Sensibility

The argument for Catholicism is ultimately very simple: it has numerous marks of credibility, whereas everything else has numerous marks of incredibility, or outright contradictions. Of course, breaking down the untenability of “everything else” would take a while, but fortunately, I’ve already done that work in the preceding articles on this site. So, instead of making this a 30-page argument, I will first summarize and hyperlink the relevant support pages claim-by-claim. If any of my claims strike you as unsubstantiated, please click the relevant hyperlink to assess the argument proper. Following this series of negative arguments, I will make the positive argument for Catholicism.

YouTube video presentation of this argument here.

Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism

First, atheism leads to the untenable metaphysical assumption that essence does not exist (if it did, that would necessitate an essence identical to its existence, which is God). This would mean that reality’s coherence is illusory, that there is no such thing as real purpose, and that morality is reducible, ultimately, to opinion. Our deepest human intuitions tell us these are not true. Men see essence and coherence in things innately. Men need purpose – without some overarching goal, man’s actions become irrational and meaningless, lacking any real object. Finally, no man is willing to accept true moral subjectivism, such as would lead to the conclusion that the Holocaust was merely a social faux pas and not meaningfully evil.

But even without these paradigmatic issues, atheism fails at face value as there is incontrovertible proof that God exists. There are several compelling supporting arguments, such as the fact that God justifies our ability to know anything at all, the Five Ways and the argument from consciousness. In contrast, the best arguments for atheism are not particularly convincing, and the worst are just glorified schoolyard quips. Further, the idea of a God who isn’t particularly involved in human affairs – Deism – leads to self-refuting conclusions. If God is just a watchmaker and the universe runs on its own, there seems to be no need for God to exist at all; on the other hand, if God made and sustains creation for a purpose, it doesn’t make sense that He gave man spiritual inclinations without providing some identifiable, proper means to satisfy them.

Paganism

So, we must believe that God exists, and that our spiritual appetite ought to be fulfilled. The search for proper spirituality can either begin with intuition, experience, and tradition – mythos – or objective fact-finding and the pursuit of reliable authorities – logos. Mythos-oriented spiritualities, otherwise known as paganism, market themselves as enlightened alternatives to petty dogmatic bickering. But without an objective moral anchor, paganism is defenseless against man’s darker inclinations. What response does pluralism have to ritual suicide or the caste system? Even Gandhi, who boasted of being “A Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew” relied on logical frameworks and objective moral values to condemn such practices, proving that intuition is insufficient for spiritual guidance. Seeking the divine is not a hobby. It requires the same logical rigor and sobriety as any other truth-seeking endeavor, necessitating the rejection of paganism.

Abrahamic

This leaves us with the Abrahamic corpus, each constituent of which claims to teach absolute truth through divine authority. We will begin with Islam. Islam’s historical claims are incredibly weak. The Quran claims that Jesus was never crucified, which contradicts the central message of the Gospel. This is problematic, since the Quran also states 24 times that the seventh century Bible testifies to its truth. To avoid this contradiction, modern Muslims claim widespread Biblical textual corruption. Ignoring the fact that this still would leave the Quran claiming a false book testifies to its truth, and ignoring the fact that no early Islamic scholars thought the Bible was corrupt, this leaves the Quran with nothing to support its divinity. By his own admission, Mohammad never performed miracles. Modern apologists have to make circular, totally subjective, or simply false arguments to claim the Quran proves itself divine, like claiming it’s miraculously beautiful.

Judaism claims legitimacy due to its origin in national revelation – God speaking to the nation at Mt. Sinai. This is a very strong historical claim – it’s implausible that someone could fabricate a national event. However, Judaism’s rejection of Jesus leaves numerous time-sensitive prophecies unfulfillable, such as the Messiah coming to the long-destroyed Second Temple. It leaves their scripture without an ending, and without a key to unlock the narrative. The destruction of the Second Temple left the Jews without the substance of Mosaic religion. Without the Temple, they cannot perform Covenant sacrifice before God. Without the Sanhedrin, Levites, and Prophets, they have no dogmatic authorities. Lacking all means of Covenant worship, Judaism became a religion of extreme legalism, and lacking Covenant authorities, its meaning and praxis varies from rabbi to rabbi. This is simply not the same religion as the one in the Torah.

