What are the major arguments Protestants make for the Catholic Church being an apostate church?

1 Answer 1


Argument 1. The Pope has no apostolic authority. Their teaching that Peter established the church at Rome and was the first bishop of the church at Rome is false. From my post Lies of the Roman Catholic Church - Part I: The Pope Has No Apostolic Authority" ShreddingTheVeil:

"The Apostle Paul does not go to Rome until after he is imprisoned, and appeals to Caesar, sometime around 59 or 60 .D. By that time, he had spent two years in prison in Caesarea in Judea under Gov. Felix’s reign. After arriving in Rome, being held under guard three days, he calls together the chief of the Jews that are in Rome. The Jews tell Paul (Acts 28:21-22) that they had no report concerning him but wanted to know more of “this sect” which was everywhere spoken against. The statements of the Jews to Paul at Rome recorded in Acts 28 are proof that Peter never preached in Rome before Paul arrived under guard in A.D. 60 and thus could not have established nor ministered to the congregations at Rome."

Argument 2. The RCC falsely claims that Peter is the "rock" of the church. Excerpt from my post "The Lies of the Roman Catholic Church - Part II: Peter is Not THE Rock of the Church" ShreddingTheVeil:

"In verse 18 “this rock” is Jesus. He is referring to himself, naming himself, as Peter just confessed Him to be the Son of God. Picture Him standing before Peter and pointing a finger at himself as he says, “upon this rock”. Jesus is the rock of Israel as prophesied throughout the entire Old Testament. (Psa. 118:22; Is. 28:16) Peter was “a rock” that would help build the church, but Jesus was THE rock, the cornerstone, and it was Jesus upon whom the church would be built. To state otherwise is contrary to all Old Testament scripture concerning the Messiah."

Argument 3: From "Lies of the Roman Catholic Church - Part III: Baptism is NOT Sprinkling" here:

"The question remains; why did the translators of the 1599 Geneva Bible, and the King James 1611 version transliterate the Greek words “baptizo” and “batisma” into the English? Why have all English translations since continued the use of the anglicized version of the Greek words? How was John the “Baptist” really named in the Syriac texts?

A true translation would not have required a Greek replacement. They lifted the Greek word and put it into an English translation of the Bible. The verb “baptizo” became “baptize”, and the noun “baptisma” became “baptism” in the English language. Here are the meanings of “baptizo” from reliable lexicons, as used in the original Koine (common) Greek at the time of Christ, in the first century A.D

Baptizo: “To make a thing dipped or dyed. To immerse for a religious purpose” (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, E.W. Bullinger).

Baptizo: “Dip, immerse, mid. Dip oneself, wash (in non-Christian lit. also ‘plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm. . . .’)” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Arndt and Gingrich, p. 131)."

Argument 4: From "Lies of the Roman Catholic Church - Part IV: Augustine's Lie of Original Sin, and the Practice of Infant Baptism" here:

"The practice of infant baptism began in the Mediterranean areas and by 4th century A.D. had become standard practice within the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Carthage officially accepted it in 418 A.D., and condemned anyone who opposed it. (A closure on discussion is a sure sign of tyranny.)

But, God’s word is clear. Children do not inherit the sins of the parents. Let’s see what the Bible actually says. (from the KJV, and all bold emp. is mine.)

When Moses tried to take the sins of the people onto himself, God denied him: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.“ Ex. 32:33

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.“ Deu. 24:16. (Also 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4)

“But every one shall die for his own iniquity:…” Jer. 31:30

Argument 5: From "The Lies of the Roman Catholic Church - Part V: The Blasphemy of the Priesthood" here:

"Heb 9:11-12, “11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Heb 9:14-15, “14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

"The RCC set up an earthly priesthood in the face of all of the above scripture. Jesus’ sacrifice abolished forever the earthly priesthood of the Old Covenant, and He thereby became our priest and intercessor with our Heavenly Father after the order of Melchisedec whom Abraham had paid a tenth of his spoils. The Levitical priesthood established by God under the old covenant was insufficient as they could not continue “by reason of death”. They were men, prone to sin, who died. They couldn’t be priests under the new living, everlasting covenant established by Christ’s blood! His blood, being better than that of calves and goats, was the propitiation for all sins for all time for those who answer the call of the gospel of Christ. Are we to look to any other than Christ for the remission of our sins? NO!

God forbid it! And, yet earthly men, in all their machinations, in all their imaginings thought better than God, and spurned the blood of Christ, spurned his everlasting priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, to establish an earthly priesthood and teach people they had to confess their sins in private to an earthly man in order to obtain remission of their sins. They have spit upon Christ; they have spit upon the cross, by substituting another priesthood have usurped the authority of Christ and His office.

Did a priest of the RCC die for you on the cross? NO! As a child of God, a Christian, you have direct access to the Heavenly Father through Christ. All prayer is to be offered in the name of Christ, as He is our intercessor with the Father. Do you not know that as a Christian you are of the royal priesthood?

And, Argument 6, From "Lies of the Roman Catholic Church - Part VI: The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" here:

"The Roman Catholic Church is teaching its members that they wrote the Bible. This is a lie against the Holy Spirit! This teaching contradicts the Scriptures. I am sure it amazes Moses, David, Solomon, and the other writers of the Hebrew Old Testament books which existed long before the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was ever conceived by man.

It was the Holy Spirit who wrote the scriptures through the men He inspired. Think of the men as God’s secretaries. Their hands and minds were moved as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:4, ”And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, asking for prayers that the Holy Spirit would give him the words to speak….

Eph. 6:19-20, ”And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”

The writers of the New Testament books were those who had received the Holy Spirit through either the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost or at the house of Cornelius, or those the Apostles had laid their hands upon during the first century A.D. They had been given the Holy Spirit, and were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak and to write the books we now have in the New Testament. (Acts 2) And, they did so long before the establishment of the RCC, or the devised office of the Pope. ...

"So, the men who wrote the books of the Old Testament were “moved” by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. It was the Holy Spirit who was dictating, and the Holy Spirit who was the source! Knowing this, that the Holy Spirit is the source of the scriptures, then the scriptures must be our first source of information, and our final check on all other sources. (sola scriptura)" ...

"The scriptures are true and are given to us by the Holy Spirit, and none other than the Holy Spirit. Not only has the Old Testament been completely verified, but so has the New Testament. It is the work of the Holy Spirit who has maintained the writings so that we have them complete today. To say otherwise, as the RCC has done, is to speak against the Holy Spirit."

Each of these posts contain much more scriptural evidence of how far the church at Rome has fallen away from God's word. Many other authors have tackled the outright lies and mistakes pronounced by the "pope" and bishops of this institution even to their stand today that they would baptize Martians (Source: here) and their promotion that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam should all be united in a one-world religion (Source: here).

The RCC have removed themselves from the scriptures, and are therefore apostate.

  • Do you think it possible that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written, in part, to stand against what would eventually grow into sacramentalism and the RCC? Commented May 24, 2022 at 12:51
  • I am certain that the Holy Spirit guarded well the truth of the gospel for all generations, and He would know how men would twist and misuse it. But, I think the true purpose was for Paul to preach the gospel to those attending the "house" assemblies in Rome.
    – Gina
    Commented May 24, 2022 at 14:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .