Why only Catholicism and Mormonism: Pt. IV- Why Catholicism?

Note: Because I will compare Catholicism and Mormonism in much more detail, this post is concerned only with the validity and truth claims those Christian faiths that claim to have unbroken apostolic succession back to the original twelve disciples.

Even having determined that Christianity is true, and that apostolic Christianity is the most reliable and reasonable of Christian models, it remains to be seen which of the bodies claiming to have valid apostolic succession is the most true, all parts considered.

I have found that when approaching such an important and complex question it is very important to employ the various methods by which truth claims may be assessed (for example, history and philosophy), and to consider only the best arguments each side has to offer, since to do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. As an example of why it is important to employ more than one method for determining truth, let us consider a crime scene:

In a third story Cleveland penthouse a man has been found dead with a large bruise on his head and a heavy metal pipe a few meters away from his corpse. Aside from this head wound, he appears to have been in good health. The detectives assigned to the scene, having only external data to speculate about how this man died, think it obvious that it was the impact from the metal pipe to the head that killed him. Following standard procedure, the corpse is eventually taken to the forensics experts where the body is not just examined externally, but through medical tests as well. These medical tests reveal that the bruise on the man's head was a week old at the time of his death, and that the actual cause of death was poisoning. 

As in this story, if one utilizes only one method of investigation they may not see the whole picture, and what they believe to be true, even with reason, may be erroneous.

The four major branches of self-identifying as apostolic today are the Catholic Communion, Eastern Orthodox Communion, Oriental Orthodox Communion, and the Anglican Communion. I have spent time worshiping with, and have seriously considered all but the Oriental Orthodox tradition, which I have studied briefly, and while I believe it is important to learn about these traditions I do not think it is necessary to do an exhaustive study of each body to discern which has the best claim to truth. Instead I propose that this determination can be made by addressing two questions: 1) Which of these traditions best fits the Biblical narrative, evidence, and other early Christian records (history)? 2) Which of these traditions offers the best explanatory power of the human condition, and the best philosophical and moral tradition (philosophy and theology)?

1. The question of whether evidence for the apostolic structure could be found in the Bible was addressed in my previous post (see here). Evidence from the Bible alone doesn't seem to support any of these traditions above the other. All believe in the church structure, method of priestly ordination, and method by which this ordination takes place in the New Testament. There is one exception to this apparent equality of support. In Matthew 16:18-19, a verse that has been heavily debated among Christians and biblical scholars, Christ singles out Simon Peter:

¹⁸ And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.¹⁹ And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Members of the Roman Catholic Church typically points to these verses above all others as evidence of their claim that the Bishop of Rome, who is the successor of St. Peter, holds primacy above all other bishops, and additionally an infallibility for the purpose of clarifying and preserving doctrine. The objections to this argument have been various. Some Orthodox Christians acknowledge, for instance, that Peter is indeed the rock upon which Christ establishes his church, and he does indeed hold a primacy among bishops, but he is not infallible. Others deny that Peter is the rock at all. However, considering the linguistic background of this passage, and further, what it clearly seems to be saying, it seems that Peter is indeed the rock to which Christ is referring. Martin Luther himself states:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)

And further, the Protestant biblical scholar W.F. Albright states the following: "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence."  

While the Greek translation of Matthew 16:18-19 does indeed use two different forms of the word rock (the masculine Petros for Simon Peter and the feminine petra for "rock"), it is important to remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and there is no such masculine-feminine distinction for the word "rock", which in Aramaic is "Keepa." (see Aramaic translation here)

There are also various instances in which the Early Church Fathers identify Peter as the rock and foundation of the Church. Here are just three early examples:

"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret. 220 AD).

"There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord's authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance" (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church. 246 AD) 

"Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church ...." (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg. 246 AD). 

The evidence demonstrates that Peter held at least a primacy among the original twelve apostles. For further reading on this topic, see the following links:

Was Peter the Rock? The "little rock, big rock" theory.
"Is St. Peter the Rock on which Jesus built his Church?" by Jimmy Akin

While the above evidence does seem to give support to the claims of the church of Rome, it must be acknowledged, as many non-Catholic Christians claim, that this primacy may have been different than what the Roman Catholic Church claims it to be. Thus more historical evidence is needed to assess the claims of Rome. Here is an interesting article called "How the Robber Council Establishes the Papacy" written by Joe Heschmeyer that provides such evidence.

