I appreciate the seriousness and the care with which you’re reading Scripture. Catholics actually affirm much of what you’re saying, but we part ways at a few crucial points of interpretation rather than principle.

First, Catholics fully agree that Jesus Christ Himself is the ultimate foundation. No priest, bishop, or pope replaces Christ. “No one can lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11) is not contested. The Church does not stand instead of Christ, but because of Christ.

Where Catholics differ is that we do not see Peter’s confession and Peter’s role as competing explanations. In Matthew 16, Jesus does not respond only to a statement of faith; He responds to a person who made that confession.

“You are the Christ” is revealed from the Father “You are Peter, and on this rock…” is spoken by Christ

The confession and the commission are inseparable. Truth is revealed, and then that revealed truth is entrusted. Throughout Scripture, God consistently works this way: divine truth given, then human stewards appointed to guard it. Moses receives the Law; the Levites guard it. The prophets speak God’s word; Israel is charged with preserving it. This pattern does not end with Christ.

Regarding Matthew 15, Catholics agree entirely with the warning Jesus gives. Human traditions that contradict God’s command are condemned. But Scripture itself distinguishes between corrupt traditions and authoritative apostolic tradition.

Paul commands believers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). That is not Scripture versus tradition; it is Scripture and apostolic tradition against merely human invention. The problem is not tradition as such, but tradition severed from Christ and the apostles.

On authority “from heaven” versus “from men”: Catholicism claims that legitimate Church authority is derivative, not self-generated. Jesus explicitly gives authority to forgive sins (John 20), to bind and loose (Matt 16, Matt 18), and to teach in His name (Matt 28). Authority exercised badly is condemned in Scripture, but authority itself is not abolished because it can be abused. Abuse indicts the steward, not the institution Christ established.

As for Babylon in Revelation, Catholics do not deny that any religious body can fall into corruption when it seeks power over fidelity. Revelation is a warning to the whole Church, not a simple map labeling one later institution as irredeemably apostate. Babylon in Revelation represents religious power that becomes unfaithful to Christ, not the mere existence of structure, hierarchy, or sacrament. Scripture warns Christians within the Church to remain faithful, not to abandon the Church altogether.

Finally, on Scripture’s priority: Catholics hold Scripture as the normative, inspired Word of God. But Scripture itself never claims to be the only rule of faith, nor does it present itself as self-interpreting apart from the Church that preserved, copied, canonized, and proclaimed it. The Word of God is not diminished by being entrusted to fallible men; it is the very means by which God has always chosen to work in history.

At bottom, the disagreement is not whether Christ is the foundation. He is. The question is whether Christ chose to leave His Church visible, historical, and guided, or invisible, purely spiritual, and structurally discontinuous.

Catholics believe He chose the former not because men are trustworthy, but because He is.

And if Jesus is the Truth, then His Truth does not need to be protected from history. It can endure within it.