There are questions that do not permit comfortable neutrality. This is one of them.
For decades, modern Christianity has repeated a convenient phrase: “What matters is believing in Jesus; the Church is secondary.” It sounds humble. It sounds inclusive. It sounds charitable.
But it is theologically incoherent.
If Christ is who He claimed to be — the Son of God — then what He founded cannot be reduced to a secondary preference within a marketplace of denominations. Either He established something concrete, visible, and enduring, or Christianity has been built upon a historical misunderstanding.
The question, therefore, is not emotional but structural: Did Christ found a specific, visible Church, or did He leave behind a loosely defined spiritual movement open to endless reinterpretation?
If the former is true, then truth cannot be equally embodied in thousands of doctrinally contradictory communities. If the latter is true, then the historical claims of Christianity collapse into ambiguity.
I was forced to confront this question personally. And it led me to conclusions I could not ignore.
Christ Did Not Found an Idea — He Founded a Visible Church
In Matthew 16:18, Christ declares:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
He does not speak in plural terms. He does not promise a federation of future denominations. He does not describe a purely invisible spirituality detached from structure and authority.
He speaks of one Church.
The Greek term ekklesia does not mean a private religious sentiment. It refers to an assembly, a gathered body, a community with identifiable boundaries. Furthermore, the promise attached to this foundation is absolute: the gates of hell shall not prevail.
If the Church founded by Christ disappeared, became wholly corrupted, or lost its doctrinal integrity for centuries, then Christ’s promise failed. And if Christ failed in safeguarding what He personally established, then His authority as Lord becomes questionable.
One cannot consistently affirm both the divinity of Christ and the total collapse of His Church for over a millennium.
Apostolic Succession: The Historical Argument That Cannot Be Ignored
The Catholic Church does not claim to be the true Church because of cultural dominance or institutional age alone. It claims continuity — verifiable, historical continuity — from the apostles themselves.
From the first century onward, we see bishops succeeding one another in an unbroken line. This is not a medieval invention; it is documented in the earliest Christian writings. Around AD 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote of the necessity of communion with the bishop as constitutive of belonging to the Church. In the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons argued that authentic doctrine could be verified by tracing the succession of bishops back to the apostles, particularly in the Church of Rome, founded by Peter and Paul (Against Heresies, III.3.2).
This appeal to historical succession was not optional; it was the safeguard against doctrinal chaos.
If one asserts that the true Church vanished until a later “reform” restored it, one must answer a devastating question: where was the Church Christ promised to sustain until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20)?
Silence on this question is not an argument.
Fragmentation and the Problem of Authority
Today, Christianity is fractured into thousands of denominations holding mutually exclusive doctrines regarding baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, moral theology, ecclesial authority, and biblical interpretation. These are not minor differences. They concern the very structure of Christian belief.
St. Paul wrote:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).
If every believer becomes his own final authority for interpreting Scripture, doctrinal unity becomes impossible. The principle of sola Scriptura introduces another difficulty: the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents. The canon of Scripture was discerned and formally recognized by the early Church in councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), later reaffirmed by the universal Church.
Without a visible authority capable of defining the canon and authentically interpreting revelation, doctrinal fragmentation is inevitable.
Unity requires structure. Structure requires authority.
The Claim That the Church “Corrupted Itself”
A common objection states that the early Church was pure but later became corrupted. This claim appears plausible until examined closely. If the Church established by Christ fell into complete doctrinal corruption for centuries, then the gates of hell did prevail.
The Catholic Church does not deny the sins of her members. The Catechism teaches that the Church is “at once holy and always in need of purification” (CCC 827). Human failure, however, does not equal divine abandonment. The apostolic community itself included betrayal, denial, and weakness — yet it remained the Church founded by Christ.
If moral failure invalidates ecclesial identity, then the Church ceased to exist in the first century.
The distinction between human sin and doctrinal indefectibility is essential.
The Catholic Assertion: Fullness, Not Sectarian Arrogance
The Catholic Church teaches that in her “subsists” the Church founded by Christ (Lumen Gentium, 8). She acknowledges that elements of sanctification and truth exist outside her visible structure (CCC 819), yet she maintains that the fullness of the means of salvation — apostolic succession, valid sacraments, authoritative Magisterium, and visible unity — remain within her communion.
This is not triumphalism. It is a theological claim rooted in history.
The alternative position suggests that Christ allowed His followers to drift into irreconcilable doctrinal confusion for centuries, contradicting His prayer for unity in John 17:21 and His promise of abiding presence.
God did not become man to inaugurate perpetual ambiguity.
The Conclusion I Could Not Escape
I once stood on the threshold of leaving the Catholic Church. I listened to criticisms. I entertained doubts. I considered abandoning apostolic tradition in favor of a more individualized expression of faith.
But serious study of Scripture, the early Church Fathers, and historical continuity forced a sober conclusion: only the Catholic Church can demonstrate uninterrupted apostolic succession, structural unity, and doctrinal continuity reaching back to the apostles themselves.
If Christ founded a visible Church, that Church must exist today in recognizable form. And if it exists, it cannot be merely one denomination among many.
The Catholic Church is not flawless in her members — no human community is — but she claims to be indefectible in her divine constitution. If Christ’s promises are trustworthy, then her historical continuity is not accidental; it is providential.
The question, ultimately, is not whether Catholicism is culturally familiar or emotionally compelling. The question is whether Christ meant what He said.
If He did, then the Church He founded still stands.
And that reality demands a response.
Sources
- Holy Bible (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 28:20; Ephesians 4:5; John 17:21)
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 819; 827; 846–870
- St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies
- Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
- Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium
