A Pastoral Word About Conviction, Respect, and Scripture

A Christian can speak plainly about doctrinal disagreement without speaking hatefully about individuals. Many Roman Catholics are sincere, family-oriented, morally serious people who respect the Bible and desire to honor God. Yet sincerity does not settle doctrine. The New Testament repeatedly calls Christians to test teachings by the Scriptures and to hold to what the apostles taught (Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8–9). When a church system requires doctrines and practices that cannot be established from the Bible’s plain teaching, the Christian who submits to Scripture must refuse those requirements. The issue is not personal superiority; it is allegiance. Jesus prayed that His disciples would be sanctified “by the truth,” and He said plainly, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). If Scripture is God’s Spirit-inspired standard, then it must be the final judge of all traditions, councils, and institutions.

The reasons below are “ten” not because the list exhausts every disagreement, but because these are foundational areas where Roman Catholic dogma and practice diverge from the teaching and pattern of the New Testament. Each reason is rooted in Scripture because Christian conviction must be tethered to God’s revealed Word, not to sentiment, inherited identity, or institutional claims.

First Reason: Scripture Must Be the Final Authority for Doctrine and Practice

The Bible describes itself as God-breathed and sufficient to equip the servant of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17). That sufficiency does not mean Christians never learn from teachers; it means no later authority can bind the conscience with requirements that cannot be established from Scripture. Jesus rebuked religious leaders who elevated tradition to a controlling authority, saying they were “making void the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13). Roman Catholicism formally places Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium alongside Scripture as binding authorities, creating a structure in which doctrines can become obligatory even when they lack clear biblical foundation. The practical effect is that the church’s later dogmas can stand over the text, rather than the text judging the dogmas.

A Christian who follows the apostolic model insists that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). A foundation is laid once; it is not repeatedly replaced by later layers of dogma. The New Testament churches were called to remain in what they had received “from the beginning” (1 John 2:24), and they were warned not to go beyond what was written in a way that breeds arrogance and error (compare 1 Corinthians 4:6). This commitment to Scripture as final authority is not “Bible-only individualism.” It is the apostolic method: the written Word, Spirit-inspired, governs the faith and practice of God’s people.

Second Reason: The Papacy’s Claims of Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility Do Not Match Scripture

Roman Catholicism claims that the bishop of Rome is the universal head of the church on earth, possessing a unique authority over all Christians. Scripture, however, presents Jesus Christ as the sole Head of the congregation (Ephesians 1:22–23; Colossians 1:18). The apostles did exercise authority, but their authority was directly tied to Christ’s commission and to the revelation they received and delivered. When disputes arose, the pattern is not a solitary supreme bishop issuing final decrees; it is apostolic deliberation grounded in Scripture and the recognized work of God (Acts 15:6–21). Even in Acts 15, Peter is not presented as an unquestioned monarch. He speaks, others speak, and James summarizes with Scriptural reasoning.

Appeals to Matthew 16:18–19 do not establish a papal office. Jesus blesses Peter’s confession and speaks of building His congregation, yet the New Testament locates the “foundation” in the apostles collectively and in their testimony to Christ (Ephesians 2:20). Peter himself describes Christ as the “living stone” chosen by God, and he urges believers to come to Christ, not to Peter, for their standing (1 Peter 2:4–8). When Peter later acted in a way that contradicted the gospel’s implications, Paul “opposed him to his face” (Galatians 2:11), which is incompatible with the idea of an unchallengeable supreme office. A biblical model recognizes the value of shepherds and teachers, but it does not recognize a single earthly monarch over the worldwide congregation.

Third Reason: Marian Dogmas Go Beyond What Scripture Teaches About Mary

Scripture honors Mary as a faithful woman chosen for a unique role in bringing the Messiah into the world (Luke 1:28–35). Yet Scripture does not present her as sinless, co-redeeming, or exalted as a heavenly queen who distributes grace. Mary herself speaks as one needing salvation: “My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46–47). The Bible’s portrayal is reverent but restrained. Mary is blessed among women, yet she remains a human servant of God, not an object of devotion. The New Testament does not develop Marian doctrines as essential to the faith, and it never teaches believers to approach God through Mary.

