One of the traditional arguments for Catholicism is the appeal to Catholic miracles. By that I’m including not only reported miracles but Catholic prophecies and apparitions.
We could discuss this on its own merits, and, indeed, I’ve had occasion to do that, but right now I’d like to make a different point.
This element of traditional, as well as popular, Catholic apologetics antedates the rise of modern Pentecostalism. But Pentecostalism goes toe-to-toe with Catholicism in this regard. Pentecostalism also lays claim to an abundance of prophecies, miracles, and visions.
Of course, someone might object that most of these claims are fraudulent. And that might well be true. But, if so, why are the miraculous claims of Pentecostalism less credible than the miraculous claims of Catholicism? If one is going to be sceptical, why not be consistently sceptical?
Of course, we could examine all their respective claims on a case-by-case basis, and, indeed, that would be prudent–although there’s too much to sort and sift. But that greatly complicates the Catholic appeal to miracles.