Catholicism is the only logical choice within Christianity

Most Christians who choose a denomination other than the Catholic Church are typically acting out of a desire for freedom. That’s understandable, since freedom is one of the deepest longings of the human heart. We must be free in order to be happy. But are these individuals really gaining freedom or have they been deceived?

The truth is, if you believe that Christ is your Saviour, your only logical choice is to adhere to what He is currently teaching (and has always taught) through His Catholic Church. Just continue reading and decide for yourself.

Few Christians would question that Christ ordered his disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to make more disciples. But what Gospel is to be preached?  There are so many variations: Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, United, Mennonites, Baptists, etc.  There are about 30,000 Christian denominations, despite the fact that Jesus wanted us to be one.  It’s a shame, but it’s true.  There’s only one Bible, but so many different interpretations. Who’s right? Who to believe?

It’s important to remember that Christ explicitly delegated His teaching authority to humans.  Not just to the Twelve, but also to the Seventy.  He told them: “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). Notice how Christ makes no distinction between His preaching and theirs. When they preach, it’s as if Christ Himself was speaking. Even Judas, who betrayed Jesus and committed suicide, was part of this group that was given infallible teaching authority.  The same is true of Peter the denier and Thomas the doubter.

But how could their teaching be as good as Christ’s when humans are so prone to blunders?  Quite simply because the accuracy of the teaching rested on the power of God, not human capabilities.

So what happened to this infallible teaching authority over the centuries?  Did it disappear?  Just consider this: Jesus spent His life preaching a Gospel that brings us eternal salvation. This Gospel was of the utmost importance to Him and for us. He died for it.  Wouldn’t an all-intelligent and all-loving God find a way to make sure that this Gospel could be taught accurately to future generations?  Having the New Testament helps because it provides a written record. But it’s clearly not enough given the huge variety of contradictory interpretations of Scripture.  If they’re contradictory, they can’t all be right.  That’s not logical.  In fact, even the New Testament explains that reading Scripture is not enough and that you need the proper interpretation to understand it.  Remember the Ethiopian eunuch?

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. Then the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over to this chariot and join it.’ So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this:

‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
so he does not open his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.’

The eunuch asked Philip, ‘About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. (Acts 8: 27:35)

Philip, pushed by the Holy Spirit and endowed with the teaching authority of Christ, asked the Ethiopian if he understood the Scripture passage.  Why?  Because he knew that Scripture can be difficult to understand and the reader could arrive at false interpretations or misunderstandings.  The responses and questions of the Ethiopian confirm that he wasn’t clear on the interpretation. This isn’t rocket science, folks.  It’s just plain logic.  As was eloquently explained by theologian Frank Sheed:

It is not enough to have Our Lord’s words; the words themselves can be only a kind of talisman without the meaning. Without a teacher — to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various meanings is Christ’s — we should have no revelation but only an ever-growing pile of conundrums. Either there is a teacher now teaching upon earth, guaranteed by Christ as the Apostles were, or there is no possibility of knowing the truth which he saw to be so essential. (Source:  Theology for Beginners, p. 118)

Don’t you think it would’ve been dumb or even cruel for God not to ensure that the proper interpretation of the means of our salvation could be accurately taught through the centuries?  It would be illogical for an all-intelligent and all-loving God to leave humanity alone to quarrel over the meaning of the Bible, with the risk of even losing the original meaning intended by Christ.  Given that Jesus gave the Twelve and the Seventy a power to teach infallibly in His name, is it so hard to believe that He would continue to provide this power to the successors of the Apostles until today?  Isn’t that the only logical conclusion?  Of course!

The question then becomes: where does this infallible teaching authority reside?  St. Paul says that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).  But which church was he referring to?  That’s easy. There’s only one Church that has been in existence for the entire 2,000 years since Christ: the Catholic Church.  Read the history books and you’ll find that every other church appeared much, much later in history, most of them in the last couple of centuries.  They were born as splinter groups of the Catholic Church because they decided to deviate from the consistent teaching that had been proclaimed always and everywhere since the Apostles.  Not a wise move, if you’re interested in what Christ really taught.