The practical concern is not merely that Roman Catholicism “likes Mary too much.” The concern is that dogmas about Mary can displace the sufficiency of Christ. When a church teaches that Mary is an indispensable maternal mediator or that her merits assist believers, the believer’s focus is pulled from the direct biblical emphasis: Christ alone as Redeemer and High Priest. Scripture repeatedly highlights Jesus’ unique role in a way that excludes rivals. The apostolic preaching centers on Christ’s death and resurrection, not on Marian titles and privileges (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). The Christian who is governed by the Bible will honor Mary appropriately, but will refuse any dogma that elevates her beyond what Scripture states.

Fourth Reason: Prayer and Religious Devotion Directed to Mary or Departed “Holy Ones” Conflicts With Scripture’s Teaching on Mediation and the Dead

The Bible is direct: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). That does not deny that Christians may pray for one another; it establishes that reconciliation with God and access to Him are secured through Christ alone. Hebrews urges believers to approach God with confidence because Jesus is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14–16). The New Testament pattern is consistent: prayers are offered to the Father, through the Son, in harmony with the Spirit-inspired Word, not routed through departed believers as secondary mediators.

Scripture also teaches that the dead are not active participants in the affairs of the living in the manner assumed by prayers to departed “holy ones.” “The dead know nothing at all” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). Death is not portrayed as a conscious intermediate state where departed believers hear petitions and distribute help. Moreover, Scripture condemns attempts to consult the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10–12; Isaiah 8:19). Roman Catholic practice distinguishes veneration from worship, yet the functional reality of addressing prayers to departed persons is religious devotion that belongs to God. The biblical alternative is better and simpler: direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ, with confidence grounded in His sacrifice and priestly intercession.

Fifth Reason: The Veneration of Images and Objects Violates the Bible’s Guardrails Against Idolatry

The second commandment prohibits making images for religious veneration: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image… you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” (Exodus 20:4–5). The issue is not artistry in general; it is the religious use of images as aids or instruments of devotion. Roman Catholicism often defends statues, icons, relics, and related practices as “helps” that direct the mind toward God. Yet Scripture repeatedly warns that physical representations easily become substitutes for trust and devotion, because the human heart gravitates toward what is visible and controllable. God calls His people to worship Him as Spirit, in spirit and truth (John 4:24), not through material intermediaries that invite misplaced reverence.

The New Testament continues this caution by emphasizing faith grounded in the apostolic message rather than in sacred objects. When people tried to treat even legitimate religious items as talismans, Scripture exposes the error by showing that power and authority belong to God, not to objects (compare Acts 19:13–16). The Christian who honors the biblical pattern will keep worship free from image-veneration, not because matter is evil, but because God has commanded that devotion remain directed to Him without the spiritual hazards that images consistently introduce.

Sixth Reason: The Sacramental System Reshapes the Gospel Into a Church-Controlled Mechanism

The New Testament teaches salvation by God’s grace, received through faith, resulting in a life of obedience and good works that God desires (Ephesians 2:8–10). That is not a permission slip for careless living; it is the proper order of the gospel. God saves, and the saved person then lives in faithful obedience. Roman Catholicism, by contrast, makes the sacraments the ordinary channels by which justifying grace is infused and maintained, turning the gospel into a system administered by priestly authority. The practical result is that a believer’s assurance and standing are often tethered to participation in sacramental rites rather than to the once-for-all sufficiency of Christ and the believer’s continued faithfulness to Him.

Scripture does connect obedience with salvation, but it never treats church rites as the controlling mechanism of justification. Paul insists that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law (Romans 3:28), while James insists that genuine faith is living and active, demonstrated by obedient works (James 2:17–26). These are not enemies; they are complementary truths: faith receives God’s gift, and that faith is proven real by an obedient life. A church system that teaches justification as a sacramental pipeline shifts the center away from Christ’s completed work and the believer’s faith-response, placing institutional control where Scripture places Christ.

Seventh Reason: The Mass and Transubstantiation Conflict With the Finality of Christ’s Sacrifice

Hebrews is explicit that Christ offered Himself once for all. “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). The writer continues: “By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). Roman Catholic teaching presents the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice made present in an unbloody manner, with the bread and wine becoming Christ’s literal body and blood. Yet the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a memorial proclamation of the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26), not as a repeated sacrificial offering. The power of the Supper lies in what it points to: Christ’s completed sacrifice and the believer’s covenantal participation by faith.

The insistence on a repeated sacrificial action undermines the finished nature of Calvary. Scripture does not allow the believer to think of Christ’s sacrifice as something that must be continually re-presented to secure forgiveness. Instead, believers approach God on the basis of what Christ has already accomplished, with confidence to enter the holy place “by the blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19–22). A faithful, Scripture-governed Christian can cherish the Lord’s Supper deeply while refusing the idea that it transforms into a new sacrificial offering administered by a priest.

Eighth Reason: Purgatory and Related Practices Deny the Bible’s Teaching on Death, Judgment, and the Hope of Resurrection

Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory depends heavily on the idea that the dead are conscious and undergoing purifying suffering. Scripture teaches a different anthropology. Man is a soul; man does not possess an immortal soul that remains conscious apart from the body. Death is the cessation of personhood, and Sheol/Hades is gravedom, the realm of the dead, not a conscious purifying chamber. “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). The hope Scripture sets before believers is not purification through postmortem suffering but resurrection by God’s power at Christ’s return (John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15). That resurrection is re-creation to life, not the reattachment of an immortal part to a body.

Hebrews states, “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). The Bible’s emphasis is on living faithfully now, in view of God’s coming judgment, not on relying on post-death purification and prayers offered by the living. This also connects to the biblical prohibition against practices that blur the boundary between the living and the dead. Christian hope is forward-looking: God will raise the dead and restore life under His Kingdom, not process conscious souls through a temporary fire. For that reason, I cannot accept purgatory or the related economy of indulgences and prayers for the dead as biblical Christianity.

Ninth Reason: The Priesthood Model, Mandatory Celibacy, and Confession to a Priest Do Not Follow the New Testament Pattern

The New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers in the sense that all faithful Christians offer spiritual sacrifices and have direct access to God through Christ (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Hebrews 10:19–22). That does not erase the need for shepherds, teachers, and elders, but it does deny the Roman Catholic concept of a separate sacerdotal class that functions as necessary mediators of sacramental grace. Scripture encourages confession of sins, yet it grounds forgiveness in confession to God through Christ: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9). James speaks of confessing to one another in the context of mutual care and prayer (James 5:16), not in the context of a juridical confessional system where priestly absolution is required.

Mandatory celibacy for clergy also conflicts with the New Testament’s portrayal of marriage as honorable and with the qualifications for elders, which assume family leadership and moral maturity in the household (1 Timothy 3:2–5). Paul warns against teachings that “forbid marriage,” describing such prohibitions as departing from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1–3). Scripture certainly recognizes that some may choose singleness for focused service (1 Corinthians 7:7), but it never imposes celibacy as a universal law for ministry. A biblical model honors marriage, honors voluntary singleness, and refuses to bind consciences with requirements Scripture does not impose.

Tenth Reason: Infant Baptism and Non-Immersion Practices Depart From the New Testament’s Teaching and Example

In the New Testament, baptism is consistently tied to repentance and faith. Peter’s call is, “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized” (Acts 2:38). When the Samaritans were baptized, the text states they believed the good news first (Acts 8:12). Jesus connected baptism with belief (Mark 16:16). This pattern is not incidental. Baptism is the public identification of a disciple with Christ, which presupposes personal faith and a conscious decision to follow Him. Infant baptism, therefore, cannot match the New Testament definition and function of baptism as the response of a believing disciple.

The mode matters because Scripture presents baptism as immersion, picturing burial and resurrection with Christ. Paul writes that believers were “buried with Him through baptism” and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3–4). That imagery fits immersion, not sprinkling. Baptism is not a magical rite that regenerates apart from faith; it is an obedient response that aligns with a disciple’s repentance and belief, expressing entry into a life of following Christ. Because Roman Catholicism teaches infant baptism as sacramentally regenerating and commonly practices non-immersion, it departs from the apostolic teaching and example.

You May Also Enjoy

What Does Ephesians 2:8–9 Mean About Salvation by Grace Through Faith?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS