But my problem with Romanism doesn't lie with the name. That's just a symptom of something far deeper.
As I understand it, Rome accepts three separate vehicles for divine truth: the Bible, tradition, and the Magisterium. This Magisterium defines the official Roman position on all things; in effect, it stands above the other two. Truth is what the Roman Church says it is.
But playing fast and loose with Scriptrure isn't the real problem, though it definitely is a problem.
The rest problem is that it often contradicts Scriptrure, and in any conflict between the two, Rome always wins
I'll give an example. In the First Vatican Council, the Pope decided that Popes were infallible when they spoke ex cathedral. From what I can tell, the only two statements that have met that criterion are the announcement of infallibility and of Mary's freedom from sin.
The Church of Rome has long held that Mary never sinned, but now it said that she, unlike all people since Adam and Eve,was conceived without original sin. Not only that, but because it's a dogma, it's something a person has to believe, or he won't get into Heaven.
Unfortunately, the flatly contradicts the Bible, especially the Book of Romans, which states that all have sinned. Not "all but Many", but at. It also contradicts the the numerous places in the New Testament where repentance and faith in Christ are presented as the way of salvation.
This isn't a problem for the Roman Church, which holds that it made Scripture, rather than the other way around. For those of us who disagree, it's a very serious problem. At the very least, placing oneself above the word of God is incredibly arrogant.
In fact, it's very difficult to see any difference between the church based in Rome and the one based in Salt Lake City.