In the past, I have written at length as to why I became a Christian. I’ve explained why I think we can believe that God – specifically the Christian God – exists, as well as why I think the most popular arguments to the contrary are unsound. However, I have not as yet given a full explanation as to why I decided to become a Catholic Christian.

When I converted to Christianity almost four years ago, I was immediately faced with a question. Which Church should I join? After all, there are all sorts of Christians in the world: Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, etc. etc. Now, some people might say that it doesn’t really matter which church you join. After all, they’re all Christian right? Why not just go “church shopping” and pick the one near you with the best music, coolest people, and tastiest after-service spread of snacks.

But this didn’t sit right with me. I became a Christian because I believed it was the Truth. I wanted to join whichever church taught the most accurate understanding of Christianity. Sure, most denominations agree on most of the central doctrines, but they also disagree about plenty of important issues. They can’t all be right, but which one is?

Eventually, my quest to find the true Church lead me to ask two follow-up questions: how do we even know what it means to be an orthodox (right-believing) Christian; and what did the early Church believe? So, I began to study Patristics (the writings of the Church Fathers) and church history. I would soon discover that throughout history Christians have looked to three main criteria in determining what it means to be a true Christian who is in the true Church: the Canon (of Scripture), the Creed (especially the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), and the Clergy (particularly the Bishopric or “Episcopacy”). These are the three C’s which would eventually lead me, like so many others before me, into the Catholic Church.

Of these three C‘s the Canon – Scripture – seemed to be the most logical place to start. After all, it’s the Bible. All Christians believe the Bible, right? But I was faced with still more questions when I realized that not only do Christians disagree about what the Bible says, they don’t even agree about which books actually make up the Bible. Protestant Christians, for example, generally hold that the Biblical Canon consists of 66 books. The Catholic Church, however, says the number is 73, and most Eastern Orthodox believe it’s closer to 76 (give or take, depending on which Orthodox Church you’re talking about), while the Ethiopian Orthodox say there are actually 81 books in the Bible! That’s an overall difference of 15 whole books on which Christians disagree, both Old and New Testament. So, not only would I have to figure out which interpretation of the Bible was correct, I’d have to determine which Bible was actually, well, the Bible. But it’s not like the Bible itself actually says which books should be included in the Canon, otherwise there would be no issue. I also learned that in the early days of Christianity, due to the high cost of manufacturing books and the low literacy rate of laypeople, most Christians would have never owned or read the Bible for themselves. They would have mostly been exposed to the Scriptures in the context of the Church’s liturgy, where it was read aloud each week. In fact, the whole issue of the Canon was in large part a practical, liturgical issue, where the question was, “Which books exactly should we be reading at liturgy?” I decided that I would have to let the question sit while I took a look at the other two C‘s, hoping that they would shed some light on topic.

I quickly discovered that the second C, creeds, came into the Christian understanding of orthodoxy from the very beginning. The first example of a Christian creedal statement we have is actually in St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians chapter 15:3-8: “The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed on to me, was that Christ, as the scriptures had foretold, died for our sins; that he was buried, and then, as the scriptures foretold, rose again on the third day. That he was seen by Cephas, then by the eleven apostles, and afterwards by more than five hundred of the brethren at once, most of whom are alive to this day, though some have gone to their rest.” Scholars believe that this creedal statement did not originate with Paul, but rather was formulated within the first two years of the Crucifixion.

Looking outside of the New Testament to the first few hundred years of the Church Fathers, we find that most local churches had their own Creed. They weren’t all the same, but they generally read very similarly to what we would today refer to as the Apostles Creed. Creeds were also known as regula fidei, or “rule[s] of faith” by which someone’s understanding of the Christian Faith could be measured. If your interpretation contradicted the regula fidei, it was heterodox. There was, however, no universally accepted Creed until the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD. Nicea I, the First Ecumenical Council, was convened in response to the teachings of a particular priest named Arius, who held to a school of theology called subordinationism, which taught that Christ was not Himself God, but was rather created by God and was of a different nature than God. Around 300 Bishops, as well as a number of other clergy and even a few laymen, gathered to settle the dispute. St. Athanasius lead the charge against Arius, using Scripture and appeals to the regula fidei to demonstrate that Christ was indeed “true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.” The vast majority of the Bishops agreed. Arius was condemned a heretic, and the orthodox position was enshrined in the Nicene Creed, which would later be ratified, with some additions, at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council (381 AD). The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is held by nearly all Christians today to be – to one degree or another – an authoritative regula fidei, by which orthodox Christianity is measured. The Church would go on to hold a number of other Ecumenical Councils in response to various heretical teachers and doctrines, such as the Councils of Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD). In fact, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils (called “Ecumenical” because the Bishops in attendance represented the whole of the universal Church) are held in high esteem by the majority of Christians today.

As I researched the Councils (another C which was becoming increasingly important) of the Early Church, I also discovered that the regional Council of Rome (382 AD) addressed the issue of the Biblical Canon, and defined it as being exactly the same 73 books which Catholics today accept. Not only this, but the same 73 book Canon was defined by the subsequent Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and again at Carthage in 419. This same 73 book Canon was accepted by Nicea II (the Seventh Ecumenical Council) in 787, which reaffirmed the declarations of the previous Councils.

Finally, I was making progress. It seemed clear to me that I needed to belong to a Church which was within the realms of Nicene orthodoxy, and that there was good evidence for the Catholic Canon being the true Canon. It was also apparent that Councils were one of the primary methods used by the Early Church to determine who was and was not an orthodox Christian. But this seemed to beg the question: why should I even consider the Councils of Nicea, Rome, Ephesus, Hippo, Carthage, Nicea II – or any other Council for that matter – to be authoritative? One answer often given was that Church Councils were only authoritative to the degree that they agreed with Scripture. This answer seemed to bring me right back to square one, though, because it too begged the question: whose interpretation of Scripture? If I happened to interpret the Scriptures in a manner inconsistent with the Nicene Creed, as many others have done in the past, why should my interpretation not take precedence over what the Council Fathers proclaimed? What was special about their understanding? Not to mention that this seemingly didn’t apply to Councils such as Rome and Nicea II and their declarations of a 73 book Biblical Canon, since the Canon itself wasn’t a matter of Biblical interpretation. I did, however, find another answer as I continued to study the writings of the Church Fathers – an answer which would help me understand just how intimately interwoven the three C‘s really are.

Besides the Canon and the Creed, Christians throughout time have looked to the Clergy, specifically the Bishops, to determine what it means to be an orthodox Christian who is in communion with the true Church. They did so because they believed in a doctrine called Apostolic Succession, which is the idea that the authority granted by Christ to the Apostles had been passed down, by the laying on of hands (ordination) to their disciples, who became the first Bishops, and then from those Bishops to their successors, etc. etc. It was by being in union with such a Bishop, who having received his authority in succession from the Apostles, was the sure sign of visible unity by which the Church could be identified. What follows will be a small selection of quotes from the early Church Fathers which demonstrates their belief in Apostolic Succession:

“Our apostles also knew … there would be strife on account of the office of bishop. For this reason … they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (Clement of Rome’s First Epistle, AD 95)

“Therefore it is necessary to obey the elders who are in the Church; those who—as I have shown—possess the succession from the apostles. [They], together with the succession of the episcopate [i.e., the bishops], have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. And [it is necessary] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. [Consider them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting this way for the sake of money and pride. For all these have fallen from the truth.

… From all such persons it behooves us to stay aloof, but to adhere to those who … do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the body [lit. order] of elders, display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others.

Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth—from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is pure and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things. They increase love for the Son of God … They expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, dishonoring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV:26:2-5, AD 180)

“Let [the heretics] produce the original records of their churches. Let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning in such a way that their first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men—a man, in addition, who continued stedfastly with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers, such as Smyrna … also the church of Rome … In exactly the same way, the other churches … “ (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32, 200 AD)

Considering this belief in Apostolic Succession, we can see why many of the Church Fathers would so often express the same sentiments as St. Ignatius of Antioch did in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (107 AD): “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This seemed to answer my question about the Councils – they were authoritative because they were held by Bishops who had received authority from the Apostles, and by extension, Our Lord Himself.

Taking the overwhelming consensus of the Church Fathers on this subject into account, it seemed obvious to me that I would have to join a Church whose Bishops were in direct succession from the Apostles. This left me with only two options: Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism, the only two Churches with any credible claim to Apostolic Succession. The only Protestant denomination which even attempts to claim Apostolic Succession is the Anglican Communion, which does so on dubious grounds, while pretty much every other Protestant sect rejects the idea of Apostolic Succession and therefore has made no attempt to maintain it. Of these two options, the Catholic Church already seemed to have one point on its side, still holding the 73 book Canon as declared by the early Councils. But my research would lead me to discover another prevalent idea of the Church Fathers which would lead me to Rome. This would end up being the fifth C I would encounter in my journey: the Chair (or cathedra) of Peter. The idea was that since Peter was the head of the Apostles – on whom Christ had founded the Church and to whom He had given the keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19), and to whom he had given the responsibility of tending His sheep (John 21:15-17) – that it was in the successors of St. Peter that the fullness of apostolic authority subsisted. We see this very idea expressed by St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies III:3:2-3:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who … assemble in unauthorized meetings: one, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, and two, by the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For to this church [Rome], on account of its more powerful preeminence, it is necessary that every church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles. …

[Here Irenaeus gives the succession from Peter through Linus, Anacletus, Clement and nine others down to his time.]

… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

We see the very same sentiment of St. Irenaeus expressed by numerous other Church Fathers:

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (St. Clement, Letter of Clement to James 2, AD 221)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition, AD 251)

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (St. Ephraim the the Syrian, Homilies 4:1, A.D. 351)

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” (Pope Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3, AD 382)

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.” (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:4, AD 397)

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Council of Ephesus, 431 AD, ibid., session 3)

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it.” (Pope Leo I, Letters 10:1, AD 445)

This pretty much settled it. If I wanted to be sure that I was joining the Church which had maintained the fullness of the authority which had been passed down from the Apostles, I would have to join the only Church which is in union with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. This also explained why the Eastern Orthodox have not held a single Ecumenical Council since the Great Schism of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, while the Catholic Church has continued to convene Councils up to our present age, most recently the Second Vatican Council (1962-’65 AD). They simply do not have such a central, universally recognized figure as the Pope who would be capable of calling and ratifying an Ecumenical Council.

The interconnectedness of the three C‘s finally made sense. It was best to understand the Scriptures in the light of the Creed and in context of the Church which had received, transcribed, and faithfully preserved them – whose Councils had declared the Canon, and whose Liturgy has perpetually proclaimed it to all ages – the Church which Christ Himself founded on the Rock of St. Peter, on whose Cathedra the visible sign of unity is sure to be found, and in whom the fullness of apostolic authority subsists: the Roman Catholic Church.