How do Christians justify not being catholic?

[Huggy Bear]

What the title says. Didn't Jesus pretty explicitly state that

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

and wouldn't that entail that only the Roman church is the the rightful successor of Jesus? I'm just interested in the rationale of evangelical/protestant Christians behind rejecting this claim.

That scripture isn't in its full context. Jesus isn't talking about building his church on Peter (whom he rebuked later in that same chapter btw) but upon "revelation". If Peter was such a "rock" why did he deny Jesus 3 times?

If you look at the scripture in it's full context, then the meaning is clear.

Matthew 16
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (has revealed it).
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (speaking of revelation) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(*the parts in parentheses are my edits)

Five verses down in the same chapter, Jesus rebukes Peter (well, Satan actually, who was acting through Peter).

Matthew 16
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Clearly Jesus wasn't speaking of building his church on Peter but upon revelation.

Receiving a revelation Is essentially like having an epiphany, something that was hidden is made suddenly clear. You cannot begin to understand the Bible with out having revelation (hence why it's the foundation of the church).

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

An example of revelation would be in Acts 2:38 when Peter commanded the people to be baptized in the "name of Jesus Christ"

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why would Peter contradict Jesus when Jesus clearly stated to baptize in the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"?

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Because Peter, having a "revelation" of who Jesus Christ was, Knew that Jesus WAS the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he was all of it.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The Catholic church does not have this revelation, they literally baptize in the "name of the father, son and holy ghost" of which, none are names but titles, the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ.

Hopefully that makes sense.