Since the beginning, the Catholic Church has been struggling with individuals or groups that have distorted Christ’s teaching.  Read Acts 15 where the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem to discuss false teaching that was being spread among the early Christians about the need to be circumcised and follow other Jewish practices. Likewise, Paul denounces “false apostles” in 1 Cor 11; he complains about “false believers” in Galatians 2; he laments “powerful delusions” leading people astray in 2 Thessalonians 2.  As I explained in an earlier post, this antagonism between the legitimate teachers of the real Gospel and the proponents of false teaching continued in the early centuries of the Church.  As early as 180 AD, we read that the immediate successors of the Apostles were recognized as having the same authority as the Apostles, and that the Church of Rome was considered the highest authority.  Any other teaching was considered a distortion of what Christ meant.

Nothing has changed in 2,000 years.  That same teaching authority established by Christ has continued to preach the real Gospel for our benefit, while others have deviated from this teaching and have therefore estranged themselves from what Christ really taught.

It’s true that there have been a few really bad Popes over the centuries.  There have also been lots of corrupt bishops and priests.  Their lives were very inconsistent with the Gospel.  But the miraculous thing is that none of them ever modified official Church teaching to accommodate their decadent lifestyle.  In fact, none of the Popes over 2,000 years has ever implemented a new teaching on faith and morals that contradicted earlier teaching.  None.  Thanks be to God for the consistency of the Holy Spirit, who deserves all the credit for the continuity of the Church’s teaching!  Just like in the case of Judas, the Holy Spirit won’t let the vices of individuals lead to distortions of the Gospel message upon which hinges the salvation of humanity.

If you’re an intelligent Christian, you want the real deal, the real Gospel, not some counterfeit or distortion.  You want to believe and follow what Christ really taught.  The only place to find this is in the Catholic Church, which God created and sustained so that you could enjoy the fullness of the truth of the Gospel.  This isn’t a mindless servitude or submission to a man-made institution.  It’s the only rational choice for any smart person who wants the real McCoy.

25 thoughts on “Catholicism is the only logical choice within Christianity

  1. There could be differences in the teachings as it changes with the beliefs of the person who is preaching, but what is of more importance is the essence of the preaching. This will be the same, this could be better understood when we understand that there can be different path but all the paths lead to God.

  2. Logic involves reasoned, rational examination of facts. Even a cursory perusal of Catholic doctrine will lead one to the opposite conclusion of your post. Marian worship, the infallibility of the Pope and Bishops, and prayer to Saints all run contrary to the teachings of the Bible. An intelligent, logical examination of Catholic teachings will show that the majority place more emphasis upon their Church and the associated rituals than they do the word of Christ. This is hardly the bastion of intelligence you claim it to be.

    • No, sir, a rational examination of the history of Christianity leaves absolutely no room for any Protestant sect. The only reason you accept the books of the Bible is because the Catholic Church compiled it. No Catholic teaching contradicts the scripture. If you believe it does not you either do not know what the Church teaches or you do not know what the scripture teaches. Read the Didache for a start.

  3. God wants you to know.
    It is written: A woman shall compass a man and create a new thing in the earth (Jer 31:22), the man is Satan(Isa 14:16), the new thing is turning the hearts of the fathers to the children. Satan has deceived the whole world (Rev 12:7), until the heel of time(Gen 3:15) when a woman shall bruise him by exposing his lies. Check out the bruising of Satan at http://thegoodtale.com. Please read all the posts to see the whole picture.

  4. Christian discipleship:

    The Truth that Christ taught is a divine revelation that is not dependent on the beliefs of the one preaching. Therefore, the Gospel message should remain the same throughout the ages. It’s Christ’s Gospel. Nobody has the right to change it.

    As Christians, we cannot become indifferent to distortions of the Gospel message that Jesus died for and which the Apostles fought so jealously to preserve intact.

    All paths do NOT lead to God, for Christ himself said “Nobody comes to the Father except through me”

  5. Rob:

    Rational decisions must be made by an informed mind. A “cursory perusal” of Catholic doctrine won’t do it justice and will leave you with the wrong impression, much the same way that a “cursory perusal” of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity won’t provide you any insight at all.

    The fact that you speak of Marian worship tells me that you have not even scratched the surface of Catholicism. Marian worship would be a disgusting abomination and we would never tolerate it. We don’t worship Mary. You criticize a false image of Catholicism that doesn’t correspond to any reality. I encourage you to get a real understanding before you try to criticize it.

    I caution you against criticizing the teaching of the Church that has been handed down from the Apostles through the centuries because you are unwittingly criticizing Christ himself.

  6. val:

    I haven’t read your entire blog, but I found a huge error at the very beginning that doesn’t inspire me to continue reading. You say that God created sin. What a horrible thing to say about God. You’ve made him into a strange schizophrenic god that doesn’t obey his own will or that would encourage his creatures to disobey. That’s not logical.

