal Accretions Can be Heretical
Roman Catholicism has instituted doctrines lacking apostolic warrant: Marian dogmas (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, perpetual virginity, Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix), transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, and the treasury of merit. The present pope has rejected Mary as Co-Redemptrix, affirming Christ alone. Such reversals are difficult to reconcile with claims of a doctrinally indefectible magisterium. The Marian dogmas find not one sentence of support in the New Testament.
Biblical Response
Christ alone is our sole mediator (Rom 3:25; Hebrews 4). The Gospels claim Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matt 13)—the natural reading is that these were Mary's offspring. Transubstantiation imports Aristotelian metaphysics foreign to biblical thought. The notion that bread and wine become Christ's flesh ignores Jesus' own interpretation in John 6—a metaphor about believing on the Son. Rome is guilty of the overly wooden literalism Jesus chastised the Pharisees (and occasionally the disciples) for.
Question: Do we have a general problem here with Creeds? What I mean is, as Protestants we claim that all our doctrines are either commanded or commended to us in Scripture.
Question: So, how is it that we can also accept the 7 ecumenical councils (between 397–460) and the creedal formulations such as Nicene and Chalcedon? What role then do the Creeds play in the Christian life?
Thesis 6: The Medieval Church Was Already in Crisis and Reform
The Protestant Reformation is portrayed as an unprecedented rupture to a blissful and unproblematic unified catholic church. But nothing could be further from reality. This myth obscures the fact that the medieval church was already in profound crisis long before the Reformers ever came on the scene. Figures like John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Erasmus identified corruption and doctrinal excess before 1517. The Reformation was a long, slow fuse that eventually found its powder in Luther. The Reformers did not reject catholicity but Roman absolutism and corruption.
Biblical Response
Scripture establishes a pattern of reform through return to God's Word. Josiah's reorganization came through rediscovering the Book of the Law (2 Kings 22–23). Jesus called Israel back to Torah's true meaning against Pharisaical traditions (Matt 15:1–9). When God's people drift from His Word, reform comes through recovery of that Word.
Thesis 7: The Modern Catholic Church is Somewhat Reformed
Modern Catholic life doesn't reflect medieval realities in many cases. Catholics own Bibles in their own language. Vernacular liturgy is common. Congregational singing is expected. Lay participation is commonplace. The church no longer traffics in indulgences and affirms religious liberty in many key respects. Rome has quietly adopted some of the very reforms these "rebels" died for while maintaining they were schismatics. If Rome's changes are good, the men who originally championed them should be vindicated and public apologies are in order.
Biblical Response
Jesus condemned religious hypocrisy—the gap between what leaders say and do (Matt 23:3). He insisted God's Word must never be subordinated to human tradition (Mark 7:13). Paul told the Thessalonians to "test everything" (1 Thess 5:21). The Bereans were praised for examining the Scriptures daily to verify apostolic claims (Acts 17:11).
Question: While certainly not reformed enough, it is helpful to point out to our Catholic friends or those thinking of exploring Catholicism that their lives look very different than would a member of the church in the medieval period. How can we share this in a way that is friendly and not aggressive?
Thesis 8: Roman Catholic Justification Isn't Pauline
The greatest disagreement between the two camps is of course the biblical doctrine of justification. The Council of Trent makes it clear, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.”
(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 9).
Rome's account requires us to reverse Paul's antithesis between grace and works. Paul says justification is by faith "apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28), that God "justifies the ungodly" and counts faith as righteousness for "the one who does not work" (Rom 4:5). Yet, in the Roman system, works are indeed efficacious. The contradiction is not merely semantics. Trent requires cooperation in order to obtain justification; Paul excludes human cooperation/work as the basis of justification. Both claims cannot be true in the same sense at the same time.
Question: I think the best way to understand the biblical doctrine of Justification and Sanctification (and how they’re different) is to take a friend through all the passages. You can look them up on Bible Gateway and just paste them in a document, and take the time to sit down and look them up in their contexts. This solves a lot because what Paul is saying becomes so clear.
Question: Like the Mormons, Catholics tend to rely on a passage from James which clearly says that a person is not justified by faith alone apart from works. How would we answer this apparent contradiction?
James is using “faith” or “belief” Narrowly (as mere ascent) while using “works” broadly (altruism).
Paul by contrast is using “faith” or “belief” broadly and “works” more narrowly (the works of the law as a method of earning). The two authors are simply using these words (which are polyvalent/multivalent) in different ways. Similarly, they use the “mirror” metaphor and differently.
Biblical Response
After hundreds of years of exegesis, dikaiōsis means "a forensic change of status; a declaration of right standing"—a judicial metaphor. Justification is not a change of inner state but of legal status. "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 day (Luke 23:43)—immediately, not after purgatorial purification. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). Paul’s statement to Titus (3:5–7) is as clear as it possibly can be, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy… so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” Rome's conflation of justification and sanctification undermines Scripture's assurance, inducing a never ending doubt and the terror of purgatory for its followers.
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 not every old stone is a foundational one. 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’s work is finished, Christ is sufficient, Christ received by faith, and the Word of God as the final court of appeal over all human words, no matter how venerable those words may seem.
~~