It will be a shock to no one that the Reformed Church and Roman Catholics disagree about authority. While the Reformed Church accepts the revelation of the Almighty in the Bible, the Roman Catholics hold to a splintered authority structure that gives the Magisterium/Vatican, Catholic traditions, and the Bible to have equal authority over matters of faith and practice.

This difference was highlighted in the fall of 2025 when the Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV, addressed a question about rewarding an American Democratic Senator, who has a notorious record for supporting the murder of unborn children. Rather than chastising the supposedly Catholic senator for pushing a platform that is obviously against the teachings of the Vatican, Roman traditions, and the Bible, the Pope completely capitulated to Leftist ideology by answering: “I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during…40 years of service…Someone that says they are against abortion but says they are in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.” Ignoring the fact that the Pope equivocated the just punishment of a criminal with the unjust murder of the unborn, the Pope’s comments (correctly) raised the hackles of many self-professing Catholics, who do indeed hold to a pro-life position.

This brings up the crux of the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman: By what standard can a Catholic disagree with the Vatican? If the person that they believe is God’s Vicar on Earth (or any priest/bishop/cardinal in Roman Catholicism) makes a declaration that is in disagreement with the Bible, how can a mere Catholic disagree?

I asked a very knowledgeable and well-spoken Catholic this question on X, and this is his response:

Let’s analyze this response to see if it is valid or confusion:

1. “I know a bishop or priest is in error when he contradicts the teaching authority of the Church”
   • Unfortunately for Catholics, the bishops/priests/cardinals ARE the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. A Catholic has no authority to which to appeal to criticize the teaching authority of Rome because the bishops and priests ARE the teaching authority of the Vatican. In this case, the bishop of Rome (Pope) is (according to them) Christ’s vicar on Earth. They believe he is the supreme authority over the Roman Catholics because he is supposed to be the representative of Christ Himself. So, if a Catholic doesn’t like something that the Pope says – too bad! They have nothing higher to appeal to than Christ’s representative. If they believe that the pope is mistaken (according to their OWN beliefs), they need to change themselves, because the pope represents the church and Christ Himself. To disagree with the Vicar of Christ is to reject their own beliefs
   • In the never ending debate between the Reformed and the Romans, SOLA SCRIPTURA is brought up. As a Reformed Christian I recognize and yield to the authority of God’s Word as the preeminent authority over matters of faith and practice. The Catholics inevitably say: “Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. You just believe your own interpretation of the Bible”. For sake of argument, I’ll just accept that assertion in this case, but I will push back on their own presuppositions. The reason that the Catholic gives for having a “better” epistemology is that they have the local priest/bishop to correct their private interpretation. I’m sure you noticed the problem: The Catholic in the screenshot above reserved the right to criticize bishops and priest as being in error, but they rely on the bishops and priests to correct the private interpretations of the Bible. It’s circular confusion. They can’t “know a bishop or priest is in error” since it is the bishop or priest on whom they rely to correct private interpretations. Confusion reigns for these poor Catholics.
2. “The church has two thousand years of consistent teaching”
   • Regarding the claim that Rome has had two thousand years of consistent teaching, I will point out that the Roman Catholics have a consistent tradition of adding new traditions:
     • Purgatory 1274 AD (2nd Council of Lyon)
     • Indulgences 1415 AD (Council of Constance)
     • Papal Infallibility 1870 (1st Vatican Council)
     • Mary Queen of Heaven 1954 AD (Pope Pius XII)
     • Today, the Roman Catholics aren’t known primarily for their commitment to the gospel of Jesus. They are instead known for their trendy traditions: Mariology, indulgences, purgatory, and focus on the Pope (including papal infallibility). These traditions are obviously not found in the Bible, but Rome continues to add these manmade traditions to their religion as if they have the same authority as scripture itself. In this situation with the pope capitulating to the leftist’s mantra about “you can’t be pro-life if you support the death penalty”, who is to say that this isn’t a new tradition that the current bishop of Rome is adding? In the same week, the Pope was roundly panned for blessing a block of ice at a pagan global warming ceremony. Who’s to say that blessing ice or supporting globalist initiatives won’t be new traditions of Roman Catholics? Certainly not Catholics, who might dislike the optics or the new direction of doctrines. They have no consistent standard to question (in their beliefs) “The Vicar of Christ on Earth”!!!
     • If the pope refuses to stand against abortion by the authority of the church against the state (in this case, a Senator), what good is his supposed authority? It was for such a time as this that the pope could rightly condemn a state representative for heretical views. Senator Durbin claims to be under the authority of the Vatican, yet he has persistently and callously voted for the continuation of child murder (abortion). Isn’t the pope Catholic? Why won’t he exhort (in the strongest possible terms) the political support by Senator Durbin of the genocide of the unborn?

What About Protestants?

The second half of Aaronaeus’s post was to ask about the protestants. How do protestants determine what is the right interpretation of scripture?

