116. Why I am a Catholic

(and why you should be as well 😳 nah 🤪, be where you are and be a witness there, but consider the points made)

This is my personal reflection on why I am a Catholic. Is it merely because I was born into the faith? Absolutely not. In fact, when I began studying the Bible seriously, there were many moments when I felt compelled to leave the Catholic Church.

I was disheartened by priests who failed to preach the truth, pagan influences (especially in Kerala) and by the behavior of "Catholics" within the Church. But I’ve since realized that making a decision based solely on individuals, rather than the institution itself, is a deeply flawed approach.

As I continued to study Scripture and Church history, God began to reveal something profound to me: the holiness of the Church is not determined by the lack of personal holiness of its leaders or members.

Just as the throne of Israel remained sacred despite being occupied by corrupt kings, the Church remains holy because it was instituted by God, not because of the perfection of those who serve within it.

The more I explored the teachings of the Catholic Church, the more I discovered that its teachings on various essential things like justification, sanctification, being born again etc. are deeply rooted in the traditions and teachings of the early Church—passed down through apostolic succession.

These teachings often stand in stark contrast to the distorted versions of Christianity that some denominations unfortunately preach today. My understanding was transformed and my eyes were opened to the depth and richness of the faith.

Yes, it’s true—there is much within the Church today that is troubling: pagan elements that have crept in over time, false teachers misleading the faithful and scandalous conduct among some clergy. But none of these things alter the fundamental holiness and truth of the Church’s foundation. The presence of sin within the Church is not a sign of divine failure, but of human weakness—a reminder that the Church, though divinely instituted, is made up of flawed people.

I have never hesitated to speak out against the wrongs I see. I am often very direct and harsh in my criticism when I see practices and attitudes within the Church that have no basis in Scripture or official Church teaching. It grieves me deeply when man-made traditions or carelessness lead people away from truth and into confusion or error. My heart burns when sacred things are distorted or taken lightly because I love my Church.

(I firmly believe that if you truly love your own denomination or tradition, you should possess the same passion—to work from within, to uphold the truth and to boldly stand against the falsehoods and deceptions that are leading many astray)

It’s often easier to criticize traditional churches like the Catholic or Orthodox Churches because of their visible unity and global presence. Unlike many Protestant communities—where each congregation may function independently and the fall of one leader doesn’t necessarily affect others—the Catholic Church is united as one body. So, when a Catholic priest in one part of the world is involved in scandal, the entire Church is held responsible in the eyes of the world. This unity, while beautiful, also makes the Church a larger target for criticism.

Yet, despite all of this, I’ve come to understand that the Church is far more than a mere human institution—it is the Body of Christ, established by Him, upheld by His Spirit, and enduring through the centuries, beginning from the moment Christ entrusted Peter—the first Pope—with its leadership (Matthew 16:18-19).

For the first thousand years of Christianity, the Church was largely united as one body: the Catholic Church in communion with what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church. This unity remained until the Great Schism of 1054 AD, when theological, political and cultural differences led to a formal split between the Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches.

Even after the schism, both sides still recognized each other as part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. They were seen more as “sister churches” rather than enemies—sharing the same core doctrines, sacraments, and apostolic succession, despite their disagreements.

While the fragmentation that followed the Reformation did bring significant confusion, the spread of false doctrines, and deep divisions within the Body of Christ—as individuals began interpreting Scripture according to their own understanding—God, in His sovereignty, still brought about a greater good through it.

The Reformation sparked a renewed seriousness towards the Bible. People began to engage with Scripture personally and passionately, leading to widespread spiritual awakenings. Many influential leaders and revivalists emerged from this movement—men and women whose teachings and lives continue to inspire countless believers today. Romans 8:28 at work again in a broader sense?

In fact, if you look at my own posts, you’ll notice that I share the words of Protestant giants mostly, and then followed the wisdom of Catholic saints and the early Church Fathers. (It's hard to find hardcore bible preaching catholic priests and preachers today; yeah Sam and Joe and Trent exist, but they are not preachers per se). It is clear that God has worked through many streams to draw people to Himself and bring salvation to multitudes.

As I’ve emphasized in previous reflections, the unity of the Church—grounded in the essentials of the faith—is of utmost importance. Despite the many denominations that now exist, we must remember that all who believe in Christ are our brothers and sisters in the Lord. When it comes to non-essential matters, we can agree to disagree, provided we maintain love and respect for one another.

That said, I believe an honest and diligent seeker of truth will naturally desire to trace their faith back to its earliest roots—to the Church of the Apostles. Isn’t that a reasonable pursuit for anyone who claims to love God and wants to follow His ways faithfully?

Now, does this mean someone is condemned if they don’t undertake that journey? Certainly not. Salvation is not based on historical research or theological depth, but on faith in Christ and obedience to Him. However, what I often say to those I speak with is this: If you truly love God, why not go deeper? Why not explore the rich history of the faith to better understand His design for His Church?

As I’ve shared before, my mission is first and foremost to lead people to Christ. Once they come to know Him, I encourage them to seek where God is calling them within the Body of Christ. But I do share my own journey and explain why I remain Catholic—offering them my reasons while trusting the Holy Spirit to lead them forward.

So, here are the reasons:

Jesus did not simply leave behind abstract teachings or a spiritual movement; He established a visible, structured Church with real authority. In Matthew 16:18–19, Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This passage is foundational for Catholic belief. The “keys” symbolize authority, drawing on imagery from Isaiah 22:22, and Jesus gives this authority specifically to Peter, establishing a clear hierarchy and leadership within the Church.

In Matthew 18:17, Jesus refers to “the Church” as the final court of appeal in disputes among believers. This further implies an institutional body with real governing authority, not merely a loose fellowship of believers. If Jesus founded one Church, then it must have continued through history. The question becomes: which Church today can claim continuity with that original institution?

The early Church Fathers—Christian leaders writing from the 1st to the 4th centuries—affirm key Catholic beliefs long before the Bible was fully compiled. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing around 180 AD in Against Heresies, emphasizes the necessity of obeying bishops who have apostolic succession. He specifically highlights the Church of Rome because of its preeminent authority, and he even lists the bishops of Rome in succession from Peter, clearly referencing the papacy.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 107 AD and a disciple of the apostle John, taught that the Eucharist is not mere symbolism, but the real presence of Jesus Christ. He wrote that those who deny this truth abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that it is truly the flesh of our Savior. Ignatius also stressed the importance of unity under a bishop, stating that “where the bishop is, there is the Church.” He outlines a threefold structure of governance—bishop, priest (presbyter), and deacon—just as the Catholic Church maintains today.

The Catholic Church claims an unbroken line of succession from the apostle Peter through to the present pope. This continuity includes the succession of bishops, the authority of ecumenical councils, the preservation of doctrines, and the administration of sacraments. The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325 AD by bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, affirms belief in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” This same creed is professed during the Catholic Mass today.

By contrast, other Christian traditions began much later in history. The Eastern Orthodox churches formally separated from Rome in 1054. Protestant churches began during the Reformation in the 16th century. Many non-denominational churches have only appeared in the 20th century. If one is seeking the Church that Jesus personally founded, that maintains visible historical continuity, believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, upholds apostolic succession, and possesses a universal mission, then only the Catholic Church fulfills all these criteria.

The Bible as we know it today did not appear immediately after Jesus’ earthly ministry. For centuries, many texts circulated among Christians without an official list of which were truly inspired. It was the Catholic Church that formally settled the canon of Scripture. The Council of Rome in 382 AD, under Pope Damasus I, compiled a definitive list of inspired books. This list was reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), and again at the Council of Trent in 1546 in response to the Protestant Reformation.

The canon defined by the Catholic Church includes the Deuterocanonical books, which are rejected by most Protestant traditions today, as well as the New Testament books recognized across Christianity. Thus, belief in the New Testament relies on the Church’s discernment, guided by the Holy Spirit. Without the Catholic Church’s authority, there would be no universally accepted Bible.

Throughout its history, the Church did not rely on individual interpretation of Scripture to settle theological disputes. Instead, it convened councils composed of bishops in union with the pope to define essential doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined at the Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). The doctrine that Jesus is fully God and fully man was defined at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The title of Mary as Theotokos (“God-bearer”) was affirmed at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD).

These doctrines are not all explicitly spelled out in Scripture, yet they are central to Christian faith. They were preserved and defined through the Church’s teaching authority. The early Christians did not ask, “What do I think this verse means?” but rather, “What has been handed down from the apostles?”

From its earliest days, the Church has faced theological errors and distortions of the Gospel, known as heresies. These were not ignored but addressed vigorously—not to suppress dissent, but to protect the truth and preserve the path to salvation. Gnosticism denied the goodness of the material world and Christ’s true humanity. Arianism denied that Jesus was fully God. Nestorianism separated Christ’s divine and human natures too sharply.

The Church responded to these errors through councils such as Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and through the writings of Church Fathers like Athanasius, Augustine, and Irenaeus. These responses consistently appealed to apostolic tradition and the authority of bishops united with the pope. The very existence of heresy demonstrates the need for an authoritative Church to safeguard sound doctrine.

The early Church never operated on the principle of “Scripture alone.” The apostles handed down not only sacred Scripture, but also sacred Tradition. Together, these are interpreted and taught by the Magisterium—the living teaching office of the Church. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul urges Christians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by letter.” And in 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth.”

This threefold structure—Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium—is unique to Catholicism and forms the basis for its doctrinal authority today.

Conclusion:

The Catholic Church is not simply one Christian option among many. It is the Church that Jesus Himself founded, with Peter as its visible head. The early Church Fathers affirm beliefs and structures that are distinctly Catholic—such as apostolic succession, the Eucharist as the true body of Christ, and unity under the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church defined the biblical canon, protected and articulated essential doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation, and responded to heresies with clarity and authority.
Through sacred Scripture, apostolic Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magisterium, the Catholic Church alone maintains the full continuity of the faith as handed down by the apostles.