Why I Am Not Roman Catholic

 

A good friend of mine asked me a week or so ago why I am not a Catholic. He noted that there is a growing trend of strong advocates for Christianity online who are either Catholic or Orthodox, and he said they were happy to explain why they were Catholic or Orthodox, could I explain why I am not Roman Catholic. I thought this would make a good short blog post.

This blog is not an attack on Catholics or Orthodox. I have strong disagreements with teachings and elements among the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but I do not spend much time critiquing their problems, because I see enough errors in the Protestant Church which need addressing. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the Protestant Church is about as corrupt today as the Catholic Church was in the days of the early Reformation period. From rainbow flags over churches, to many churches not understanding how the people of God are properly constituted, to pastors using their privilege and position to fleece the flock, and a whole host of other issues, I can think of many criticisms of the modern evangelical Church. Yet I am still a Protestant, and more specifically a Baptist, despite all of these known flaws in the evangelical churches. 

So why could I never be Catholic?

The core of the answer comes down what Jesus says in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 to the Pharisees and Scribes. Let’s read Mark’s framing of the account,

“7 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

What is happening here is that the religious leaders of the Jews, the Scribes and the Pharisees in this case, are questing Jesus as to why he and his disciples do not live according to the teachings of their elders. The washing of hands mentioned here is not for cleanliness and hygiene, but for ritual purity. The scribes and the Pharisees believed that the traditions of the elders were a body of oral laws passed down from the time of Moses that accompanied the written law and taught how it was to be applied. But they even went beyond this, as Jesus notes, and in many ways directly contradicted the law of God. This is the core of Jesus’ issue with the “traditions of the elders”, they were anti-Scriptural and directly contradicted the teachings of God’s word on many points. 

This “traditions of the elders” is an early form of the teachings that would eventually be written down in the Bavli, or Babylonian Talmud, and the Palestinian Talmud. These two libraries of texts would record the many diverse and often contradictory teachings of the scribes and Pharisees and their descendants, for future generations of Orthodox Jews. Rabbis interpret the Bible through the lens of these traditions. The very traditions that Jesus himself rebuked and challenged them for lifting them above God’s word.

Herein lies my core issue with Catholicism: The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox, place the Church tradition alongside of the teaching of Scripture. In fact, you could argue that the Catholic’s view the Scriptures as part of the tradition of the Church. And this is why I cannot be Roman Catholic. Jesus says very clearly that we should not place man’s tradition alongside or above the word of God. Just one example is that Peter took his wife with him, but Catholics forbid priests from marrying. This is an example of man’s tradition contradicting the Scriptures. And many others could be made.

I know that some will point out that God has given authority to the Church to confirm the teachings of scripture, this began with the process of canonization of the Scriptures in the fourth century. But I think it is one thing for the Church to confirm the Holy Spirit inspired teachings of the Apostles, and quite another for it to add to them, and another thing again for it to abrogate them. 

In fact, I cannot understand how Catholics do not recognize that holding the Church’s traditions next to the word of God is Talmudic, it is the very error which Jesus challenged the Pharisees and Sadducees about. It is places the traditions of the Christian elders on par with the scriptures. This does not mean we should abandon all those traditions completely, reject them utterly, and not see the wisdom in learning from earlier eras of the Church. But these teachings should always be seen as secondary, and simply valued as far as they give the sense of Scripture, not where they contradict it or add to it.

One may respond in several different ways to my argument here, but one way is by noting that if you disconnect the Bible from the traditions of the Church you place it in a situation where every man will determine what is right in his own eyes, just as Israel did in the times of judges. I would respond that this is a fair, true and clearly observed problem and this can, and in fact does happen, a lot. Many of the ancient heresies of the early Church era have been manifested in some Protestant or Protestant adjacent denominations in the last couple of centuries. So, I cannot argue against this assertion, you do risk this very problem.

I would simply note that if the Protestant Church is akin to Israel under the judges, then the Roman Catholic Church is akin to Judah and Israel under the kings. The people of Israel became just as corrupted under the kings as they did under the judges. In the times of the judges you have a faithful remnant exemplified by Ruth and Boaz and Naomi, and under the times of the kings, you have a faithful remnant exemplified by the 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal in the time of Elijah. Neither structure seems to guarantee a faithful adherence to the doctrines of Scripture, whereas both structures have their examples of faithful remnants. Therefore, I would simply respond to my Catholic brethren don’t cast stones if you live in glass houses.  

As I said above this blog is not to be seen as a takedown of Catholicism, that is not my interest. Nor is it to be seen as a comprehensive answer to the question about why I am not Catholic. It is meant to be a simple answer getting to the core of the issue. Jesus warned us not to place the traditions of man above the traditions of God, therefore, I cannot align with a denomination that does that. Does that make the Baptist churches perfect? No, not at all. Nor are any other Protestant denominations. But we should be very careful about the level we place any man's teaching on. 

The Church universally agrees on the New Testament, the canon, therefore you stand on solid ground if you radically seek to place it as the highest authority from God for man to follow, 

"16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).