  7. Now this is as loony a post as I have seen on the Internet in some time, nothing but fundamentalist dribble. Resorting to condescending language such as “If you’re an intelligent Christian, you want the real deal, the real Gospel, not some counterfeit or distortion.” shows how desperate you are for reason. You are adept at defending bad behavior of certain popes and Bishops, and feel you are above reproach.

    It is a sad state of affairs for the Catholic Church to resort to this type of reasoning, when you have more Judas’s within your ranks than in the rest of Christianity.

    It is time for sane, balanced, intelligent rationale, not drum beating emotionalism. Sorry to say this post is a regression for the integrity of the Catholic Church. The reformers had it right when they stated: “The Catholic Church is steeped in error and beyond correction.” Thanks for proving them right Steve!

  8. Do you understand now why I posted the link to the video by Michael Voris, Steve? Sad to say Protestants don’t have a religion based in reason or logic. Just look at how they are trying to argue. Nor, do they don’t know anything about Catholicism or even church history for that matter, they just think they do. Check it out for yourself, ask a Protestant about the early church or the middle ages and see for yourself. Heck, they don’t even know much about the reformers. If they did they would know about Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary, his belief in her perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Nor do they know much about Calvin and his beliefs. Calvin did not believe in private interpretation of Scripture. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith.

    Here’s a simple example of how poorly thought out Protestantism is:

    Ask a Protestant how we are saved and most will answer: ‘We are saved by faith alone.’ (I’m not sure why they leave out the need for God’s grace.) And it is true that we need faith for salvation but follow with: Isn’t it also true that we are ABSOLUTELY COMMANDED by God to do good works. Now watch them squirm.

  9. Susan, the sarcasm does you no good. You are just dripping with contempt and hatred for people who do not think like you do. You use language that should have been abandoned decades ago.

    I have a difficult time seeing the love of Christ in you! But I guess the fundies desire discord, animosity intolerance, and also a lack of understanding of church history. You guys are setting the ecumenical dialogue back to pre Vatican II days.

  10. I was not using sarcasm, Cliff P. I don’t hate you I pity for you. Everything I wrote in my post is true. Protestants don’t know church history including their own. Nor do they think through the doctrines they profess, see my earlier example. I also noticed you didn’t address any of the facts presented. Sad but typical. It’s also apparent you don’t know the meaning of ecumenical. I posted the link above for that very reason. Did you watch it? Obviously not.

  11. P.S. I dare say this too, Cliff. You don’t know anything about Vatican II. Before you try to use Vatican II as a reference again try learning what it is and what it is about first. That makes three it for three, Cliff, you’re clueless about ecumenicalism, Vatican II and you don’t understand much about Catholicism. And I bet I could add a fourth, I think it’s pretty safe to say you’re ignorant about the Protestant reformers, too.

    The saddest part in all this is how highly unlikely it is that you’ll ever make the effort to learn about any these things. Instead, I bet you’ll opt to continue in your ignorance. Too bad, you lose.

    But for those who have an urge to understand the basics of Vatican II start here: http://tiny.cc/l282s

  12. Susan, did I hit a nerve with you or what? Wow! you are some number accusing me of not knowing church history, imagine the kettle calling the stove hot? There are always two sides to a story, including church history, but you continue in the lies of Erasmus, who had a difficult time dealing with challenges to false doctrine and unholy living.

    You know the saying Susan, “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? You are fueling the flames of the reformation, and doing your Church absolutely no good.

    As for the Video, we can all ferret out view points to support our extreme viewpoints.

  13. Cliff,
    Thanks for dropping by. I don’t think you read the post with an open mind. You don’t seem to understand that the infallibility of the Church has nothing to do with how many Judases there are. It only depends on the Holy Spirit. Can you make that distinction between the Truth of the message vs the vices of individual people?
    Tell me: do you doubt the Holy Spirit’s power to keep the Gospel message on the right track? Do you really think God would be so cruel as to leave us orphans, without the means of knowing the correct meaning of the Gospel?

  14. Cliff:

    I didn’t make an accusation I made a statement of fact. Historical documentation is fact not opinion. It is you who believe revisionist theories of your own making based solely on preference and lies. Do you want to take the test to see if it so? Shall bring out the early Church fathers and see what they wrote? How about we pull out the reformers and test you on how well you know them. Let’s see what they wrote.

    Does this sound familiar?

    “So then we must ever come to this point, that the Sacraments are effectual and that they are not trifling signs that vanish away in the air, but that the truth is always matched with them, because God who is faithful shows that he has not ordained anything in vain. And that is the reason why in Baptism we truly receive the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit.
    And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore baptism has that power and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye is forthwith accomplished in very deed.” – [John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 1244.]

    So you see Cliff, the above example shows Calvin understood the importance of Sacraments. I could go on and on with other examples but I think the point is clear. You don’t know anything about Catholicism and you don’t even know much about the reformers either. I also don’t believe you read Steve’s article nor do I belive you listen to the posted course on Vatican II. Your posts prove that. It it you who remains ignorant by choice as your posts have demonstrated.

    You’re a disappointment, Cliff. I believe you are more concerned with how someone talks to you than you are about the truth of Jesus Christ and what he taught.

  15. Steve, further to your comment about making a distinction between the truth of the Gospel vs. the vices of the people. We will leave the second part about the vices of the people, or the Judas’s in your midst. We can deal with them later.

    The truth of the Gospel is what the reformers fought for in their disagreement with the established Catholic Church at the time. Luther fought against the sale of indulgences, where people paid for them and thus buying their salvation. This not only excluded the poor, but gave special privileges to the rich, for they were the ones who could afford to buy their salvation. Luther fought against works righteousness, which in effect downplayed or even nullified Jesus’ dying on the cross for our sins. It is solely by Grace we are saved and not by any effort on our part. The sale of indulgences was contrary to the “true Gospel”.

    That is what reformers fought for, that is was solely by the death and resurrection that we are saved on nothing that we did. Our works cannot add anything to the victory on the cross.

    Now having said that, before someone like Susan goes off on a tangent again, good works are always necessary to thank God for what He has done through Jesus. We do good works out of a grateful heart.

  16. Susan, I cannot refute such a brilliant scholar as yourself, as you are able to fully understand someone by only a couple of paragraphs, so I admit defeat in this round, your omniscience is amazing!

    We will have to wait for the final judgment, and sit around the high court with The Triune God himself to settle our argument.

  17. Hi Cliff,

    I greatly appreciate it when you write with a level-headed tone. It makes for more fruitful discussion. I hope Susan will continue to join us and that we can all have a mild-mannered and respectful exchange. Other readers are welcome to join in as long as the tone is respectful.

    While I’m not an expert on the “sale” of indulgences, I know that this incident has often been misinterpreted. Over the centuries, indulgences have been granted for all kinds of good actions. Donations to the Church are only a small example of this. Christ himself praised individuals for giving to the poor or donating to the Temple treasury, so the notion that a gift to the Church would be praise-worthy is not new. It wasn’t a “sale”. Indulgences have never been a guarantee of salvation. Only faith and repentance from sin can lead someone to salvation.

    But even if we disagree on the morality of this point, the decision to grant indulgences to donations for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica was not a matter of Catholic doctrine. It was a policy decision by the Church leaders of the time, which is not related to fundamental doctrine of the Faith such as the Divinity of Christ, the reality of the Resurrection, the Trinity of Persons in one God, the existence of Hell, the existence of Angels and the Devil, etc. Policy decisions can be misguided because everybody is human. They aren’t infallible. In fact, the Council of Trent and Pope Pius V cracked-down hard on abuses related to indulgences less than 50 years after Luther wrote his 95 Theses. But the fundamental truths/doctrines of the Faith have been unchanged and uncorrupted. They cannot go wrong because the Holy Spirit is back-stopping them. It depends on the power of God, not of men.

    Luther was right about some things. There was a lot of corruption in the Church in his day. It was disgraceful. But his mistake was to abandon 1,500 years of constant Christian doctrine because of the vices of the clergy of his day and some bad policy decisions. We see a lot of scandals in the Church today, and not just the Catholic Church. Other Christian denominations have also been rocked by cases of sex abuse of children by pastors. While these events are horrible tragedies, they don’t change the Truth of what Christ taught. If I discovered tomorrow that my pastor was a sex abuser, that wouldn’t change my belief in Christ as my savior. Thus the importance of distinguishing between Gospel truths and the sins of men.

    By the way, I would like to return to the essence of my article which is about the infallible teaching authority that Christ conferred on his Apostles and their successors. Where do you think that authority has gone to? Do you believe that it still exists? If so, where does it reside?

    Respectfully,

    Steve

  18. You ask a good question about the infallible teaching authority that Christ conferred on his Apostles and their successors. But that statement in itself leads to a lot of questions and definitions that need to be more clearly defined. As Scripture is somewhat obscure about how this is to be handled by future successors, we can all agree that Christ’s teaching is infallible, and that Protestants believe this as well, but where we differentiate is in the role of Peter.

    So to this point we agree, God’s Word is infallible, but the next step is the difficult one. Who exactly has this authority? And for the sake of peace and good will I will stop there, because if we can agree to this point we have made progress, albeit, a small step.

  19. Thanks Cliff.

    One last food for thought. Remember that Christ himself recognized that the scribes and Pharisees had inherited an infallible teaching authority from Moses. He said:

    “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.” (Matthew 23:1-3)

    So Jesus recognizes their authority to teach and commands the people to obey, despite the fact that Christ severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their personal behaviour and despite the fact that they were many centuries removed from Moses. Their personal sins were not to exonerate the faithful from the truths they taught. Hence, the notion that God can entrust an infallible teaching authority to fallible men (guided by the Holy Spirit) is very scriptural.

    Take care and God bless!

  20. On a parting note as well Steve, I think we need to be civil to each other and not resort to condescending terms as in days past where we said some awful things about each other. Religion can and is a very emotional issue, and feelings can easily be aroused.

    With this respect in mind we need to remember Jesus’ words in Luke 9:50 “Don’t forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us.” There are others in the Lord’s vineyard as well. Remember that!

    Yes, we agree there is one true Church and the infallible word of God is passed onto us to teach and instruct. But to say there is only one True Church, (meaning our own) would be disingenuous.

    We need to work together in defending the truth, and in speaking up for the helpless in society.

    May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you in revealing the Lord Jesus to you!

  21. Steve G:

    Fyi, I’ve taken several apologetic courses, have several Catholic friends whom I discuss issues of faith with, and have read numerous Catholic texts. I greatly respect the faith and devotion you have toward your sect of Christianity, but have several reservations which I noted earlier.

    For someone who claims Catholics don’t worship Mary, I find it odd that you don’t think you can get to Jesus unless you go through his Mother. You pray to her, right? You say “Hail Mary,” right? You have a statue of her somewhere in or around your home, right? Sounds like worship to me.

  22. Thanks for dropping by. Please permit me to respectfully address your concerns.

    For someone who claims Catholics don’t worship Mary, I find it odd that you don’t think you can get to Jesus unless you go through his Mother.

    Catholics don’t have to always pray to Mary. They can pray directly to God. In fact, the celebration of the Eucharist, the highest form of worship for Catholics, is one long prayer to God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ.

    You pray to her, right?

    Yes, but we don’t pray to her in the same way we pray to God. When we pray to Mary, we simply ask her to pray to God for us. This is not materially different than if I ask my Mom or my friends to pray for me because I’m going through an illness. In asking Mary to pray to God for us, we are acknowledging that all graces and gifts come from God and that Mary has no power of her own. It’s always good to have extra people praying for us.

    You say “Hail Mary,” right?

    We say “Hail Mary” because God said “Hail Mary” through his angel Gabriel. It is also sometimes translated as “Greetings, favoured one!” (read Luke 1:28). Why is it wrong to quote Scripture during prayer? Angels are messengers from God that do his bidding. Gabriel said “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you”, because those were words ordered directly by God for him to say.

    You have a statue of her somewhere in or around your home, right?

    Yes. Do you have pictures of you loved ones in you home? Perhaps your wife, your girlfriend, your parents or your kids? Is that a sign of worship? No, it’s a reflection of your love and respect for these people and a sign that they occupy an important part in your life. You like to be reminded of them. It’s no different for us with images of Mary. They’re not a sign of worship in the slightest.

    So you see, once we dig a bit further, Catholicism isn’t what people claim it is.

    Feel free to drop by with any other questions.

  23. Rob,

    You have yet to respond to the central theme of my post:

    Do you think Christ has given Christians a sure means to know the exact interpretation of his Gospel infallibly, without misunderstandings or errors? After all, our salvation depends on it!

    If not, why would God cruelly abandon us to such uncertaintly about the means of our salvation?

    If yes, then where does this infallible teaching authority reside? I hope you won’t claim that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides each individual. The fact that you and I have different interpretations debunks that theory.

Leave a Reply to christian discipleship Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
18 − 5 =