1. Perspicuity of Scripture – This concept that comes from the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is clear. It can be understood. Does that mean that EVERY single passage of scripture is easily understood on its first reading? No. The doctrine of perspicuity is “that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.” In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle tells us that some things are hard to understand. Immediately following, Peter tells his audience to grow in grace and knowledge. How does one grow in grace and knowledge? Proverbs 2:6 says that knowledge comes from the mouth of the LORD (the Bible). Psalm 119 “Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands” (the Bible). Reformed Christians can also gain knowledge from faithful teachers of the Bible in their Bible-believing church. And we should listen to those, who have worked hard spending time building a faithful Christian worldview based on the Bible. Let God’s word, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, give you knowledge from the mouth of God. As Christians, we should be studying God’s word and letting the faithful preaching of the word in the Bible-believing reformed church change our lives for the better. Someone might bring up 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says that the unspiritual person CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. This is true, but this is not the claim of the Catholic. Those, whose hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit DO have access to guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of understanding God’s revelation.
   • Deuteronomy 6:6-7
   • 2 Timothy 3:14-15
   • Psalm 19:7
   • Psalm 119:130
   • Romans 3:21-22
   • I Corinthians 14:33
   • Matthew 28:19-20
2. Denial of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism – Implicit in Aaronaeus’s post is the idea that ANY and ALL protestant interpretations are equally faithful to the biblical text. I deny interpretive pluralism. While there are extremely minor acceptable interpretations within Christendom, the post-modern reinterpretations of the Bible to accommodate worldliness, modern paradigms, sexual perversion, and prosperity “gospels” are rejected because they are internally inconsistent.
3. SOLA SCRIPTURA – When God speaks, that is the authority. SOLA SCRIPTURA has been shown to be the authoritative structure by which Christians should live, so I won’t duplicate the effort of Christian philosophers who’ve done the work before me.
4. Acts 17 – When the Bereans were faced with what they thought might be a new gospel from the apostle Paul, they did not call the supposed pope (Peter) to confirm whether it was ok for them to accept the arrival of the Messiah in Jesus. They went to the scriptures to test. The highest authority was what God had revealed in scripture, and when they tested Paul by them, they were commended by God. This is proof that the scriptures have greater weight than an ecclesiastical structure to which Roman Catholics yield.
5. God’s ability to communicate > than man’s ability to communicate. God has spoken through his word, and by God’s grace, we have the ability to read it. Under guidance by the Holy Spirit, the Christian is able to discern God’s Word. What the Catholic church teaches, is that lay people CANNOT discern God’s Word; they must get the infallible interpretation based on Rome’s manmade traditions mixed with the Vatican’s ever-changing interpretation. The Catholics say that you must listen only to what Rome says. Only Rome’s interpretation matters. I’ve asked Catholics several times where I can find the infallible interpretation of every verse in the Bible, so that I would know what Rome’s infallible interpretation is, but they can never provide it. The Catholic will be tempted to say: “whose interpretation is valid?” Firstly, it is not the entity that teaches Mariology, indulgences, and blesses ice. Secondly, the faithful Christian will strive for the best and most consistent application of using scripture to interpret scripture. While the scriptures are generally perspicuous, there are passages that need deeper study. So, we use the plain to interpret the obscure. We know from Luke 24:27 that ALL of scripture is about Jesus, and with this general principle in mind, we can (with the help of the Holy Spirit & faithful pastors/teachers) discern the correct interpretation. If there is dispute, we reason from the scriptures (the highest authority) to have consistency.
6. Distraction fallacies
   • Sweeping generalization: The sweeping generalization fallacy is: since most everyone disagrees about most things, then everyone disagrees about everything. For Catholics it takes the form of: “There are 40,000 protestant denominations.” One of the worst and most common misrepresentations from Catholics about protestants is that when people reject the Vatican that everyone splinters into irreconcilable denominations. Firstly, this is a hypocritical claim because the Catholic church has many denominations…perhaps as many as 250. These Catholic denominations have been deceived by the things of the world. Secondly, just because some protestants have a disagreement about some doctrine is NOT proof that everyone disagrees about everything in unreconcilable divisions. It’s fallacious.
   • Hasty generalization: A hasty generalization is taking a small sample size and applying it universally. So they fallaciously say: “private interpretation leads to snake handling because there’s a protestant sect that lets snakes bite them, so all protestant doctrine is false.” Catholics believe that since A protestant denomination misinterpreted the biblical text, then ALL protestants have misinterpreted the biblical text. It’s fallacious.
   • Equivocation fallacy: “The Catholic church as 1 single interpretation given to them from the Pope, so protestants must too”. It’s a perspective that views tribe as important rather than the biblical text itself. This is covered in the section below
7. Another implicit claim of the Catholics regarding the debate between the authority of Rome’s traditions vs. the authority of scripture, is TRIBE. For the Roman Catholics, it’s not so much about which doctrine or which interpretation speaks most consistently, it is “Are you a part of my theological tribe (Roman Catholicism)?”. They get the idea that there’s a Catholic tribe and a protestant tribe, so they think that the protestant tribe is both wrong (since it’s not in the Catholic tribe) and internally splintered since there are so many interpretations. I’ve already shown why Catholicism itself is wrong, but their belief that there is a single protestant tribe is also incorrect. Christians, who are reformed, don’t consider membership in a particular “tribe” to be what’s important. We consider what the text actually says/means to be what’s important for doctrinal faithfulness. Consistency and faithfulness to the text itself is what defines reformed Christianity rather than membership in a tribe as Catholics believe.

So Aaronaeus’s question is not applicable. Faithful Christians sit under the authority of elders in a Bible-believing church that holds to the authority of the the faithful Christian creeds/confessions. If an elder in the local body of believers acts outside the boundaries of Biblical doctrine, a Christian can appeal to scripture (the highest authority) to correct him. If a creed/confession is shown to be unbiblical, then a Christian can appeal to scripture. The Catholic has no such authority to which to appeal. They must obey the teachings of their priest, bishop or cardinal because that person IS their highest authority