2. Lets suppose that the biblical and historical evidence is inconclusive and we are left still unsure of which apostolic tradition is true. What signposts could we then look for? This is where I believe we should consider how each tradition has preserved its doctrines and the philosophical and moral foundations the church is founded upon.

Of all the faiths here being considered, I believe the Roman Catholic faith has been more unwavering and constant in its doctrines. It is important to keep in mind that there may be times when such a change is necessary.Going forward, then, I will briefly consider a few changes and preservation that have taken place in Christendom to determine whether such changes to or preservation of doctrine give credibility to one of the bodies we are considering over the others.

Until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 there existed agreement among the apostolic churches on three major issues: 1) the use of contraception is immoral 2) Priests are to be men, and 3) The Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. However, the Anglican communion at this conference reversed 1900 years of Christian tradition by declaring that birth control could be used in limited circumstances. Since this time the Eastern Orthodox Church has taken a somewhat ambiguous stance. Rather than explicitly condoning or forbidding the faithful to use contraception, they instead hold that it is between a married couple and their priest as to whether the use of artificial contraception is permissible. Thus in one parish contraception may be forbidden, while in the parish in the next town over it is permitted. The Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Communion maintain their opposition to contraception. Let us look at what earlier Christian figures have had to say about contraception:

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]). 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).  

Augustine

"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]). 

John Calvin

It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime. (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, vol. 2, part 16)

Martin Luther

“[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him” (Luther’s Commentary on Genesis)

 While there is clear evidence that, for the large part of Christian history, contraceptive sex has been seen as immoral, one may argue (and many do) that such perspectives are archaic and do not apply to the modern world in which we live. To assess the strength of this modern objection we should consider the foundations upon which such arguments are built. Because the contraception debate is an entire series of posts in and of itself I will, for the time being, let minds better than mine make the case against contraception:

Why Contraception Is a Bad Idea #1 — Natural Law
"Contraception and Chastity" by Elizabeth Anscombe

For the purpose of this post here it is only necessary to note that for most of the Christian tradition, contraception was seen as immoral, and there are still persuasive arguments to be made against it.

An issue just as controversial (perhaps more so)  in modern Christendom is that of female ordination. Like contraception, it true that only until the last century, priests in the apostolic traditions had only been men, and this tradition continues in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Thus the Anglican communion has tradition working against it. However, as has been previously stated, it is theoretically possible that tradition can be wrong on such matters, and to determine whether a male only priesthood is justified it is important to consider the underlying arguments.

Proponents of female ordination seem to believe the only relevant question is whether or not women can perform equally as well the duties of the priesthood. Even Catholics and Orthodox Christians will acknowledge that from a certain perspective the answer is clearly yes. For instance, women can love Christ, parishioners, recite prayers and verses just as well as men. If factors such as these were the only requirements for the priesthood, then Catholic, Orthodox, and any other religious body restricting the priesthood to males alone would be in the wrong. However, there is a way and which women are not qualified to be priests. Simply put, they are not men. Just as only men have the necessary properties to be fathers, so to do only men have the necessary properties to be priestly fathers. This claim acknowledges the important metaphysical distinction between the masculine and feminine, which holds that there are more differences between men and women than just their physical characteristics. Peter Kreeft touches on this point in this article, stating:

Advocates of women's ordination usually misunderstand sexual symbolism because they misunderstand symbolism itself as radically as they misunderstand authority. They think of symbols as man-made and artificial. They do not see that there are profound and unchangeable natural symbols, that things can be signs. Saint Thomas Aquinas based his multiple method of scriptural exegesis on this eminently sound but tragically forgotten principle. He writes: "The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but also by things themselves. So whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science [sacred science] has the property that the things signified by the words [of Scripture] have themselves a signification. Therefore that first signification, whereby words signify things, belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal and presupposes it."

The notable C.S. Lewis continues on a similar note, stating:

Why should a woman not in this [priestly] sense represent God?... Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in Heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.... ...Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say... that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin... And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity.... It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery.... ...One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church.

