Catholic "Proof?"


Now, I want to clarify my title, as I don’t think a particular faith can be “proven” with scientific fact, et cetera, but I would like to mention a couple of phenomena which lend themselves to the truth of Catholicism.

Incorruptibles are bodies of long-dead people which are still entirely intact–some of which bled long after their deaths! No scientific reason can be given for this occurance. There is no embalming, and some incorruptibles were buried in damp areas, or having died of diseases–both circumstances would lead to faster and more thorough decay of the body. The phenomenon here is that all (known) incorruptibles are Catholic Saints–these are the only ones to whom this amazing gift has been given, that their bodies don’t know decay. This is, in my opinion, a very good example of God’s action in the Catholic Church.

More convincing proofs are the various Eucharistic miracles: for example, there is the host that has remained perfectly intact for over 250 years, for which science has no reason. There is the host which spouted blood during the consecration when a priest doubted the Real Presence.

I am wondering: what do you all think of these miracles? Is there reason to the rhyme? What’s interesting is that the Eucharistic miracles occur during times of weakened faith. I’d like to hear any and all thoughts. :slight_smile:


I am very happy that the Church does not require that my faith embrace these things. Edifying? Perhaps. Convincing? Not really. Especially the incorrupt bodies – which often decay once they are discovered and disturbed.


And how would you account for the Eucharistic miracles?


Like other miracles, they are more a matter of affirming the teaching and edifying the faithful than of proving the point. The Eucharist would be the Body of Christ with or without the miracles.


Agreed, completely. What I guess I’m asking is, in a debate with a nonCatholic, could these be used as examples that occur outside of the realm of supernatural faith, or should we just leave them out completely?


Well, I know people who were eyewitnesses to some of the phenomena surrounding St. Pio: supernatural knowledge, the appearance in front of the airline pilots on the bomber plane. But a drop-dead Protestant ain’t gonna buy it for a split second. They just don’t believe it. Period. End of sentence.

It isn’t a matter of whether this stuff is true or real.


Can you define “drop-dead protestant”?

What I guess I’m asking is, in a debate with a nonCatholic, could these be used as examples that occur outside of the realm of supernatural faith, or should we just leave them out completely?

If I were you, KephasAugustine, I wouldn’t try to bring it into the debates wit non-Catholics as any sort of proof. Most protestants haven’t heard of these things before and would be suspicious about them (some Catholics are even suspicious about them.) It would probably make it tougher later when you get into discussion required beliefs s. not required ones.


A Protestant who a priori KNOWS that if it’s Catholic it’s WRONG. I have heard Hank Hanegraaf, for example, declare that St. Pio’s stigmata were faked. He’s one who simply rejects these kinds of miraculous events out of hand. They “can’t” happen. Never mind that they do.


ok… I thought of die-hard Protestant the way you put it. What you describe is more anti-Catholic than die hard protestant. thanks for clarifying.


At the same time, I wouild not classify Hank Hanegraaf as malignantly anti-Catholic. He actually says we’re not a cult. But to him eucharistic miracles don’t exist, and Padre Pio never had any preternatural knowledge, the stigmata were fake. End of discussion.


Do you think the Eucharist can burn? If it really is the flesh of Jesus then it can’t be burned right?


If your aim is persuasion, I’d stay away from these things in discussions with Protestants. They are more likely to confirm a Protestant’s suspicions that Catholics are a superstitious lot than to convict them that the Catholic Church is true. Stick to Scriptural arguments when talking with Protestants.


Different discussion. The consecrated Host would burn because the “substance” of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not the material of the bread (and wine) under which it appears. IOW: what you hold in your hand looks like bread, tastes like bread, has the molecular structure(s) of bread but has been transformed “substantially” into the Body of Christ. This use of the word ‘substance’ is not the common everyday definition you find in your Webster’s Collegiate. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.


Well you have to realize there’s a huge group of protestants that believe there are no more miracles from God. period. If they are set in that belief it’s not anti-Catholic when they say it’s lies… It’s just staying consistent in their beliefs. I guess y point was just that I couldn’t figure out WHO the “drop-dead protestants” actually were…


Not to derail this thread, but isn’t it kind of strange to deny something, even when the evidence is in your face?

AsI stated in my first post on this thread, I’m not particularly enthusiastic about the Eucharistic miracles or incorrupt bodies as evidence of anything. But a fact is a fact. Rejecting it because you’ve decided that there are no miracles since the apostolic age simply rejects facts – whether you believe a “miracle” to be from God or not.


Thanks :slight_smile:


This is interesting. I might start a thread on this because I was misinformed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit