Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?

More formally, the argument in the OP can be reworded as follows:

• P1: Catholics have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command
• C1: Therefore, Catholics are closest to Christ's teaching (from P1)
• C2: Therefore, Catholics are the true Church (from P1 and C1)

I see at least two ways to defeat this argument.

Option 1: defeat P1

You could argue that there is no compelling reason to accept premise 1. For example, high quantity of conversions does not guarantee high quality of conversions. Even demons believe and tremble. Getting lots of people to accept religious beliefs does not logically entail getting lots of people to become true disciples of Christ. In order to accept premise 1, you would need to show that Catholicism produces more true disciples of Christ (not just mere believers) than other denominations. Since the OP didn't offer compelling arguments to make this case, I see no reason to accept P1.

Option 2: show that C1 and C2 do not follow from P1

If we concede premise 1, it doesn't follow that true disciples of Christ are not being produced by other denominations as well. Perhaps other denominations are producing true disciples of Christ too, albeit in smaller numbers. Those true disciples of Christ would be part of the true Church, and therefore, this would contradict the conclusion that Catholics are the true Church (if we interpret are as denoting identity (A = B)).

A more defensible conclusion that could be drawn from P1 would be that Catholics are statistically more likely to be part of the true Church, leaving room for the possibility of other true disciples of Christ existing outside of Catholicism.

Now, in order to show that Catholics are the true Church (in the sense of identity), you need to show that a person is part of the true Church if and only if they are a Catholic, but then I fail to see how this conclusion could possibly follow from P1. You would need a stronger set of premises (and stronger arguments for said premises) to derive this conclusion.

Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?

More formally, the argument in the OP can be reworded as follows:

• P1: Catholics have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command
• C1: Therefore, Catholics are closest to Christ's teaching (from P1)
• C2: Therefore, Catholics are the true Church (from P1 and C1)

I see at least two ways to defeat this argument.

Option 1: defeat P1

You could argue that there is no compelling reason to accept premise 1. For example, high quantity of conversions does not guarantee high quality of conversions. Even demons believe and tremble. Getting lots of people to accept religious beliefs does not logically entail getting lots of people to become true disciples of Christ. In order to accept premise 1, you would need to show that Catholicism produces more true disciples of Christ (not just mere believers) than other denominations. Since the OP didn't offer compelling arguments to make this case, I see no reason to accept P1.

Option 2: show that C1 and C2 do not follow from P1

If we concede premise 1, it doesn't follow that true disciples of Christ are not being produced by other denominations as well. Perhaps other denominations are producing true disciples of Christ too, albeit in smaller numbers. Those true disciples of Christ would be part of the true Church, and therefore, this would contradict the conclusion that Catholics are the true Church (if we interpret are as denoting identity (A = B)).

A more defensible conclusion that could be drawn from P1 would be that Catholics are statistically more likely to be part of the true Church, leaving room for the possibility that other true disciples of Christ can be found outside of Catholicism.

Now, in order to show that Catholics are the true Church (in the sense of identity), you need to show that a person is part of the true Church if and only if they are a Catholic, but then I fail to see how this conclusion could possibly follow from P1. You would need a stronger set of premises (and stronger arguments for said premises) to derive this conclusion.

Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?

More formally, the argument in the OP can be reworded as follows:

• P1: Catholics have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command
• C1: Therefore, Catholics are closest to Christ's teaching (from P1)
• C2: Therefore, Catholics are the true Church (from P1 and C2)

I see at least two ways to defeat this argument.

Option 1: defeat P1

You could argue that there is no compelling reason to accept premise 1. For example, high quantity of conversions does not guarantee high quality of conversions. Even demons believe and tremble. Getting lots of people to accept religious beliefs does not logically entail getting lots of people to become true disciples of Christ. In order to accept premise 1, you would need to show that Catholicism produces more true disciples of Christ (not just mere believers) than other denominations. Since the OP didn't offer compelling arguments to make this case, I see no reason to accept P1.

Option 2: show that C1 and C2 do not follow from P1

If we concede premise 1, it doesn't follow that true disciples of Christ are not being produced by other denominations as well. Perhaps other denominations are producing true disciples of Christ too, albeit in smaller numbers. Those true disciples of Christ would be part of the true Church, and therefore, this would contradict the conclusion that Catholics are the true Church (if we interpret are as denoting identity (A = B)).

A more defensible conclusion that could be drawn from P1 would be that Catholics are statistically more likely to be part of the true Church, leaving room for the possibility of other true disciples of Christ existing outside of Catholicism.

Now, in order to show that Catholics are the true Church (in the sense of identity), you need to show that a person is part of the true Church if and only if they are a Catholic, but then I fail to see how this conclusion could possibly follow from P1. You would need a stronger set of premises (and stronger arguments for said premises) to derive this conclusion.

Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?

More formally, the argument in the OP can be reworded as follows:

• P1: Catholics have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command
• C1: Therefore, Catholics are closest to Christ's teaching (from P1)
• C2: Therefore, Catholics are the true Church (from P1 and C1)

I see at least two ways to defeat this argument.

Option 1: defeat P1

You could argue that there is no compelling reason to accept premise 1. For example, high quantity of conversions does not guarantee high quality of conversions. Even demons believe and tremble. Getting lots of people to accept religious beliefs does not logically entail getting lots of people to become true disciples of Christ. In order to accept premise 1, you would need to show that Catholicism produces more true disciples of Christ (not just mere believers) than other denominations. Since the OP didn't offer compelling arguments to make this case, I see no reason to accept P1.

Option 2: show that C1 and C2 do not follow from P1

If we concede premise 1, it doesn't follow that true disciples of Christ are not being produced by other denominations as well. Perhaps other denominations are producing true disciples of Christ too, albeit in smaller numbers. Those true disciples of Christ would be part of the true Church, and therefore, this would contradict the conclusion that Catholics are the true Church (if we interpret are as denoting identity (A = B)).

A more defensible conclusion that could be drawn from P1 would be that Catholics are statistically more likely to be part of the true Church, leaving room for the possibility of other true disciples of Christ existing outside of Catholicism.

Now, in order to show that Catholics are the true Church (in the sense of identity), you need to show that a person is part of the true Church if and only if they are a Catholic, but then I fail to see how this conclusion could possibly follow from P1. You would need a stronger set of premises (and stronger arguments for said premises) to derive this conclusion.