It seems that what C.S. Lewis is touching on is exactly what is occurring in protestant Christendom. A movement that began with an idea that a male priesthood, ban on contraceptives, and sacraments are necessary disregarded a male only priesthood and contraceptive ban because these things didn't make sense to the post-enlightenment mind. This has paved the way for Christians to discard any tradition that can't be understood through the lens of modernity, even to the point where clergy are able to remain in good standing while denying the divinity of Christ or the existence of God altogether. What has replaced a Christianity that calls followers to take up their cross and suffer has been replaced with a religion of hedonism.



For more on why only men ought to be priests, see the following:
Why The Catholic Priesthood Is Composed of Dudes
"WHY WOMEN CAN'T BE PRIESTS" by Mary DeTurris

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has the best claim to truth because I believe it has best maintained the Christian tradition. I believe that the office held by the Bishop of Rome provides the best answer to the question of how true doctrine is to be known and preserved. Further, I believe along with the Roman Catholic Church that the Church should not get with the times, but that the times should conform to the Church. It is an unwavering pillar of truth in a world of relativism.

Orthodoxy has thus far maintained much good in it. It retains valid ordination, valid sacraments, and promotes virtuous behavior. However, beyond separating itself from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy has partially succumbed to modernity by holding that, in some instances, contraception is permissible. Further, I enjoy that as a Roman Catholic Christian one has available the theological traditions of both East and West available, whereas Eastern Orthodox Christians are restricted only to the Eastern tradition.

For further reading on this subject, I recommend the following:

"Russia and the Universal Church" by Vladimir Solovyev
"An Eastern Orthodox Christian Looks West" by Timothy Flanders
"Why I left the Eastern Orthodox Church"

 I have kept this series of posts brief and have obviously left some things unsaid and unexplored. The reason for this brevity is that 1) I will explore in detail many of the points I have made in more detail as I turn to the main purpose of this blog, which is comparing the truth claims of Mormonism and Catholicism, and 2) Much of what I have said has been said before by men with much more wisdom than I. This is why I included links along with my posts, and I recommend that anyone with further questions consult these links. Further, if you have questions or objections to things I have said, please raise these concerns in the comments section.

Why only Catholicism and Mormonism: Pt. III- Why Apostolic Christianity?

One of the most common objections to Christianity, and religion in general, stems from the multitude of different faith traditions, and worse still, subsequent divisions within these respective traditions. "If there is a God who loves us," the skeptic asks, "then why does he allow such division to persist?" The short answer to this is that man has free will. God grants us the liberty to make decisions that can lead us closer to, or further from the truth even when ignorance makes us unaware of our proximity to said truth. This is why, I maintain, it is of utmost importance for individuals to become informed, considering the arguments for both sides of an issue and attempting to set their biases aside (which I discuss briefly here). Having already discussed why I believe Christianity to be true above other faith traditions I now move to explain why I believe apostolic Christianity presents the best case for being the most true of denominational models. I will first consider historical evidence, and then the case for apostolic succession stemming from practicality method, including a brief argument for why the apostolic structure is reliable.


Historical Evidence

Apostolic succession is based upon the belief that Christ, along with establishing a Church, entrusted his disciples with a power or authority to act in his name. As Matthew 16:18-19 states:

¹⁸ And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

¹⁹ And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Douay-Rheims)

 This verse demonstrates that Christ gave unto Peter power to act in a special way that was previously unavailable to Peter. John 20:21-23 gives further evidence to the idea that Christ gave unto his apostles a special authority:

²¹ He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

²² When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

²³ Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (Douay-Rheims)

Even having established that Christ gave unto his apostles a special authority to forgive sins, cast out demons, proclaim the gospel, and the like, there remain several possible objections. I will here consider the following: 1) The apostles had a special authority, but did not pass it on to successors. Therefore, no apostolic succession. 2) The authority given by Christ to the original twelve disciples is an authority that belongs to all Christians. It is the priesthood of all believers, as it is often called.

1. An argument I have heard from both Mormon and Protestants is that Christ did indeed intend to establish a priesthood authority to guide his church that would be passed from generation to generation through the laying on of hands, but this authority ended with the apostles, or soon after. Because this objection does not deny the necessity of apostolic succession it is of no concern to us at this time and will be left for a future blog post in which I discuss whether there was a loss of apostolic succession and valid authority in the early Christian Church.

2. The idea of a priesthood of all believers is popular among many Protestant and Evangelical Christians, and also, though many are unaware, a doctrine recognized apostolic churches. The question,  then, is whether there exists also an ordained priesthood consisting of individuals who have received this authority from predecessors who too held this authority. While the Bible does not explicitly use the term "apostolic succession" or present lines of succession (unless you count the list of popes in the front of some Catholic bibles) I believe there is ample evidence in both the Old and New Testaments for this belief.

First, from the Old Testament, the entirety of Israel existed as a nation of priests, similar to the modern priesthood of all Christian believers. In addition, God established an exclusive priesthood that was limited to males in the tribe of Levi, with first Aaron, brother of Moses, and then his descendants fulfilling the role of High Priest (Exodus 28:1). This exclusive priesthood held the responsibility of carrying out special rituals those outside the Levitical priesthood were strictly forbidden to perform. (Numbers 18:1-7) This Levitical priesthood is similar to the structure of modern apostolic churches with ordained deacons, priests, and bishops, who are akin to the males of the tribe of Levi, while Christ now fulfills the role of High Priest. If God saw fit to have an exclusive, hierarchical priesthood prior to and during the Coming of Christ, it at least seems fitting that an exclusive, hierarchical priesthood would continue following his departure as well. However, because the covenant was fulfilled, and the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, this priesthood would have to operate differently.

Various instances from the New Testament seem to suggest that this continuation did indeed take place. Along with the verses already mentioned above, Acts :25-26 provides the example of Matthias being called to replace Judas:

²⁵ To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

²⁶ And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

In 1 Timothy 4:14 is presented the way in which the priesthood is given to those ordained: "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul councils Timothy, saying, "Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins" alluding to the manner in which priestly authority is transmitted.

I think the best evidence of a hierarchical, exclusive priesthood existing in the New Testament is Titus 1:5-9, which reads as follows:

⁵ For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

⁶ If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.

⁷ For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

⁸ But given to hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, continent:

⁹ Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers.

It seems clear in light of these verses that those who claim that apostolic succession and an exclusive priesthood have no basis in scripture are in the wrong.

For more reading on historical evidences for apostolic authority and succession I recommend the following links:

"The Priesthood Debate" by James Akin
Apostolic Authority and Succession


Apostolic authority and succession as practical and reliable

St. Augustine is quoted as stating "I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me", and yet many Christians today adhere to the doctrine of "sola scriptura," a belief that one needs only (or at least primarily) the bible to know the Christian truth, and relying on a perennial tradition or Church authority is at best a secondary concern. In light of the Protestant Reformation and the years that have followed, there seem to be two obvious problems with such a view. First, while these Christians claim to give much less adherence to a tradition of biblical interpretation, dialogue with such individuals reveals they have simply replaced one authoritative tradition with another. For example, a good friend of mine self identifies as a "Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide Christian." However, he manages to quote the biblical interpretations of James Denney and RC Sproul just as often as he does the verses of the Bible. Then there are those adherents of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul," for example, who interpret the New Testament letters in a way completely at odds with the traditional Reformed interpretation of my friend. How is it, then, that we can know whose interpretation of scripture, and whose deposit of truth in general, is the most correct? Further, how do we know which books should and shouldn't comprise scriptural canon?

There are only two ways in which the correct teaching and interpretation of scripture can be demonstrably known (by which I mean able to be known by a subject and then objectively demonstrated to third parties): 1) It must be possible to establish clearly through exegesis from scripture itself and argument that one interpretation of scripture is correct above others, or 2) There must be an entity independent of scripture that possesses the ability to correctly interpret, promote, and preserve truth. This entity, too, should be able to demonstrate that it does indeed have such an ability or authority. I believe Christian history shows clearly that the first is not a feasible option. The 500 years since the advent of the Protestant Reformation has yet to put forward a cut and dry case that puts to death all but the true interpretation of scripture that stands above all others. Thus there must be some other means by which truth is taught and maintained, if we hold that such truth can be known. While positing different ways by which this is accomplished, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, and Mormons all recognize the necessity of a continuing rule by which this truth can be proclaimed and preserved from error.

One may claim that one need only ask God directly which faith tradition is true, but how does such an individual answer those with opposing faiths who too claim to have discovered truth in the same way? One may claim that scripture itself shows us how it should be interpreted, but how does such an individual account for the various individuals adhering to the same rule who have arrived at different conclusions?

