Brief Thoughts on Roman Catholicism

I originally wrote the following post in August of 2025. For a number of reasons, I decided not to publish it at that time. But just the other day, someone was telling me about a growing movement out of Protestantism into Catholicism. What I had thought were isolated decisions are apparently part of a broader trend.

That there is such a trend is troubling. The thoughts I offer here are very simple. All of it has been said before. Still, I think some of these things are worth repeating.

It may be that a growing number of Protestants are disillusioned with Protestantism. That’s fair—and it can and should be addressed. But the solution is not found in the arms of Catholicism.

--

I recently listened to a four-hour video titled 7 Things Protestants Misunderstand About Christianity that was shared with me. I have already responded privately, but I thought it worth sharing some of my reflections here as well. While the presentation offered a few nuances and points I had not encountered before, the arguments themselves felt largely familiar. I didn’t find it persuasive. 

In fact, it reinforced what I have long believed: you cannot hold to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church based solely on Scripture; rather, these teachings can only be reasonably accepted by submitting to the authority of the Church—specifically, the Catholic Church itself.

The speakers attempted to offer exegetical support for seven key issues, but their interpretations seemed plausible only if the authority of the Church was already assumed. In some cases, they insisted that a straightforward, honest reading of the text necessitates a Catholic rather than a Protestant understanding. I am thinking in particular of passages relating to the Catholic doctrines of Christ’s real presence and the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; John 6:51–58; Matthew 16:18–19; Matthew 18:18). I believe they misunderstand these passages. 

But even if, for the sake of argument, we grant their exegesis is correct, I found myself wondering: would a similar reading of the Bible naturally lead someone to accept everything the Catholic Church teaches about the Lord’s Supper and ecclesiology? The answer is clear: not at all.

What strikes me as significant is the insistence of these men—and of other Catholics—that an honest reading of such passages will inevitably lead a person to the Catholic Church. It would be more accurate to say that if a straightforward reading of the biblical accounts of Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper leads someone away from the Protestant understanding, that person would still need to submit to the authority of the Church and accept its interpretation of Scripture in order to embrace the fullness of Catholic teaching. 

Again, even if we grant their exegesis, it is more accurate to say that while an honest reading of those passages might lead someone to reject Protestant teaching on those points, applying the same approach to the rest of Scripture would almost certainly lead them to reject much—if not most—of what the Catholic Church teaches on other matters.

It seemed clear to me that these men want to have their cake and eat it too. They encourage their listeners to accept the plain reading of Christ’s words at the Supper, yet rely on convoluted interpretations or extra-scriptural teachings based on the Catholic Church’s say-so when it comes to many other issues.

It is either Scripture alone or Scripture plus tradition—and if it is Scripture plus tradition, it is always the Catholic Church that has the final say. Sola scriptura becomes sola ecclesia. I am fully persuaded that to embrace Catholicism in its entirety, one must first submit to the authority of the Church and accept its teachings and traditions as authoritative. 

In short, accepting Catholicism ultimately requires an act of faith. By “faith,” I mean faith in the authority of the Catholic Church itself. Because where the explanations go beyond Scripture—or are not based on a plain reading or exegesis of the text—accepting those teachings requires trusting the Church’s authority and competence to interpret and define doctrine. In other words, it means placing faith in the Catholic Church as the final arbiter of truth.

This raises a significant—even all-important—question: on what basis might a Protestant leave Protestantism for Catholicism? It cannot be on the basis of Scripture, for even the kind of exegetically simplistic approach that might lead someone to embrace something close to transubstantiation would, by the same method, lead to the rejection of much that Catholicism teaches elsewhere. 

So what would be the basis for such a shift? There can only be one answer: faith in the authority—and even the infallibility—of the Catholic Church. And this authority and infallibility must be presupposed, for they cannot be proven from the Bible.