This leaves Christianity (Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic). The Protestants claim that scripture is the only infallible source of divine truths. This precludes a visible, central teaching body with unquestionable authority, which ultimately leaves scripture open to private interpretation. But the Bible calls itself vague and easy to misinterpret, and warns severely and regularly against trying to guide oneself in the spiritual life. Yet, Protestants must do exactly this. They have to validate their own canon of scripture – Martin Luther removed seven books from the Bible which the Church had accepted for a thousand years, who’s to say I can’t remove the epistles? – then have to judge its doctrines, and pick or start a denomination which best represents their beliefs. But again, this is a stark departure from the clear, defined authority structures of the Old Covenant Church and the first 1,500 years of Christianity, and contradicts scripture’s warnings.

The Orthodox Christians have similar issues. They initially avoid the Protestant problem of self-reference by appealing to Apostolicity. That is, they believe that the visible hierarchy of Bishops established by Jesus and carried on throughout the centuries signifies the true Church, and one need not determine their spirituality for themselves, but simply obey the Apostolic Church’s teaching. The problem is that there are three major Apostolic communions (and many minor ones). Though the Orthodox narrowed down the options, they nonetheless lack any visible sign established by Jesus to differentiate amongst themselves. From the Orthodox paradigm, one can only determine between Apostolic communions based on highly technical opinions on Christology and the like. But again, this leads to the same issue the Protestants have, plus the issue that Christ evidently attempted to create a visible Church the common man can recognize, but failed.

The Authority Problem

I want to be clear that every single religion listed thus far lacks one feature: final, visible, divinely instituted authority. Paganism is inherently eclectic. Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism are all based on books, and books can be read multiple ways. Orthodox episcopal autonomy cannot coexist with ultimate authority. These faiths are sports without referees. A Norse pagan cannot objectively call a Celtic pagan’s worship right or wrong, nor a conservative Jew an orthodox Jew, nor a Calvinist a Methodist, nor a Patriarch another Patriarch. If these are our only options, no one can ever be sure whether he is following God or just following his own desires or the desires of a rogue religious leader; the entire enterprise of religion is defenseless against rule-bending, clever tricks, and rationalization, and is, thus, as worthless and aimless as a sport without a referee.

So what is the solution? How are we to know whether our faith is misguided? Does any religion have a referee? One religion claims to. In Matthew 16:16-18, Jesus renames Simon “Peter,” which means “rock,” and says “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” The Catholic Church contends that it did not satisfy Christ to leave behind a cantankerous debate society; rather, He left a rock, a principle of unity, an unshakeable foundation Hell could never prevail against. Peter’s successors, the Popes, are the living signs of the true Church He Himself guides and protects. Through Peter, God solves our epistemic crisis. He meets our utter incapability to solve the divine mysteries with an achievable proposition: ensure your faith is Rome’s faith, and the truth is yours.

Catholicism

Catholicism began to spread through eyewitness attestation to a years-long series of public miracles. The Gospels present Jesus performing countless miracles, foretelling His own crucifixion, rising from the dead and dwelling in Judea for 40 days, eating and drinking, all transcribed within living memory of the events. In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul challenges those who have doubts to simply come to Jerusalem and ask people what happened, testifying that over 500, many still living, had seen Jesus resurrected. These eyewitnesses and their immediate followers were willing to die rather than recant – scholars accept the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, and James as fact, and Tacitus describes brutal widespread Christian persecution within thirty years of the crucifixion. They gained no status, no wealth, and no power for their beliefs. Just being crucified, burned alive, and eaten by lions.

The Gospels serially recount Jesus calling Himself “Son of man,” referencing the divine king in Daniel 7:13–14. Mark opens by calling Him the Son of God, a concept discussed throughout the epistles (Rom. 1:4, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3). John opens by designating Jesus the creator of all; later, He describes Jesus calling Himself by God’s very name (John 8:58-59). The epistles call Him God (Phil. 2:5-7, Col. 2:9, 2 Pet. 1:1, Jam. 2:1), as do dozens of letters from early Church leaders, most famously the Ignatian letters. Roman historian Tacitus relates that the early Christians suffered great persecution on account of Christ due to a “superstition” (116 AD). Pliny the Younger, a Roman lawyer, wrote that Christians worshipped Jesus “as a god” (110 AD). Cynic philosopher Lucian mocks Christians for worshipping their crucified God (165 AD). Philosopher Celsus mocked Christians in the same fashion (~175 AD).

This divine Messiah was foretold in the Jewish scriptures (which, again, are themselves supported by national revelation).  Isaiah 7:14 says the Messiah will be called Immanuel – “God with us.” Isaiah 9:5 calls the Messiah – an infant – “Mighty God” – a phrase repeated in Isaiah 10 referring to God. Daniel 7 describes the Messiah as a cloud-rider (a term reserved for God) who receives an eternal kingdom over all; in the Jewish Talmud, one rabbi suggests it prophesies the Messiah enthroned beside God. Jeremiah 23:3-6, says His name is “God Is Our Righteousness.” In Zechariah 2, God says, “I will dwell among you and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you” – suggesting that God will send Himself to live among men. God says He will visit the Second Temple (Mal. 3:1), making that Temple more glorious than the first (Hag. 2:7-9).

The Jewish scriptures foretell the Messiah suffering to atone for sins. Isaiah 53, written around the 8th century BC, says (using a Jewish translation): “Despised and rejected by men… He was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; [our chastisement] was upon him, and by his wound we were healed… With the strong [are his spoils], because he poured out his soul to death… and bore the sin of many.” The tension between the narrative of the glorious godly Messiah and the suffering, dying Messiah is so stark the Talmudic rabbis concluded there must be two Messiahs – one, Messiah ben Joseph, would die in battle; the other, Messiah ben David, would raise him from the dead and complete the prophecies. I might deign to suggest to these rabbis that it is not two different Messiahs, but the same Messiah, Jesus, at two different times.

Finally, the scriptures foretell the dates of the Messiah’s arrival and atonement. Daniel gives a prophecy of 70 “weeks of years” – 490 years. The Messiah would come 69 “weeks” (483 years) after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem following the Babylonian Exile. In the middle of the 70th “week,” He would confirm a covenant, be killed, and end Temple sacrifice (Dan 9). Ezra recounts the decree to restore Jerusalem coming from God through Artaxerxes in his seventh year of kingship. 457 BC. 69 “weeks” brings us to 27 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius over Judea beginning from his co-regency. The year Jesus began preaching. One half-week later, 30 AD, Jesus established a “New Covenant in [His] blood” (Luke 22:20), suffered crucifixion, and the Talmud confirms God refused Temple sacrifices thereafter. Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls said this prophecy was the reason first-century Jews believed the Messiah was coming imminently.

So the evidence Jesus is who He says He is has four legs to stand on: corporate, firsthand miraculous experiences testified to in blood, a man making the decidedly unusual claim to be God rather than to merely speak on His behalf, a sizable number of contemporaries believing it, and numerous prophecies pointing towards His unique identity and arrival during the Second Temple period. As He fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, in His Church we see the fulfillment of Old Covenant religion. Animal sacrifice became the bloodless Eucharistic sacrifice. God’s presence in the Temple and the Ark became His complete, substantial presence in the Eucharist. Most importantly for our purposes, the Bishops and Pope fulfill the ministry of the Priests and Prophets. The Apostles, like the Levites, have successive offices with unquestionable judicial authority. The Pope, like the Prophets, ensures the Church is never led astray.

What makes Catholicism special? It has the marks of credibility we’ve been looking for. It alone solves the epistemic crisis, calling us not to follow our musings wherever they lead, but to follow Rome. Catholicism is the only path to self-abandonment which does not rely on self to get there. Certainly, this proposition will not please every reader. Catholicism appears strange. It makes no attempt to cater to our base appetites, but relentlessly points us to the arduous. Self-reliance is replaced by humble obedience to imperfect shepherds. Self-justification is replaced by the awareness that our works are worthless without the gratuitous, unmerited gift of grace. Self-indulgence is replaced with total self-control. These are hard teachings; the God of Catholicism is a strange God. But He is also real – and that should take precedence over our apprehensions.

“When many of his disciples heard [this], they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’

From this time, [they] turned back and no longer followed Him. ‘You do not want to leave too, do you?’ Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:60-68).