The model of apostolic succession, through which one receives authority from one who traces his priesthood back to God the Son Himself, appeals to sacred tradition along with scripture and reason, and in the case of the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches, possesses leaders that prevent the church from going into grave error seems the most reasonable of methods within Christendom for maintaining true doctrine. It has been shown that there are both historical evidences for such a model, and factors that make it seem practical. 

I think it is of utmost importance for every Christian, regardless of denomination, creed, etc. to ask themselves why they believe their truth is superior to that of other self-identifying Christians.

For further reading on the problems of "Sola Scriptura" Christianity, I recommend the following links:

"The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura" by Jimmy Akin

"The Church is "Generally Reliable"" by Devin Rose

Why only Catholicism and Mormonism: Pt. II- Why Christianity?

A disclaimer going into this post: My belief in Christianity is the sum of 5 + years of study, prayer, and struggle. During this time I have read dozens of books, articles, blogs, and had countless discussions with both my believing and non-believing friends and colleagues, in the end concluding that what I believe is true. In light of these realities it is inevitable that the reader may find my account too brief or otherwise inadequate. If anyone reads this and has questions or objections to a specific aspect of this or any post, feel free to raise them in the comments section.

In my post titled "On what should one base their religious faith?" I discussed, from my perspective, what are good foundations for faith and what are not. If one wishes to make a case for their supposed truth, it must be done, at least in part, with appeal to evidences available to all parties. Once again, I wish to express that I do not belittle or disregard mysticism or spirituality, but maintain that these should not be the sole basis of faith and cannot be used in dialogue because of their subjective nature.

I believe in Christianity not because of any burning sensation or the like, but because I believe that there are moral, scientific, historical, and philosophical evidences available for those with an open mind and an open heart to see. I do not believe that any of these evidences are proofs, but I do believe that when the myriad of these factors are considered as a whole one is presented with a persuasive picture. Because I would largely be re-stating ideas that have been said before, and better said, much of this post will consist of statements from such figures.

I. I was first attracted to Christianity for its ability to explain, in a moral sense, the world in which we as agents operate. There are moral obligations that people (outside of academic philosophy departments at least) recognize as binding not because the agent arbitrarily chooses to obey such standards, but because she legitimately believes there are certain things one ought to do and certain things one should avoid doing because these rules are true. C.S. Lewis explains this view on the first page of Mere Christianity:

Every one  has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes  it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely  unpleasant; but however it sounds,  I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they you?"-"That's my seat, I  was there  first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you  any  harm"-  "Why should you  shove in first?"-"Give me a  bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that  every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying  that the other man's behaviour does not  happen to  please him.  He is apealing  to some kind of  standard  of very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to behaviour  which he expects  the  other man to know about. And the other man make out  that  what  he  has been  doing  does  not really  go against  the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse.
When pressed, most people I have encountered will concede that an act such as murder is not bad simply because the consensus says so, and they will also not settle to say "murder is wrong to me, but it doesn't have to be wrong to you," and once it is acknowledged that there are certain things that are wrong regardless of human opinion, that is, acknowledgement that there exists objective morality, the question that necessarily follows is what exactly is it that binds me to follow such rules, or what makes it wrong? Imagine a man with a gun is alone in a deserted location with another individual. He desires to shoot the individual, and if he chooses to do so nobody will ever find out about his action and he will experience no emotional or psychological harm. If you believe it would be wrong for the man to shoot the individual, ask yourself upon what basis it would be wrong. You might hold that it is wrong to cause others unnecessary pain or loss, but the question still follows: Why ought you to care about others?

Present in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov is posited the argument that without God all things are permissible, and secular philosophers, the most notable of which is Nietzsche, will acknowledge as much. Without an objective source of morality and justice present, the choice to follow any standard of law becomes an arbitrary preference. 

I believe that of all ideologies traditional Christianity offers the best account of why we ought to live moral lives and offers the best narrative as for how the objective moral standard is fulfilled. Put simply:


1. There exist objective moral rules humans ought to follow.

3. Rules are only binding if there are cause and effect consequences (for example, it would make no sense to claim there is a law of gravity if objects could contradict its principles without consequence)

2. Humans don't follow these moral rules.

3. Therefore human beings are subject to the cause and effect consequences of disobeying these moral principles.

-but-



1. Human beings are incapable of themselves healing the sickness of sin.
2. Therefore God must present a way in which we can be healed and reconciled to Him, who is perfect goodness and justice.

