Reflections on the Truth of Catholicism

In the Bible, Jesus himself founds the Christian Church. He founds it, most obviously, in his commission to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall found my church. And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Then he also gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom,” promising that whatever he looses or binds on earth will be loosed or bound in heaven.

But in founding the church in this way, it seems apparent that Jesus is founding, specifically, the Catholic Church. That is, the Catholic Church appears to be the true Christian church, the church as Jesus founded and commissioned it.

For he was founding the small-c catholic church, the catholic church being, as in the Nicene Creed, the church universal, as opposed to local or less generally accepted traditions. Jesus does not promise that the gates of hell will make no headway against Christians whatsoever. Only that they will not prevail, and will not sweep away the foundation.

The gates of hell, accordingly, might prevail over local areas or minority beliefs--like Gnosticism, or pelasgianism, or Methodism. But the mainstream would always run pure, the bedrock remain solid, to ensure that those of good faith were not misled.

Now, in these terms, the Catholic Church of Rome has the clearest claim to be this mainstream. Other churches are much smaller in numbers, except for the Orthodox much newer in existence, more local in their administration, and perhaps with the exception of the Orthodox have less claim to direct succession from Peter and the apostles.

And it was to Peter, specifically, that the commission was given.

Luther, by contrast, can hardly be seen as the bedrock, the foundation, of Christianity. If nothing else, he came too late. Nor was he the mainstream, in his time any more than in ours. He rebelled; he was not rebelled against. He might argue that his principles, such as “salvation by faith alone,” are the true Christian bedrock. But Jesus did not found his faith on a principle or a set of principles, but, oddly and so conspicuously, on a human being. On the bishop of Rome.

The primacy of the Pope, of course, also follows from this reflection. The doctrine of papal infallibility seems already implied.

The personal qualities of a Pope, as of a priest, do not matter.

First, quite obviously, this would be unjust to the faithful: why should your salvation be dependent on my conduct? God would not act so.

It is also apparent in the Bible itself. For Jesus makes Peter the rock, the foundation of his church, but it is very clear from the Bible that Peter has human failings. If you deny that God would choose a fallible human for this office, are you not denying the Bible itself?

Jeremiah, or Jonah, or Moses, also had human failings. Moses, for example, was a murderer. Same for David or Solomon. Nevertheless, the books they wrote are holy scripture, and have God's guarantee. So too the Pope, in the same way.