If one acknowledges that there do exist acts that are morally evil or sinful I believe Christianity is the logical conclusion of such a position. Other religions I have encountered either affirm sin without presenting an answer to how this problem is reconciled, or diminish the importance of sin altogether. 

II. A secondary, yet still somewhat compelling reason I am a Christian is because of the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. Put simply, given the historical accounts of this man and the effect he had on progressively on more and more civilizations, I believe that Jesus speaks the truth when he claims to be "... the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) and the only way by which men come to God the Father. N.T. Wright states:



Several first-century Jews other than Jesus held and acted upon remarkable and subversive views. Why should Jesus be any more than one of the most remarkable of them? The answer must hinge upon the resurrection. If nothing happened to the body of Jesus, I cannot see why any of his implicit or explicit claims should be regarded as true. What is more, I cannot as a historian see why anyone would have continued to belong to his movement and regard him as its messiah. There were several other messianic or quasi-messianic movements within a hundred years on either side of Jesus. Routinely, they ended with the leader being killed by the authorities or by a rival group. If your messiah is killed, naturally you conclude that he was not the messiah. Some of those movements continued to exist; where they did, they took a new leader from the same family. (Note, however, that nobody ever said James, the brother of Jesus, was the messiah.) Such groups did not suffer from that blessed twentieth-century disease of cognitive dissonance. In particular, they did not go around saying that their messiah had been raised from the dead. I agree with Paula Fredriksen: the early Christians really did believe that Jesus had been raised bodily from the dead. What is more, I cannot make sense of the whole picture, historically or theologically, unless I say that they were right.
The entire essay can be read here.

The moral and historical arguments I have presented here go beyond a subjective, personal testimony. The tradition of virtue ethics upon which Christianity bases its moral theology are available to anyone wishing to study them, as is the history. For further reading on "Why Christianity?" I recommend the following resources:

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, available online here.

The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, available here and here, respectively.

Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed, available online here.
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser

Lost in the Cosmos by Walker Percy

I also recommend the following websites:

Edward Feser's philosophy blog.
Peter Kreeft's philosophical and Christian apologetics.

Third Millenial Templar

Why only Mormonism and Catholicism? Pt. I: Introduction.

Given that there are several major religious movements in the world and many more sub-movements within these movements, it may be asked why I have decided to consider only these two faith traditions. A similar question is often posited by skeptics who rightly observe that one's religion is often no more than the result of where one happens to be born. This applies not only to those born into a specific faith, but converts as well. An American, for instance, may be more likely to become a Christian than Muslim due to prevalence, and additionally because of the less favorable view of Islam  present in the West. My reason for considering both faiths seems to fit the skeptic's observation. I was born into a Mormon family and Culture, and the Catholic faith is the largest single Christian denomination in the world. Unlike some seek only reasons to further reinforce what they already believe, I have attempted to maintain as much impartiality as possible so that I may answer the question "Which faith tradition, if any, is true?"

The faith of my upbringing (Mormonism) remains part of my consideration because I was born into it, and I believe one should not part with the faith of their family, which is often of utmost importance, without very good reason for doing so. I believe such reasons can only be of two sorts: 1) A conviction that another faith tradition is true, or 2) A conviction that one's own faith tradition is false. Even in the case of the second, there are many individuals who, after losing faith, continue to participate in the practices and rituals of their respective tradition for  social and familial reasons. In both cases, I believe leaving one's former faith should be a long and thoughtful process. There have been many who have reverted to the faith of their upbringing upon discovering that they never really gave it a thorough consideration. Thus I consider the Mormon faith to determine whether I have good reason for staying or parting.

The answer to "Why Catholicism?" requires a much longer answer which I am not sure how to begin. Partially underlying this question is the foundational query of this blog, being "How can one determine which faith is true?" I believe the best an individual can do is seek the faith that offers the best explanatory power to the universe and the human condition and all these things entail. To begin I will offer an outline of how I will go about answering the question, which is subject to change:

• Pt. II is inspired by C.S. Lewis, who after becoming a Theist considered Judaism and Hinduism from which stem the other major world religions, ultimately concluding that Christianity is true. I too will provide my reasons for why I believe Christianity is true.

• Pt. III will be an account of why if Christianity is true I believe Apostolic Christianity must be true. Apostolic Christianity will include all faith traditions who see apostolic authority tracing back to the original apostles as necessary. These include the Anglican communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox churches, the Mormon movement (including the RLDS), Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Catholic Church (East and West). 

• Pt. IV will begin a consideration of why I believe the Catholic Church has a superior claim to truth over the other apostolic Christian churches (excluding the LDS faith) and will introduce my consideration of whether it has a superior claim to being the fullness of truth over the LDS faith.

On what should one base religious faith?

It seems that there are three possbile foundations upon which religious belief can be founded: reason, spiritual experience, or a combination of the two.

By 'reason' I mean those things that are demonstrable, or are based upon credible scientific, historical, experiential, or philosophical foundations. I imagine one who gains belief through reason as an individual who, through observation and/ or study of credible sources, concludes that a certain religious world view offers the best explanation of the human condition. For example, an individual may become a Roman Catholic because the moral theology and ethical view presented by the faith seems to best explain morality and the world as he or she has experienced it (i.e. the solution to improving society's condition is to promote traditional marriage and family values). This seems to have been the case with converts such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Leah Libresco.

While I have encountered many that believe, at least in part, on the basis of reason, most with whom I have interacted base their faith primarily on subjecive sensory or emotive experiences. As one who has never had an experience that would compel me to belief, it is difficult to opine about this topic. Perhaps if I too experienced such feelings I would believe. That being said, there is an obvious problem with the subjective spiritual experience. If a Christian claims to know their faith is true because of a spiritual experience, and a Muslim claims that their faith is true for the same reason, and we have no higher standard by which to judge the validity of a faith, neither can make claim over the other. In assessing the opposing religious truth claims of two parties there exist only two logical possibilities: one is right over the other, or both are wrong. If a person of faith wishes to argue the truth of their faith over others, they must base this claim on evidences available to third parties.

There are some who claim that whether or not their faith is true isn't important. Such is the basis of the modern, relativistic claim that "what is true for you isn't true for me." I would wager that most religious and spiritual people, if pressed, do not actually believe this idea. If I claim that my Buddhism is true for me, but your Islam that claims to be the only truth is also true, I am speaking an obvious contradiction. What people likely mean when they say "my truth isn't your truth" is "one of us is indeed right, and the other is indeed wrong, but what difference does it make?"

This is a good question. Why should one be concerned with truth? There are obvious cases where it is important to know the correct option due to consequences (Is it better to play dead or run if you encounter a bear?), but then there are truths that are of no consequence. (How many galaxies are there in the universe? Did the apostle Paul have a beard or not?) I may take up this question in more detail later, but for now I will simply state that it seems obvious that one's religious beliefs can have a profound effect on how they view and live life, and thus we cannot pretend that all faith traditions are equally valid.

While I recognize the importance of spiritual/ mystical experiences, I maintain a firm conviction that faith should not be based primarily in the subjective experience, especially if one wishes to make public claims to being the fullness of truth over other faith traditions. From here on out the claims of both the LDS and Catholic faiths will be assessed through this lens.

The purpose of this blog

It is said that C.S. Lewis' "Space Trilogy" resulted from the dissatisfaction he and J.R.R. Tolkein had with the contemporary fiction. Unable to find any works they desired to read, they took it upon themselves to write such stories. My reason for writing does not stem from a desire for quality science fiction, but it does arise from an absence of the sort of resource I have sought in my religious journey. I aim to provide a thoughtful and impartial comparison of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Roman Catholic Church (including Eastern churches in communion with the bishop of Rome) from the perspective of someone in the process of discerning between the two faiths.

Given that there are relatively few Mormons, or individuals of any faith for that matter, who ever seriously consider the truth claims of other religious groups, it is no surprise that such a project is rare, if not absent altogether. The internet has available many blogs and documents where individuals explain and/ or defend their own faith, and where individuals critique the truth claims of other faiths, but I have found that where these sources claim to take seriously the claims of other faiths, their arguments are often founded upon a priori assumptions that immediately set up the opponent for failure, or even worse still, many of the arguments I have encountered, whether they have been against Catholics or Mormons, have failed to confront the best apologists and arguments each respective faith has at its disposal.    

In this blog I will compare the answers each faith offers to theological and ethical questions such as "On what basis should religious faith be founded?," "Does God exist within or apart from time?" and especially "Which Church has the best case for being the fullness of truth?"

I welcome input from anyone willing to contribute in a thoughtful and respectful fashion.